Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told U.S. President Donald Trump that Israel does not consider itself bound by provisions related to Lebanon in the emerging U.S.-Iran agreement, signaling that Jerusalem will reject any arrangement that limits its military freedom of action against Hezbollah, according to Israeli officials cited by Israeli news outlet Ynet. 

Israeli officials said Netanyahu also made clear that Israel has no intention of withdrawing from positions currently held by its forces in southern Lebanon. They said the Israeli military would remain deployed in those areas and continue operations aimed at preventing threats from Hezbollah, including targeting the group's infrastructure and responding to attacks against Israel.

According to officials familiar with the discussions, Netanyahu's position received full backing from members of Israel's Security Cabinet, who view the Lebanon component of any agreement with Iran as a critical national security issue.

Israeli officials described the Lebanon clause as a red line for Jerusalem. Israel argues that it must retain the ability to strike Hezbollah targets to protect communities along its northern border and prevent the Iran-backed group from rebuilding its military capabilities near Israeli territory.

Senior Israeli officials said that any future demands for Israeli withdrawals from Lebanon would face firm resistance.

"This is an issue we will have to stand firm on if we are asked to make withdrawals there," one official said, adding that Netanyahu has been successful in pushing back against what Israeli officials describe as Iranian demands on the matter. According to the same official, U.S. negotiators understand that Israel considers the issue non-negotiable.

During a Security Cabinet meeting, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich argued that if Iran were to attack Israel directly, Israel should focus its response on Lebanon rather than Iran itself.

According to officials familiar with the meeting, Smotrich argued that Iran had become President Trump's diplomatic arena due to Washington's leadership of military and diplomatic efforts involving Tehran, while Lebanon remains Israel's immediate security arena.

Under that approach, Israel would avoid accusations of undermining Trump's agreement by striking inside Iran while maintaining its operational freedom against Hezbollah.

Israeli ministers stressed that Lebanon presents a different strategic challenge because Israeli forces are actively confronting Hezbollah there and bearing the costs of defending northern Israeli communities.

Officials said Israel cannot return to what it views as the pre-October 7 reality, when threats were allowed to build up along its borders without sufficient military action.

According to participants in the discussions, Smotrich suggested that if Iran attempted to directly link developments in Lebanon to events involving Tehran, Israel should escalate accordingly.

He reportedly proposed issuing evacuation warnings to residents of Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, a major Hezbollah stronghold, stating that if Iran launched attacks against Israel, civilians would be given one hour to leave before Israeli forces struck dozens of targets in the area.

Officials said the proposal was intended to increase internal pressure on Hezbollah from within Lebanon's Shiite community while simultaneously allowing Israel to avoid direct strikes inside Iran.

The strategy would also demonstrate that Israel was seeking to avoid harming Trump's diplomatic efforts while refusing any restrictions on its military activities in Lebanon.

Several ministers and security officials argued that military operations in Lebanon are significantly easier and less costly than strikes inside Iran.

"Five minutes of flight instead of four hours," one official said.

Supporters of the approach argued that strikes in Lebanon could serve a dual purpose by sending a deterrent message to Iran while further degrading Hezbollah's capabilities and shaping security conditions along Israel's northern border for years to come.

Israeli officials said Smotrich was the leading advocate of that position, although several senior security officials supported his view.

Other ministers reportedly pushed for even stronger responses against Iran itself, despite widespread recognition that Netanyahu was unlikely to authorize actions that could provoke a major confrontation with Trump.

"We must not tear the rope with Trump, but the responses must be clear," Energy Minister Eli Cohen said during the discussions. "If we respond, we must create deterrence."

Minister Gila Gamliel argued that Israel should retaliate and "capture more territory from them."

Minister Orit Strock praised Netanyahu for what she described as his steadfastness and said Israel should impose costs that would make future attacks unattractive.

Transportation Minister Miri Regev said Israel was "not a protectorate" and must "stop the ping-pong and get out of the equation."

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called for the toughest response of all.

"In the Middle East, you have to be the village madman," Ben-Gvir said. "Not a balanced response and not a measured response. Any fire at Israel is a declaration of war against us, and we must respond disproportionately."