No one puts Bibi in the corner

What began as a U.S.-Israel war against Iran has evolved into a U.S.-Iran negotiation over the future of the Middle East, leaving Israel increasingly on the sidelines. By escalating in Lebanon and triggering Iran's suspension of talks, Netanyahu has demonstrated that no regional settlement can move forward without addressing Israel's interests.

In conflict resolution, there is a concept known as a spoiler: a leader, faction, or political actor who believes an emerging peace process threatens their power, interests, or worldview and who uses violence, escalation, or obstruction to derail it.

That framework is helpful in explaining Israel's recent actions in Lebanon and what that means for the fragile negotiations between the United States and Iran.

The current war began as a U.S.-Israel confrontation with Iran. It erupted while Washington and Tehran were negotiating over Iran's nuclear program. Although Israel was not formally part of those talks, it exerted considerable influence and consistently argued that Iran represented an existential threat that could not be managed through diplomacy alone.

When the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in late February, the expectation in Washington was that the conflict would remain limited, much like the June 2025 war that significantly degraded Iran's nuclear facilities. Instead, the conflict expanded into a regional war. The Strait of Hormuz was disrupted, energy prices surged, and the United States found itself increasingly entangled in the kind of Middle Eastern conflict the administration had promised to avoid.

As the economic and political costs mounted, Washington became increasingly focused on finding a diplomatic off-ramp. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz, stabilizing energy markets, and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon became urgent priorities. Iran, however, appears to understand the leverage it has acquired through control of one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints. Over the weekend, an Iranian official stated that "imposing and consolidating our sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz surpasses the importance of nuclear weapons."

‍

At the same time, a ceasefire framework had been in place since April 8, creating space for diplomacy between Washington and Tehran. Iran maintains that the framework was premised on broader regional de-escalation, including in Lebanon. Israel's renewed operations there, Tehran argues, have undermined those understandings and prompted its decision to suspend talks with the United States.

What began as a U.S.-Israel effort to confront Iran has evolved into a direct U.S.-Iran negotiation over the future of the region. Washington and Tehran are discussing sanctions relief, nuclear limits, maritime security, and the terms of a broader ceasefire. Israel remains a critical stakeholder, but unlike at the outset of the conflict, it is no longer shaping the diplomatic agenda and finds itself increasingly on the sidelines of negotiations that could determine the region's future.

For Netanyahu, that creates a strategic problem. If Washington and Tehran are negotiating a regional settlement, Israel risks having to live with an agreement it did not help design. From Israel's perspective, any lasting arrangement must address Hezbollah, Lebanon, Gaza, Iranian proxies, and Israel's own security concerns. The Trump administration, by contrast, is primarily focused on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, stabilizing energy markets, and avoiding a prolonged regional conflict.

Recent Israeli operations in Lebanon serve two purposes. First, they advance Israel's long-standing objective of degrading Hezbollah. Second, they ensure that Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Israel's broader security concerns remain central to any diplomatic process, making it more difficult for Washington and Tehran to negotiate a settlement without addressing Israeli interests.

If Israel's objective was to complicate diplomacy, it has succeeded. Iran has announced that it is suspending indirect talks with the United States until Israeli military operations in Lebanon and Gaza cease. As a result, Washington risks losing the diplomatic off-ramp it has spent months trying to construct.

Without negotiations, Iran can continue applying pressure in the Strait of Hormuz and across other regional chokepoints, raising costs for the United States and the global economy. Washington is forced back into crisis management while the prospect of a wider regional war grows.

This is what makes Israel a textbook spoiler. A peace process begins to emerge. One actor fears that the resulting agreement may not adequately protect its interests. Rather than accept exclusion, it raises the cost of diplomacy and expands the conflict until its concerns can no longer be ignored.

That does not necessarily mean Netanyahu wants to kill a deal. It may simply mean he wants to ensure that no deal can be reached without Israel's participation.

The challenge for Washington is that it now faces two negotiations simultaneously: one with Iran and one with Israel. The United States must convince Tehran that diplomacy can deliver meaningful restraint while convincing Israel that its security concerns will not be sacrificed in pursuit of an agreement.

That is an extraordinarily narrow path. The immediate implication is that U.S.-Iran talks become more fragile. The larger implication is that a bilateral agreement between Washington and Tehran may not be enough to end the war if Israel believes its core concerns remain unresolved.

That is the spoiler problem. The actor outside the room possesses enough power to determine what happens inside it.

And Netanyahu is making it clear that he has no intention of being left outside.

‍