MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Let's take a deeper look now with Daniel Levy. He is a former peace negotiator on behalf of Israel. He's president of the U.S./Middle East Project. That's a policy institute that advocates for what it calls a dignified Israeli Palestinian peace. We've reached him in London. Mr. Levy, welcome back to the program. Thanks for joining us.
DANIEL LEVY: Good to be with you, Michel.
MARTIN: So Israel's defense minister, as we've heard, suggested that Israel plans to control territory in southern Lebanon that extends as much as 15 miles from the border. Why now? Why do you think Israel's choosing this moment to try to expand its footprint in Lebanon?
LEVY: Of course. And the defense minister has also issued threats that it could be similar to Gaza, and that's a terrifying thought, given that there's an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide crimes case regarding Israel's actions in Gaza, and there's a International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Israeli prime minister Netanyahu for what could constitute war crimes, and we've seen 1 million displaced. Aand you had another Israeli senior, Minister Smotrich, talk about Israel annexing and settling those territories. Why now? I fear that part of the answer is precisely the impunity high that Israel may still be on after Gaza, and that it was never held to account or stopped from doing those things.
In Lebanon, there has been a political option, as there has been, I would say, on all other fronts, you've had something very unusual, which was Israeli and Lebanese official representatives sitting together. The U.S. was in the room. There was a ceasefire that, a bit like Gaza, wasn't really a ceasefire. Israel primarily continued to undertake military operations. But you had this option of working with the Lebanese government to see how far one could go in teasing out a political solution where Hezbollah could not play the role it previously played, having been weakened. But instead, there has been this revert back to military options and the idea of taking territory. I think that the simplest answer to your question, Michel, is, unfortunately, number one, you don't have an Israeli government that looks at political diplomatic options at all, and number two, most bluntly, simply because they can unless anyone stops them.
MARTIN: On the other hand, I mean, Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran, has staged near-daily attacks on northern Israel since the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran began last month. I mean, that does suggest that there is a security threat.
LEVY: Well, and this is something that's really being talked about in Israel because they were told by their leaders Hezbollah decapitated. It's this story again. We've won militarily. It's done now. We hear that sometimes in Israel, sometimes in Washington, D.C., there's a military solution. And part of the questions being asked in Israel today are, hey, what happened? You told us these guys were a spent force. Where is this coming from? And it's always this overestimation of what you can achieve militarily and this underinvestment in what needs to be achieved through negotiations, where both sides have an outcome that can be acceptable. And unfortunately, we're right back in that place where there are - there is an exchange of fire. It's no fun being in the north of Israel. It's no fun being in the south of Lebanon or far beyond that in Lebanon because Israel has targeted much of the country.
MARTIN: Well, President Trump is insisting that progress is being made in talks with Iran, although I do have to note that Iran is denying any direct talks with the U.S., although we do have a sense that there are sort of third-party conversations being had through third parties. But the president is saying that Iran gave the U.S., quote, "a very big present" on oil and gas, although he didn't elaborate. Do you have any sense of what that might be, and do you think that any progress is being made to wind down that war?
LEVY: Look, I think the details of what President Trump may consider to have happened that was a present, that in the bubble of information that he receives, might have happened, and his depiction of the talks is perhaps - it's of interest. It's of news cycle interest. But in terms of the bigger strategic picture, I don't think it matters. What matters is, number one, that there are almost certainly - and I think we are assured that there are channels because there are an awful lot of countries out there who weren't a party to launching this war that the U.S. and Israel launched, who are being severely impacted very directly in the Gulf. But also, you know, across the world, food, fuel, fertilizer prices are going up. Countries are moving to a two-day working week, having to shut down schools because they don't have the energy supplies.
So there's an awful lot of interest in how does one de-escalate and end this. So you have several parties. Turquia - Turkey has been super active. Pakistan, Egypt, some of the Gulf states, others. Trump apparently talks to Putin, and Putin also talks to the Iranians. So you have these channels. Can they deliver an outcome that to a huge extent depends on, is this a head fake from the Americans? Is this while he builds up more of a military presence, as he did in previous talks? Is this to calm the markets? And if there are serious talks, will the negotiating position be one that allows an actual outcome rather than going in with unrealistic positions, and will Iran respond in kind? Can third parties bring Iran to that place? That's the question.
MARTIN: So taking a bit of a step back, Israel's ambassador to the U.N., Danny Danon, told the Security Council that by fighting Iran, Israel is fighting what he calls the real source of conflict, as Iran's regime is supporting regional proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. And I was curious if you think that the U.S. and Israel share the same goals at this moment.
LEVY: Well, look, undoubtedly, Iran has this network of allies that have destabilized the various sovereign states. Undoubtedly, you also have an Israel that seized territory in Syria, in Lebanon, has devastated the Palestinian territories and maintained this occupation. Is war the answer? I would say no. Are the goals divergent? Yes, significantly and with an important caveat. It's much harder to decipher, Michel, what the U.S. goal is. America put forward a national security strategy just a few months ago, which didn't include a major war or a prioritization of the Middle East. And yet, here you are dismantling systems in Asia, insulting NATO European allies and putting everything back into another Middle Eastern war.
And it feels like the message coming out of the U.S. is quite incoherent, but that it centers around some kind of Venezuela 2.0-style shift in Iran. On the Israeli side, it's very different. Here, there is a strategic goal. It's an extremely ambitious, maximalist and very dangerous, perhaps, recklessly irresponsible goal, but there is one that is not just to degrade, but to destroy, to try and collapse the regime in Iran, lead to state implosion, as part of - and this is important to understand.
MARTIN: OK.
LEVY: This is an Israel that's pursuing a greater Israel project, where, in this moment of fluidity, how far can Israel extend its dominion? That's the divergence.
MARTIN: That's Daniel Levy. He's a former peace negotiator for Israel and the president of the U.S./Middle East Project. Mr. Levy, thank you for joining us.
LEVY: Thank you so much.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
