Post-deadline: Contradictory Israeli statements reveal US pressure over Lebanon withdrawal

Report by Amal Shehadeh, English adaptation by Yasmine Jaroudi  

February 18 is the date that was supposed to mark the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. 

However, as has often been the case, Tel Aviv failed to uphold its commitments, maintaining control over five positions in South Lebanon that it deemed "strategic."  

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reinforced this stance, avoiding any mention of a complete withdrawal from villages and towns while emphasizing the escalation of military activities to deter Hezbollah and appease northern settlers. 

Yet, this maneuvering failed to convince Israeli settlers, who remain adamant about the need for a buffer zone.  

A notable aspect of the Israeli withdrawal has been the contradictory statements issued by Israeli officials between Monday night and Tuesday morning, exposing significant U.S. pressure on Israel. 

While Israeli sources initially suggested that their forces would remain indefinitely in the five positions, by the morning of February 18, the rhetoric had shifted, limiting their presence to a matter of weeks.  

Israeli officials are not ruling out the possibility of U.S. intervention in Lebanon, similar to Washington's approach in Gaza. Former U.S. President Donald Trump is reportedly pushing Lebanon's government and army to fully implement the ceasefire agreement, including the disarmament of Hezbollah. 

According to these threats, failure to comply could lead to the deployment of international forces in Lebanon in a manner favorable to Israel.  

Against this backdrop, Israel continues to operate on multiple fronts without long-term planning but rather within a calculated strategy: shifting responsibility to its ally Trump, ensuring his backing, and keeping security tensions high across various fronts to serve its broader geopolitical agenda.