RT Aimen Dean My Two Cents/Shekels/Rials: Some senior GCC figures believe the public disagreements between Trump and Netanyahu are largely political theater rather than evidence of a genuine strategic split. According to this view, Trump became trapped during earlier negotiations when Iranian negotiators, with support from Pakistani mediators, insisted that any broader agreement include a ceasefire involving Hezbollah. This effectively linked the Iranian nuclear and regional negotiations to Hezbollah’s status and role in Lebanon. From the Israeli and many GCC perspectives, this was problematic because it risked granting Hezbollah a degree of political and diplomatic legitimacy. The central argument is that Hezbollah is not a sovereign state actor but an armed non-state organization that operates outside the authority of the Lebanese state. Trump’s primary objectives were reportedly focused on issues such as: Iran’s nuclear program Security in the Strait of Hormuz Regional stability Sanctions and frozen assets As negotiations progressed, Hezbollah increasingly became intertwined with the broader Iran discussions, creating frustration among those who wanted the two tracks separated. The emerging strategy, according to this interpretation, is to force a clear distinction between: The “Iran track” (nuclear, sanctions, regional security) The “Lebanon/Hezbollah track” (Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah) Under this logic, Israel’s military actions against Hezbollah should be viewed as part of its conflict with Hezbollah rather than part of any broader U.S.-Iran negotiation. If Iran chooses to intervene militarily in defense of Hezbollah, it does so by choice rather than necessity, thereby assuming responsibility for any escalation. This approach allows Washington to argue: “We are negotiating with Iran regarding Iran.” “Israel is dealing with Hezbollah.” “The two issues should not automatically be linked.” Trump could then maintain that he attempted to restrain Israel but cannot dictate every Israeli military decision, particularly when Hezbollah remains engaged in hostilities. In this interpretation, the recent escalation is not necessarily a collapse of diplomacy but rather part of a pressure campaign intended to force Tehran to accept the separation of the Iranian and Lebanese files. The underlying message to Iran would be: Accept that Hezbollah is a separate issue from negotiations over Iran itself; or Continue linking the two and risk further military escalation. The ultimate objective is to prevent any diplomatic outcome that implicitly recognizes or legitimizes Hezbollah’s military role as an extension of Iranian regional influence. Bottom line: This interpretation views the current tensions not as a breakdown in negotiations, but as a deliberate effort to decouple the Iran dossier from the Hezbollah dossier, forcing Tehran to choose whether it wants to negotiate on Iran’s interests alone or continue tying its position to Hezbollah’s fate.