Trump Agreed on Iran. Israel Defied Him on Lebanon: IDF General Explains the Split

As debate intensifies over the future of the Middle East, a senior Israeli security figure has offered a rare glimpse into how Israel views its relationship with the United States on two of the region’s most pressing challenges: Iran and Lebanon.

Speaking during a briefing hosted by the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF), Brigadier General Erez Winner, chairman of the organization and a former senior Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commander, argued that while Israel and the United States remain closely aligned on preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, significant differences have emerged regarding Lebanon and the broader regional strategy.

According to Winner, the current strategic landscape would have been difficult to imagine just a year and a half ago. He pointed to what he described as major Israeli achievements across multiple fronts, including Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza.

Reflecting on Israeli operations against Iran, Winner claimed that Israel succeeded in significantly setting back Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Although he acknowledged that the effort did not completely eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, he argued that the operation achieved something equally important: breaking long-standing psychological and operational barriers surrounding direct action against Iran.

For decades, Israeli military planners viewed a large-scale strike on Iran as an extraordinarily difficult challenge. Winner recalled discussions dating back to the late 2000s, when military leaders debated limited strike scenarios and questioned whether Israel possessed the capability to effectively confront Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

In his view, recent operations fundamentally changed that perception.

“Suddenly,” he suggested, direct action against Iran became a realistic and proven option rather than a distant theoretical possibility.

Despite concerns surrounding diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran, Winner expressed confidence that former U.S. President Donald Trump would ultimately prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. He argued that such an outcome would not only serve Israeli interests but also align with broader American strategic objectives.

According to Winner, allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would undermine U.S. influence globally and complicate American efforts to manage challenges involving China, Russia, and other geopolitical rivals.

While he admitted he disagreed with some recent statements made by Trump and acknowledged uncertainty about the details of any potential agreement with Iran, he maintained that both countries share the same strategic goal.

“The tactics may differ,” he explained, “but the overall objective remains the same.”

Winner also highlighted the role of economic pressure, praising U.S. sanctions as an essential tool against Iran. He suggested that financial restrictions imposed by Washington have inflicted serious damage on the Iranian economy and may be as effective as major military operations in limiting Tehran’s capabilities.

Where Israel and the United States diverge more sharply, however, is Lebanon.

Winner argued that Washington prefers a period of regional calm, partly to stabilize energy markets and avoid new crises. From his perspective, American policymakers would like Lebanon to remain as quiet as possible as part of a broader effort to reduce tensions across the Middle East.

Israel, he said, does not necessarily share that approach.

According to Winner, Israeli leaders have made it clear that national security interests in Lebanon will take precedence, even if those priorities occasionally conflict with American preferences. He suggested that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prepared to withstand diplomatic disagreements with Washington when core Israeli security concerns are at stake.

At the same time, Winner believes Lebanon presents an opportunity. He advocated continued engagement with the Lebanese government, not because Israel expects Beirut to defeat Hezbollah on its behalf, but because deeper political engagement could widen divisions between Hezbollah and the broader Lebanese population.

The ultimate goal, he argued, is to transform Hezbollah from a self-proclaimed defender of Lebanon into a force increasingly viewed by many Lebanese citizens as a liability and a source of instability.

Winner also emphasized concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile program. While nuclear weapons remain the primary focus of international attention, he warned that Tehran’s missile capabilities pose a growing threat to both regional and Western security.

He noted that missile ranges continue to expand and argued that both Israel and the United States understand the dangers associated with advanced ballistic missile development.

Looking ahead, Winner stressed that Israel remains prepared to act if Iran resumes efforts to accelerate either its nuclear or missile programs.

“We know the way to Tehran,” he declared, underscoring what he described as Israel’s willingness to conduct future operations if necessary.

Turning to the broader lessons of recent conflicts, Winner argued that Israel has undergone a profound shift in security thinking following the October 7 attacks. He criticized previous approaches that relied heavily on containment, deterrence, and political agreements, suggesting those strategies failed to provide lasting security.

Instead, he outlined what he described as a new doctrine centered on preemption and decisive action. Under this framework, Israel would not wait for threats to fully materialize before responding.

The same philosophy, he said, applies to Lebanon.

Winner outlined a three-part strategy: maintaining military control over key areas near the border, dismantling hostile infrastructure, and continuing negotiations with the Lebanese government while preserving freedom of action against emerging threats.

One of the most significant changes, he argued, is Israel’s determination to prevent another surprise attack similar to October 7.

“We will not leave any Jewish city or settlement on the border without troops in front of it,” he said, describing what he views as a fundamental principle of Israel’s future security posture.

As discussions continue over Iran, Lebanon, and the future of regional stability, Winner’s remarks reveal an Israeli perspective that combines confidence in military achievements, skepticism toward diplomatic assurances, and a growing commitment to proactive defense measures. While Washington and Jerusalem may disagree on tactics, he suggested, both remain focused on confronting what they see as the most significant threats facing the region.