Hezbollah’s Media Relations Office has categorically denied any connection to a security cell reportedly arrested on suspicion of seeking to destabilize Lebanon and Syria, dismissing the accusations as entirely baseless.
In a statement released Wednesday, the office stressed that Hezbollah has no connection whatsoever, direct or indirect, to any such cell or group. It said certain media outlets, which it accused of a pattern of leveling false accusations against the Resistance, had circulated the claims linking Hezbollah to the alleged cell.
The office said attempts by these outlets to implicate Hezbollah in security-related cases, relying on unnamed sources, are part of a disinformation campaign aimed at tarnishing the group’s image, sowing discord, and undermining security and stability in Lebanon.
It asserted that the reports are part of a broader effort to malign the Resistance through unverified claims attributed to anonymous sources.
In July, Hezbollah rejected claims tying it to an attempt to smuggle weapons and missiles across the Syrian-Iraqi border, after Syrian authorities said they had intercepted a shipment concealed inside a fuel tanker arriving from Iraq. Also in April and May, the group denied allegations linking it to a cell accused of plotting to assassinate a religious figure.
Hezbollah has affirmed on each occasion that it maintains no activity, connection, or presence inside Syrian territory. The group has said the repetition of such claims raises serious questions and points to parties seeking to inflame tension between the Syrian and Lebanese peoples.
Hezbollah has also pointed to similar fabricated allegations emerging from Bahrain and Kuwait, warning of a foreign plot aimed at stoking tensions between Arab nations and the Axis of Resistance and destabilizing the wider region.
The group has consistently framed the recurring accusations as a coordinated effort tied to the broader Zionist-American agenda in the region, arguing that the timing and pattern of the claims serve to isolate the Resistance and strain relations between Lebanon and Syria at a sensitive political juncture.
As Israel continues to ramp up its destruction of south Lebanon, critics ask why Hezbollah suddenly stopped responding and whether the group is again out of options. The tactical pause on the Lebanese organization’s part will not last, and its options are more numerous than some may expect.
When Hezbollah began responding to 15 months of Israeli daily ceasefire violations in early March of this year, it came as a shock to many who had assumed the group to have been defeated and that its silence was to be taken as a weakness. Although here at the Palestine Chronicle, I and others had argued that Hezbollah was simply rebuilding its stockpiles, the common consensus in international media was to assume it was finished as an effective resistance force.
Since April 16, the group has again chosen to halt its daily operations against the Israelis and abide by a shaky ceasefire agreement which Israel has once again decided to violate on a daily basis. Only when the occupying army attempts to advance further into Lebanon will the organization’s fighters choose to engage, which has again triggered rumors of weakness.
When the US-backed Lebanese government signed its agreement recognizing Israel, taking away its right to appeal to international courts over war crimes committed against its people and permitting an occupation of southern Lebanon, a number of different factors were also present that forced Hezbollah to halt its fire.
The first was that the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding was already in place and that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had managed to force the Israelis to stop bombing Beirut and halt its major attacks on southern Lebanese civilian centers.
Another factor at play was the US government’s overt pressure that was being applied to the Syrian leadership to invade the Bekaa Valley and carry out Israel’s dirty work. Then there was a clear-cut escalation on the part of the government in Beirut that sought to legitimize a clash between the Lebanese Army and Hezbollah in pursuit of disarming the resistance group.
When considering the Iran angle, Tehran had managed through the threat of missile fire to get the Israelis to temporarily back off from major air assaults in Lebanon. Although the Trump administration used its puppets in Beirut to sign a meaningless agreement that Tel Aviv couldn’t care less for, the gains were made that at least some pressure had been taken off of the civilian population of Lebanon. This consideration is significant as it allowed for around 350,000 people to return to their homes and halted the large-scale civilian killings.
Then there were the considerations of Hezbollah when it comes to a potential domestic clash and Syrian invasion. Instead of continuing its daily operations against occupying forces, it was given the space to continue to supply itself with more armaments, to reposition assets in preparation for the worst-case scenario of a Syrian invasion, but it also allowed for tensions to simmer between itself and the Lebanese leadership.
Former Hezbollah Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah had long advocated for minimizing the risk of internal clashes and even making compromises in order to allow the group to focus its energies on resisting Israel; it appears that this is the same line of thinking being employed by the group’s leadership today. Although Lebanon is on the verge of a major clash, historically speaking, the resistance group has always had to deal with major pushbacks from domestic players, including significant issues with the Amal movement that are today its close allies.
All of this being said, escalating against the Israeli occupiers can come in two forms, either through proceeding on the path of daily operations that inflict material and soldier losses on the enemy, or to fight in a larger multi-front battle. As demonstrated during the 41-day war earlier this year, fighting alongside its Iranian allies makes Hezbollah much more effective.
When Iranian ballistic missiles are raining down on Israeli targets, and Israel’s air force is preoccupied with striking targets inside Iran, it gives Hezbollah the space to pull off more effective attacks on the Israelis. Keep in mind that the group has demonstrated it possesses a sizable arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, alongside its large drone stockpiles, making it capable of striking into Israel’s strategic depth. Doing this alone, however, comes with a higher price than if it is part of a multi-front equation. This is also why Yemen’s Ansarallah threatened to become involved in a war in support of Hezbollah, before Iran’s threats and warning missile fire were enough to coerce the Israelis to back off prior to April 16.
This is all to say that if Hezbollah is fighting the Israelis alone and does not have to worry about a Syrian invasion and civil war, it can very effectively bog down their occupiers and demonstrate their ability to do this for months, absent Iran or any other front being active. Yet, the organization is in a much stronger position should it simply wait for an expansion of the conflict and then unleash a new strategy to bring the fight to the Israelis in ways we have not previously witnessed.
During the lead-up to Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah would carry out an average of 300 operations per month against the occupiers. At some points during the latest conflict, we saw the group carry out as many as 100 operations in a single day. With this being said, the Israeli leadership’s mindset today is not the same as it was in the late 1990s, meaning that they are willing to go much further than ever before since October 7 of 2023. They have been seeking to accelerate their long-term expansionist vision, not caring about how attacks targeting civilians impact their image whatsoever.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that Hezbollah will begin its operations once again under three different scenarios:
They are forced to do so defensively due to attacks from Israel, perhaps combined with a Syrian attack and/or domestic clash.
They will participate in a multi-front war.
They will wait until they can ensure that they can fight Israel alone and make them pay the maximum price for their occupation when the time is right, seeking to bog the Israelis down for as long as possible and continuously using asymmetric warfare tactics.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine.
Things are becoming increasingly clear about the US green light for the Israeli enemy to press ahead with its attacks on southern Lebanon. According to US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, Washington has not, so far, reached an agreement with Tel Aviv to halt its assaults.
Even more strikingly, asking ‘Israel’ to stop attacking southern Lebanon apparently amounts to asking it to “do everything,” according to Issa, himself of Lebanese origin, whose broken Arabic carries a distinctly Lebanese accent.
The remarks by Issa were made Wednesday, after a meeting with Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdel Latif Derian.
“So far, we haven’t agreed with them (Israelis) to halt attacks (on southern Lebanon),” Issa told reporters.
The US ambassador, meanwhile, made it clear that Washington is instead pressing disarmament of Hezbollah Lebanese resistance group as the condition for ‘Israel’ to fulfill its own obligations under the ceasefire that was lately reached in June.
“There is no agreement to end the Israeli aggression because Hezbollah has not handed over its weapons,” Issa added.
Hezbollah “does not want to do anything, so why ask Israel to do everything?”
He claimed, however, that Washington remained open to talks with Hezbollah “if they have something to offer us”, but dismissed what he described as unproductive contacts, saying negotiations could not amount to “visits and coffee”.
Asked whether Washington was effectively making Hezbollah’s disarmament a precondition for ‘Israel’ to halt its attacks and withdraw, Issa simply framed the issue as a question of “who should act first.”
“If two people are in dispute, one of them asks the other to start implementing what is required of him so that he, in turn, implements what he is required to do,” he said.
The problem with the analogy, however, is that one of the two parties, which is Hezbollah, has already stopped attacking northern occupied Palestine, while the other, which is the Israeli enemy, goes ahead with daily airstrikes, artillery shelling, assassinations, demolitions and systematic destruction across southern Lebanon.
But apparently, asking ‘Israel’ to stop such aggression is asking it to do “everything.”
Iran has thwarted a planned Syrian military intervention in Lebanon that was being prepared at the request of the United States, delivering a direct warning to Damascus that any Syrian military entry into Lebanese territory would be met with a regional response, according to Iranian sources cited by U News.
The Iranian warning included threats to stir up the Syrian–Iraqi border, open a confrontation line in Homs, support Alawite movements in the Syrian coastal region, and encourage the Kurds to return militarily to the outskirts of Aleppo.
The warning was not directed solely at Damascus; it also reached Ankara, Baghdad, Doha, and Riyadh, carrying the message that any Syrian adventure against Hezbollah in Lebanon would not remain confined to the Bekaa Valley but could turn into a broad regional confrontation within Syrian territory.
Iran succeeded in transforming any potential Syrian intervention in Lebanon from a military option that could be marketed to the US into a high-cost regional adventure, sources said. The Iranian warning, which reached Damascus through Turkish channels, included a threat of Iranian ballistic missile strikes that would begin from Damascus and include, in the first wave, more than 100 strategic targets, foremost among them the Syrian presidential palace.
The US-backed scenario: a three-pronged offensive into Lebanon
The scenario promoted by figures linked to the US embassy in Lebanon involves sending Syrian armed units from the Masnaa crossing toward Chtoura in the Lebanese Bekaa and on to the city of Zahle, simultaneously with mobilization from the eastern highlands toward the city of Baalbek.
The proposed scenario also includes declaring the city of Tripoli a Syrian zone of influence, with advancing forces benefiting from local environments, particularly in some Sunni-majority areas.
The presumed goal of the operation is to strike Hezbollah’s rocket infrastructure in the Bekaa and to create military and political pressure that would force the party to withdraw or accept new security arrangements.
Hezbollah prepared, treats potential Syrian operation as US-Israeli pressure
Iran’s warning has prompted regional parties to reassess the cost of the scenario, especially since Syria, emerging from deep military and political transformations, does not appear capable of enduring a new internal war.
Hezbollah is treating the information about a potential Syrian intervention extremely seriously and has taken precautionary measures in the Bekaa in anticipation of any possible Syrian incursion.
Hezbollah does not view the scenario as a separate Syrian operation, but rather as part of US–Israeli–regional pressure aimed at dismantling the structure of resistance in Lebanon from the east, following Israel’s failure to achieve a decisive result in the south.
Iraq’s rejection, UAE’s enthusiasm, and Saudi caution
Iraqi intelligence chief Hamid al-Shatri visited Damascus and informed Syrian officials of Baghdad’s rejection of any Syrian military expansion into Lebanese territory. Al-Shatri warned that Iraqi forces, primarily factions of the Popular Mobilization Forces, might enter Syrian territory if an intervention against Hezbollah occurred.
The Iraqi position added a further layer of deterrence to the Iranian warning, signalling that Damascus could face military pressure not only from within Syria but also from its eastern border.
The UAE is enthusiastic about funding any Syrian military operation in Lebanon, with officials quoted as ready to pay troop salaries as well as finance combat operations. This financial backing suggests that the UAE views the intervention as an opportunity to curtail Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon, despite the broader regional risks that Iran has highlighted.
Qatar rejects Syrian intervention in Lebanon, while Saudi Arabia does not object to an intervention as long as it is within arrangements that weaken Hezbollah without igniting the region. The divergent positions among Gulf states underscore the complex calculations at play, with Riyadh appearing to balance its opposition to Hezbollah against the dangers of a wider conflict that Iran has explicitly threatened to unleash on Syrian soil.
For decades, U.S. policy in Lebanon has focused on the elimination of Hezbollah, or at least its military wing. But the Trump administration has taken this effort to new heights.
The State Department is sponsoring the first ever direct talks between Lebanon and Israel since the Madrid peace talks, with the disarmament of Hezbollah being a central objective of those talks.
Washington has also taken the unprecedented step of sanctioning individuals from outside the party whom it accuses of undermining the campaign against Hezbollah, including members of Lebanon’s state security apparatus. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel are engaged in an unprecedented financial crackdown on Hezbollah, as the New York Timesreported this week.
Ironically, however, Donald Trump is also the first sitting American president to express a willingness to hold direct talks with the Lebanese Shiite movement.
“I would speak to Hezbollah. I speak to everybody. I’ll speak to people that a lot of people think I shouldn’t be speaking to, and things work out,” Trump told reporters during an oval office meeting with his Lebanese counterpart Joseph Aoun last month.
While it would be easy to dismiss these remarks as typical Trumpian grandstanding, there appears to be more to the story.
Multiple reports have recently emerged indicating that serious attempts have been made to open direct channels between Washington and Hezbollah.
According to the Middle East Eye, Trump told Beirut’s ambassador to Washington last May that he wanted to talk to the group in a bid to salvage a shaky ceasefire with Israel. The Lebanese presidency reportedly turned down the request over concerns that holding such talks would undermine Aoun by bypassing the Lebanese government.
That same report quotes senior Lebanese officials saying that both the Trump administration and some of its predecessors have attempted to open direct channels with Hezbollah, but the group rejected these advances.
Another recent report by the Lebanese daily Aljoumhouria revealed that senior Iraqi officials told a visiting Hezbollah delegation that Iraq was ready to sponsor and host direct talks between Washington and the Lebanese Shiite movement. The offer, the report noted, was made shortly before Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s recent visit to Washington, only to be turned down by Hezbollah.
Sources from within the Lebanese Shiite movement confirm that there has been a recent push to establish direct channels between the two sides. “The Americans have made several attempts through a number of intermediaries to engage directly with Hezbollah,” a Hezbollah source explained to RS. “It’s true that al-Zaidi pursued such efforts, but certainly not at our request.”
Interestingly, however, senior Hezbollah officials refused to clarify the group’s stance on the issue despite media reports that it had flatly rejected such offers. “Hezbollah wants to keep its stance concerning this issue out of the media, without giving any indication as to how it will respond to such initiatives,” a political official in the Lebanese Shiite movement told RS. “Our policy is to not reveal how we intend to approach this issue”.
This suggests that Hezbollah is not necessarily rejecting dialogue with Washington out of hand. Talks “will happen if there is an opportunity that presents itself,” said Muhanad Hage Ali, deputy director for research at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“But there will be an ambiguity because the organization basically tries to avoid acknowledging that they’re discussing anything with the ‘Great Satan,’” Hage Ali said, referencing a term Iran and its allies use to label the United States.
According to Hage Ali, who has authored numerous publications about Hezbollah, the group stands to benefit from such dialogue in more ways than one. “Direct contact between the U.S. and Hezbollah would eventually undermine the Lebanese government track,” he explained, in reference to the direct talks Lebanon’s government is holding with Israel. “This is useful for Hezbollah.”
Hezbollah could also use talks with Washington to make a deal under which any measures related to its weapons and military activities would be conditioned on amending Lebanon’s constitutional system to “grant Lebanese Shiites a bigger share of power,” Hage Ali said.
Still, it is difficult to see Hezbollah negotiating away its weapons absent an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and a genuine guarantee that Israel will permanently end military operations in Lebanon. This stems from the fact that the group was founded as a resistance movement against Israel back in the early 1980s, long before it became a political party in 1992.
Meanwhile there is little to suggest that Israel is willing to take any steps that would encourage Hezbollah to take a more flexible stance.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahureportedly told a recent cabinet meeting that he will not succumb to American demands to withdraw troops from Lebanon. Israel’s Foreign Ministry even published a map where parts of southern Lebanon appeared incorporated into Israel. The map, which Israel posted on X, stirred an uproar in Lebanon before it was taken down. (Israeli officials described the controversial map as the result of “an artificial intelligence error.”)
There is also the issue of Iran which has only doubled down on its support for its Lebanese ally. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mujtaba Khamenei has framed support for Hezbollah as a “strategic mandate” for the Islamic Republic, while underscoring that any deal with the United States is contingent on respecting Lebanon’s territorial integrity and an end to Israeli military operations in the country.
That Khamenei cast his country’s support for Hezbollah in strategic terms — and not merely as an ideological obligation — supports the notion that the Iranian leadership believes supporting the group has become a greater necessity in the wake of the recent conflicts, not least given how Israel has directly attacked Iran in these wars. In other words, rather than weakening the bonds between Tehran and Hezbollah, Israeli attacks on Iran have apparently strengthened these bonds, giving them a stronger strategic rationale.
Against this backdrop, it is far more plausible that, at least for now, Hezbollah is pinning its hopes on what comes out of a potential agreement between Washington and Tehran, as opposed to riskier paths like direct talks with the Trump administration.
“The objective behind the American attempts to establish direct channels with us is to remove Lebanon and Hezbollah specifically from the Islamabad talks,” explained the first Hezbollah source, referencing U.S.-Iran negotiations in Pakistan.
Holding talks with the United States as a separate track from Islamabad would place Hezbollah in a weaker position, he argued, while being part of a framework with Iran which “hold strong cards” means that any agreement reached “will have guarantees.”
Ali Rizk is a security analyst with a Masters Degree in Counterterrorism from Australia’s Macquarie University. Rizk is a contributor to the American Conservative, and his work has appeared in the National Interest, Middle East Eye, and the Australian Institute for International Affairs.
The seventh round of US-brokered negotiations between Lebanon and Israel have concluded in Rome without any breakthrough, marked by Israeli forces unleashing their most intense artillery barrage on southern Lebanon since the signing of a controversial framework agreement in June.
As diplomats met at the US Embassy in Rome, Israeli artillery and warplanes pounded Lebanese villages with increasing ferocity.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) recorded 120 projectiles fired by Israeli forces between midnight and 4 p.m. on Thursday alone—surpassing the previous day’s total of 113 and marking the highest single-day figure observed since June 21.
UNIFIL described the escalation as the “sharpest” surge in Israeli military aggression since the announcement of the US-mediated trilateral framework in late June.
Crucially, UNIFIL reported that it did not detect any projectile launches by Hezbollah during the period, underscoring the one-sided nature of the ongoing Israeli violence.
The framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26, which the talks in Rome were ostensibly meant to implement, has been condemned by broad swathes of Lebanon’s political class as a national catastrophe that compromises Lebanese sovereignty while extracting no binding commitments from Israel.
Critics point to the agreement’s fundamental imbalance: Lebanon is required to deploy its army to “pilot zones,” dismantle resistance infrastructure, and verify disarmament—all before Israeli forces begin their gradual redeployment.
No binding timetable exists for Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly presented the agreement as an achievement for Israel, a framing that has intensified the backlash in Beirut and reinforced the view that Lebanon has made outrageous concessions without securing even an immediate ceasefire.
Lebanon’s prominent Mufti, Ahmad Qabalan, declared the agreement the “worst national catastrophe” in Lebanon’s history, asserting that it effectively grants the Israeli military a form of guardianship over the Lebanese army and implicitly recognizes Israeli sovereignty over occupied areas.
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem has described it as “a humiliation, a disgrace and a surrender of sovereignty”.
Even the Free Patriotic Movement, one of the largest Christian parties and not traditionally aligned with Hezbollah, has warned against “surrendering to Israeli demands”.
The Rome negotiations, held over three days including two days of intensive meetings at the US Embassy, failed to produce any tangible progress.
Sources close to the negotiations said the sessions, the seventh round overall, were divided into three tracks—military, political, and legal-border—but yielded no clear results.
While negotiators talked, Israeli forces intensified their assault on southern Lebanon with devastating effect.
On Wednesday alone, Israeli forces fired 113 projectiles into southern Lebanon, with 77 of them striking the town of al-Mansuri and surrounding areas. On Thursday, the bombardment increased to 120 projectiles in just 16 hours.
The Israeli military issued urgent evacuation warnings to residents of al-Mansuri, forcing families to flee their homes.
Two Israeli soldiers were killed and several injured in an explosion in the al-Mansuri area on Wednesday, reportedly after forces entered a facility ahead of a planned demolition.
UNIFIL confirmed it did not directly observe the explosion but noted the subsequent Israeli evacuation order.
The Lebanese Ministry of Health reported that eight civilians were injured in Israeli airstrikes on the town of Burj al-Shamali near Tyre on Thursday.
Israeli warplanes also flew at low altitude over the southern suburbs of Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and the northern region of Akkar, with drones maintaining continuous flights over the capital.
Since March 2, when Israel escalated its military aggressions in Lebanon, the attacks have killed 4,333 people, injured 12,250 others, and displaced more than 1 million Lebanese citizens, according to Lebanese Health Ministry figures.
Israel’s negotiating position, as reported by sources familiar with the humiliating talks, is to preserve its military’s freedom of action as long as Hezbollah “continues to pose a threat”—a determination Israel makes unilaterally.
Israel has refused to agree to any operational restrictions until Lebanon fully implements its commitments under the framework agreement.
This position effectively grants Israel a perpetual veto over Lebanese sovereignty, with the Israeli military retaining the right to strike Lebanese territory at will, even as Lebanese forces are expected to disarm and dismantle Hezbollah’s infrastructure.
The Lebanese government, led by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, has defended the negotiations as an assertion of independence. But critics argue that in practice, the agreement has only deepened Lebanon’s subjugation to Washington’s agenda while providing Israel with diplomatic cover for continued aggression.
The next round of talks is tentatively scheduled for September 1.
Israel has declared it will not agree to any “additional withdrawals” from Lebanon in the next round of negotiations with the Beirut government, while insisting on retaining “freedom of action” in areas transferred to the Lebanese Armed Forces.
Israel’s Channel 12 reported on Wednesday that Israeli officials conveyed the position to mediators involved in the Beirut-Tel Aviv talks ahead of the next round of negotiations, scheduled to take place in Rome on August 4.
There will be no withdrawal from the “security zone” Israel has established in south Lebanon, which includes dozens of occupied villages, the report said.
“The additional areas will not be on our side, in the defense lines that we have stabilized,” an Israeli official told the channel, claiming, “If the current pilot is successful and additional pilot areas are decided upon later, they will be beyond the Yellow Line. We will not allow further withdrawals of the area on our side. Until Hezbollah is disarmed in Lebanon – that is what was agreed upon.”
According to the report, the Israeli regime will instead insist on retaining “freedom of action” to re-enter areas recently handed over to the Lebanese Armed Forces.
The report came hours after heavy Israeli artillery shelling targeted Ali al-Taher Hill in southern Lebanon, where Israel’s Channel 12 reported that an Israeli D9 bulldozer was seen burning after it was “hit by an explosive Hezbollah drone.”
On June 26, Lebanon and Israel signed a controversial US-mediated framework agreement outlining a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from all occupied Lebanese territories, beginning with a pilot model in two undisclosed zones.
The agreement sets no timetable for the withdrawal, making its completion contingent on the Lebanese Armed Forces assuming full security responsibility in evacuated areas and the disarmament of resistance groups, specifically Hezbollah.
Hezbollah rejected the agreement, saying the framework effectively legalizes the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon.
Lebanon’s Amal Movement also rejected the deal, arguing that most of its provisions undermine Lebanon’s national interests while serving those of the Israeli regime.
During a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House earlier this month, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun reiterated Beirut’s demand for the complete withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from Lebanese territory, saying the ceasefire agreement cannot be fully implemented as long as Israeli violations continue.
According to official Lebanese figures, Israeli aggression has killed at least 4,330 people, wounded 12,236 others, and displaced more than one million people across Lebanon since March 2.
Israel continues to occupy areas in southern Lebanon, including territories it has held for years as well as others it seized during the 2023-24 onslaught.
Scores of displaced Lebanese civilians made their way back to southern towns designated by Washington as “pilot zones” early on 21 July, as the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) deployed in the town of Zawtar al-Gharbiya – one day after the US officially launched its plan.
An Israeli journalist had previously claimed that Tel Aviv would begin a limited withdrawal on Tuesday as part of the US plan, but local residents returning to the south cast further doubt on Israel’s intention to pull out.
The zones, or at least most of them, “were never occupied by Israeli forces” to begin with, locals told Al-Jazeera on 21 July.
“The inclusion of [these] villages is evidence that Israel is in fact not giving anything up, despite the framework agreement, and is instead able to remain in the [other] areas it has occupied,” the villagers said.
Two Lebanese security sources told Al-Jazeera the same thing, while stressing that two of the “pilot zones” are “not occupied.”
The pilot zone plan is a key aspect of the US-brokered agreement reached between Lebanon and Israel in violation of Lebanese law.
“Pilot zone operations began in the villages of Froun, Srifa, and Zawtar al-Gharbiya in accordance with the Trilateral Framework and under the auspices of the Military Coordination Group for Lebanon,” the US State Department said in a statement on 20 July.
Reports over recent weeks indicated that three pilot zones had initially been declared as part of the plan: Froun, Al-Ghandourieh, and Zawtar al-Gharbiya.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had publicly named Froun and Zawtar al-Gharbieh as two initial pilot zones weeks ago.
Washington’s new announcement on Monday listed Froun, Srifa, and Zawtar al-Gharbiya as the initial pilot zones.
Just like Froun, Srifa is outside the so-called Israeli security zone and is not occupied. Zawtar al-Gharbiya is the only one of the three zones where Israeli forces are present.
Fierce resistance from Hezbollah prevented occupation forces from pushing into both Froun and Al-Ghandourieh during the initial weeks of heavy fighting.
This was recently confirmed by reports from RT and the New Arab, which cited local officials and correspondents on the ground.
The unconstitutional Lebanon-Israel deal would see the establishment of future pilot zones under “mutual consent” between Tel Aviv and Beirut.
The plan is meant to see the LAF replace Israeli occupation troops in the designated “zones” and dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure, in tandem with a “phased” Israeli withdrawal.
However, Lebanese military sources told local media earlier this month that the LAF refuses and rejects direct cooperation with Israel.
“The army will not operate under anyone’s command [including Israel]. Its mission is not to clear the ground for the enemy in order to facilitate its entry into areas it failed to reach because of fierce resistance. The army will not be the reason for the occupation of additional Lebanese territory,” the sources said.
Israel publicly vows that it will not withdraw from south Lebanon. Israeli media says occupation forces have not received any political directive to withdraw from the area. There are still no clear timelines for the US plan.
As residents made their way to the areas on Tuesday morning, Israeli occupation forces continued to carry out major demolition operations, destroying civilian infrastructure on the border.
The US Trump administration sought to weaponize diplomacy once again against the Islamic Republic of Iran and implement a surprise attack strategy – this time, Tehran appears to have preempted the American-Israeli plot.
The Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) officially died this week, but in reality it was terminated on June 26 with the Lebanon-Israel deal that Washington brokered. The reason why was simple: the United States decided to print on paper a new deal that violated the former by granting Israel de facto permission to maintain a belligerent occupation of southern Lebanese lands.
Throughout the month that the MoU technically held, the US committed various violations of a number of clauses of the agreement, including by direct threats from Donald Trump himself to assassinate the entire Iranian negotiating team. But the Lebanon issue was far more indicative of where things were heading than the limited skirmishes in the Persian Gulf and threats to commit war crimes.
Clause 1 of the MoU concerned the ensuring of the war’s termination on all fronts, with Lebanon being explicitly mentioned. Tehran made it clear that this meant a full withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from southern Lebanon and the protection of Lebanese sovereignty.
Instead of implementing the clause, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu coordinated a careful approach to the Lebanon war, one that would not result in a withdrawal or end to the war, while simultaneously being careful not to provoke any Iranian retaliatory strikes. Therefore, the US worked with Israel to develop a new conspiracy. This involved the use of the US-proxy regime in Beirut to stir division within Lebanon, an attempt to force the Lebanese army to clash with Hezbollah, combined with an initiative to pressure neighboring Syria to invade the Bekaa Valley region in order to take on Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, as this plot was developing, the Israelis returned to the pre-March 2 status quo more or less in Lebanon – Hezbollah froze its retaliatory operations, while Israel continued to blow up civilian homes, bomb on a lower scale, while maintaining its presence inside south Lebanon.
A US military advisory force is being deployed to Beirut in order to guide the Lebanese army on its newly agreed-upon mission to clash with Hezbollah, the stated goal of which is to disarm the movement. Speculation also has it that the US may even be considering deploying thousands of combat troops into Lebanon in order to help prop up the regime in Beirut if the situation goes sideways, although this assertion is yet to be fully substantiated.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has been documenting the ongoing mobilization and military buildup along the Lebanese-Syria border, as Trump himself has repeatedly stated in public that he seeks to use Syria’s forces to invade Lebanon.
Hezbollah’s sudden silence and lack of operations indicate that it has been taking these threats very seriously. Fighting Israel alone has been a battle that it has proven capable of managing, but preparations to fight US-proxies inside Lebanon, the possible collapse of the Lebanese Army into warring factions, and combating a Syrian invasion all demand new defensive and even perhaps offensive preparations.
Iran, for its part, was clearly also coordinated more heavily with Yemen’s Ansarallah leadership. The Yemen front never fully opened during the war earlier this year. Tehran openly challenged Saudi Arabia’s blockade on Yemen, while Ansarallah was mobilizing its forces and declared that it would fight to break the blockade. When Riyadh took the decision to strike Sana’a International Airport, this reopened the Yemen-Saudi War for the first time since early 2022, collapsing the UN-brokered ceasefire.
Yemen’s role in the renewal of the regional war will add major pressure, especially as it holds the card to shut down the Bab Al-Mandab Strait, imposing a blockade in the Red Sea that will choke the global economy further than it has been under the pressure of the Strait of Hormuz blockade. Ansarallah’s capabilities have also significantly developed since 2022, meaning that they will be able to aid Iran in their war efforts against targets in the Arabian Peninsula.
If the US succeeds in pressuring Damascus to launch an assault on Lebanon, then Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) have already threatened to enter the fight on the ground. The PMU would likely seek to seize areas in eastern Syria, like Deir Ezzor, which would open up new supply lines inside Syrian territory and put enormous pressure on its forces.
A US-Israeli plot to collapse the Lebanese State in order to weaken Hezbollah is a major gamble to say the least, one which will inevitably lead to a rise in regional sectarianism. It is also very likely that Arab Gulf media will also act to portray the conflict as a new Sunni-Shia war, as they begin to take more active roles in support of the US-Israeli war effort.
Ultimately, it appears as if the Iranians are not taking any chances and are being proactive, which has been reflected in the scale of their strikes on US assets in the region, including a surprise attack that took out US ATACMS missiles in Kuwait earlier this week.
A return to full-scale war this time around could trigger a series of conflicts that will spiral out of control and thus make any easy off-ramp impossible. The Global economic repercussions will be horrendous, as the only end to the war is total victory or total defeat. The US will be put in a position where it will be forced to withdraw from the region, while Israel is betting on the idea of Iran being significantly weakened as a result of the conflict’s continuation.
No side appears to be backing down, so unless the US suddenly decides to perform a 180-degree pivot in its approach, West Asia is about to erupt into total chaos.
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.
BEIRUT – The recent Israeli escalation in southern Lebanon has brought the Ali al-Tahir heights back to the forefront of the military scene, after the occupation forces intensified their raids on the area amid indicators that observers see as a prelude to a potential ground move. While estimates speak of an Israeli attempt to impose a new field equation, military experts warn that any incursion into these strategic hills could open up a wide confrontation with Hezbollah, given their military importance and the nature of their defenses.
Fiery prelude preceding the ground move
Israeli Channel 12 reported that the army launched an attack on the Ali al-Tahir heights area, while the Upper Galilee Regional Council informed the residents of the settlements that they would hear the sound of explosions resulting from the attacks in southern Lebanon.
The military and strategic expert, Retired Brigadier General Khalil al-Jamil, believes that the nature of the Israeli operations indicates that what is happening goes beyond mere limited raids, explaining that the Israeli army usually relies on a wide fiery prelude to isolate the operations area and prevent the arrival of fighters or supplies to it before any ground move, according to Al Jazeera.
He added that the shelling targeting the villages and towns surrounding the Ali al-Tahir heights falls within this framework, expecting the strikes to continue for hours before moving to a new stage with the onset of night, which is the timing during which Israel is accustomed to executing its ground operations.
He pointed out that the scale of the airstrikes is disproportionate to a limited targeting operation, as it was possible to execute such missions using drones, which reinforces, according to his estimation, the hypothesis of preparing for a ground incursion into parts of the heights.
He noted that the Ali al-Tahir heights extend for about three kilometers, and any incursion at its beginning may be limited to specific parts of them, but the nature of the current movements is consistent with the military method followed by the Israeli army before any field advance.
Hezbollah’s readiness and field complexities
Al-Jamil confirmed that Hezbollah will be ready to defend the area, expecting that the fire support units deployed in Iqlim al-Tuffah and neighboring areas will begin executing support operations to prevent Israeli forces from establishing any presence inside the hills.
He added that Israel tried during previous stages to advance in the area, but faced great field difficulties due to the rugged geographical nature and defensive readiness, making any new attempt more complex and costly.
He explained that the Ali al-Tahir heights constitute the main line of defense for southern Lebanon and the Nabatieh district, suggesting that violent confrontations would break out if the escalation develops into a direct ground operation.
He also pointed out that any advance inside the network of tunnels scattered in the area would place Israeli forces before complex fighting conditions, unless a collapse occurs in Hezbollah’s defensive system, a scenario he said is not supported by any field indicators so far.
Despite Israel possessing military capabilities that qualify it to reach the heights if it makes a decision to do so, al-Jamil stressed that achieving this goal would have a high military and human cost.
The policy of “nibbling” and the possibilities of expanding the confrontation
Al-Jamil considered that Israel relies on a policy of gradual “nibbling” of the heights, by combining airstrikes, fire pressure, and limited ground advance, instead of executing a broad operation all at once.
He explained that the Ali al-Tahir heights grant whoever controls them a great field advantage, as they overlook wide areas of southern Lebanon and the vicinity of Nabatieh, making them a controlling point in managing military operations.
He added that Israel views these hills as being within the areas it believes it had previously controlled, and sees that any military operation in them does not conflict, from its point of view, with existing arrangements, although actual control over them has not been achieved on the ground.
He believed that any ground incursion could push Hezbollah to expand the circle of response by targeting Israeli settlements with rockets, in an attempt to pressure the internal front and impose a new deterrence equation, a matter that could reignite the entire southern front.
This escalation comes at a time when the Lebanese Ministry of Health announced that the toll of victims of the Israeli aggression since the second of March has risen to 4,303 dead and 12,203 wounded, amid the continuation of military tension despite efforts aimed at stabilizing the calm on the border.
Lebanon’s Parliament Speaker and head of the Amal Movement, Nabih Berri, said on 29 June that the new US-brokered agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv – reached in violation of Lebanese law – “will not be implemented.”
“This agreement will not pass, and it will not be implemented,” Berri said in an interview with Al-Akhbar newspaper.
He stressed that his opposition to the agreement will remain “within constitutional frameworks,” and that his party – which is closely allied to Hezbollah – “will not boycott any cabinet session in which the agreement is discussed.”
“That is where we will confront it and state our position,” he added.
“The greatest danger posed by the agreement is not only its political content but also the possibility that it could fuel internal divisions and provoke Lebanese factions into confronting one another – something that would serve Israel above all else.”
Berri also responded to reports and claims that Lebanese authorities were planning to dismiss Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) chief Rudolphe Haikal.
“No one should even joke about such an idea, and no one should play games with the army. The military institution is a red line and one of the pillars of national stability and the primary guarantee for preserving civil peace,” the parliament speaker told Al-Akhbar.
Haikal, over the past year, has reportedly refused to move ahead with Hezbollah disarmament plans while Lebanon remains occupied and under attack. He is also said to have threatened resignation over the matter in 2025.
During a trip to Washington weeks before the latest war, Haikal angered US officials after he refused to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization at a meeting in Washington.
Hezbollah official Nawaf al-Moussawi recently said that Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had plans to dismiss the army chief.
During Monday’s interview with the Lebanese parliament speaker, Berri went on to refer to the Lebanon–Israel agreement as a series of “dictates.”
The speaker called the deal “10 times worse than the 17 May Agreement of 1983,” referring to a Lebanese–Israeli peace deal decades ago which failed to materialize.
Berri, who at the time was at the start of his political career, played a key role in collapsing the 17 May 1983 agreement.
“I’d take 17 May 10 times over this agreement,” Berri stressed.
Berri also affirmed that the only way to achieve the country’s national goals “lies in the US–Iran negotiations,” rejecting Washington and Tel Aviv’s efforts to separate Lebanon from the Islamic Republic.
The US–Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) is “the only framework capable of creating a balance of power that would force Israel to meet its obligations.”
Berri added that “separating the Lebanese file from that process, or entering into separate negotiations with Israel under American and Israeli terms, would merely prolong the occupation and give Israel more time to impose new realities on the ground without providing Lebanon with any genuine guarantees.”
On 28 June, several Hezbollah officials slammed the agreement brokered by Washington – following months of direct talks that were conducted in violation of Lebanon’s laws and constitution.
MP Hussein al-Hajj Hassan reiterated Berri’s previous calls to avoid civil strife, but warned that the Lebanese state “bears the responsibility” for whatever “outcome” results if Beirut attempts to actually implement the outcome.
The US-Lebanese-Israeli deal signed in Washington on 26 June stipulates that Hezbollah must be disarmed before any withdrawal of occupation forces can take place.
The agreement also builds on aspects of earlier direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, specifically the establishment of “pilot zones” in which the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would deploy in order to dismantle “non-state armed groups,” including the resistance.
“Two initial zones have been agreed to by the [Israeli army] and the LAF, and future pilot zones will also be agreed upon by mutual consent,” Clause 3 of the framework stipulates, in effect forcing the Lebanese army to take permission from Israel on where it would deploy.
The deal would also bar Lebanon from filing legitimate international legal complaints against Israel, which has killed over 4,000 Lebanese and displaced over a million since the start of March this year.
This is represented by Clause 13 of the Lebanon–Israel deal, which calls for “the cessation of all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.”
One of the clauses also explicitly states that the “Government of Lebanon herewith requests the support of international and, particularly Arab partners, under the leadership of the US, to achieve this outcome.”
Lebanese journalist Hassan Illaik said this was among the “most dangerous” clauses, and interpreted it as a legitimization of a Syrian military assault against Hezbollah.
This is something US officials have repeatedly threatened, including President Donald Trump.
According to Israeli news outlet Channel 12, the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel includes a classified security annex that remained secret at the explicit request of the Lebanese government.
The report says the agreement does not set fixed implementation timelines, with every step instead conditioned on meeting specific requirements on the ground.
It adds that there will be no automatic Israeli withdrawals, with any redeployment depending on verified progress and the results achieved in the field.
It also says the two agreed “pilot zones” are the only ones currently approved, and that no additional pilot zones will be established in the foreseeable future without Israeli approval.
Channel 12 further reported that the Lebanese government granted Israel freedom of military operations inside the ‘security zone’ that Israel has illegally established inside Lebanon.
According to Israel’s Channel 15, the agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel grants the Israeli army the right to enter the “pilot zones” to verify that they have been cleared of weapons and military infrastructure by the LAF.
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 