Rome talks fail as Israeli artillery rains death on Lebanon
Press TV – August 7, 2026
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 rules out withdrawal from occupied Lebanon, wants ‘freedom of action’
Press TV – July 29, 2026
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.
‘Israel is not giving anything up’: Residents head to US-backed pilot zones in south Lebanon

The Cradle | July 21, 2026
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.
Washington officially launched the project on Monday.
“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.
Preparing for Regional Escalation: Iran Appears to Be Pre-Empting the US’ Attack Strategy
By Robert Inlakesh | Palestine Chronicle | July 15, 2026
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.
Military expert: The battle of Ali al-Tahir heights will be costly for Israel
Palestinian Information Center – July 6, 2026
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 parliament speaker vows Israel deal ‘will not pass’
The Cradle | June 29, 2026
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.
Iran, Lebanon speakers agree trilateral unit to end Israeli aggression
Al Mayadeen | June 28, 2026
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri have affirmed their commitment to halting the ongoing Israeli aggression during a phone call, with Ghalibaf emphasizing that ending the war on Lebanon while safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity remains a fundamental pillar of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding.
Ghalibaf reasserted that Iran’s firm objective is to halt the war, secure the return of the displaced, bring an end to the occupation, and force the total withdrawal of the Zionist entity from Lebanese territory.
He emphasized that ending the war on Lebanon, while safeguarding the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, remains a fundamental pillar of the first clause of the Islamabad memorandum of understanding.
Addressing diplomatic frameworks, Ghalibaf noted that the recent talks in Switzerland produced an agreement to establish a trilateral conflict management unit comprising Iran, the United States, and Lebanon.
According to Iranian television, both speakers stressed the urgency of convening this conflict management unit as soon as possible to effectively control and terminate the war.
Berri warns of Zionist efforts to circumvent Lebanese sovereignty
For his part, Speaker Berri welcomed the Swiss outcomes, stating they directly serve the interests of the Lebanese people. However, he warned that the Zionist enemy is actively attempting to circumvent the restoration of Lebanon’s full sovereignty.
Berri fiercely condemned the alternative Washington framework between Lebanon and the Zionist entity, describing the agreement as a “dangerous conspiracy” and a “deliberate plot to ignite internal strife.”
His remarks reflect deep concerns in Beirut about US-led efforts to bypass Lebanon’s legitimate institutions and impose arrangements that would undermine the country’s sovereignty.
Context: Implementation of the Islamabad memorandum
The Islamabad memorandum of understanding, signed between Iran and the United States on June 18, provides for the cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.
The agreement has been a source of contention, with Israeli officials reportedly acknowledging that it represents a “catastrophe and strategic defeat” for the occupation state.
The trilateral conflict management unit is intended to ensure the implementation of the ceasefire provisions in Lebanon and to prevent further escalation.
However, continued Israeli violations and the alternative Washington framework threaten to undermine the agreement, highlighting the fragility of the diplomatic process.
How The Israel/Lebanon Deal Destroys Lebanese Sovereignty And The MoU With Iran
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 28, 2026
On Friday, Israel and the Lebanese government signed a deal brokered by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that essentially gives Lebanese sovereignty away to Israel and destroys the MoU with Iran.
The End Of Lebanese Sovereignty
The deal, as Benjamin Netanyahu boasted, is “a historic achievement for Israel” because it allows Israel to hold, “a security zone in Lebanon for as long as is needed for Israeli security”, (ie continue the occupation of South Lebanon).
Israel Channel 12 reported that , “The Lebanese government requested from Washington not to publish the secret security annex within the framework agreement with ‘Israel’” which “stipulates a clear commitment from both parties that any step will not be implemented according to timelines but according to conditions” and that “The framework agreement stipulates freedom of operation inside the ‘Blue Line’ against immediate and emerging threats”.
Furthermore, Israeli media reports that within the security annex to the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement, “Israel does not only have to confirm the pilot locations – the IDF will also enter the areas it withdrew from to verify that the Lebanese army has indeed dismantled Hezbollah’s infrastructure on the ground.”
In other words, according to the deal, Israel is allowed to occupy areas of South Lebanon with no timetable to withdraw, and is able to enter areas of Lebanon to “verify that the Lebanese army has indeed dismantled Hezbollah’s infrastructure on the ground”.
As the analysist Elijah J. Magnier noted , under the agreement, “Israel keeps the power to decide when it feels secure enough to withdraw, the United States presents itself as mediator while acting as Israel’s strategic protector, and Lebanon is asked to implement security obligations that its own political and social reality may not allow.”
He added, “The most dangerous feature is the absence of a clear timetable for full Israeli withdrawal. Netanyahu has made clear that Israel will remain in southern Lebanon, in its security or buffer zones, until Hezbollah disarms and until Israel judges that the threat to its citizens has been removed. This makes Israel not merely a party to the agreement, but the judge of Lebanese compliance. It gives Israel the authority to decide whether Hezbollah has been sufficiently disarmed, whether the Lebanese army has done enough, whether the threat has disappeared, and therefore whether Israel should withdraw. That is not sovereignty. It is conditional sovereignty under Israeli review.”
Furthermore, as Lebanese journalist Rania Khalek reported , within the published deal , “Point 2 stipulates that Israeli withdrawal is contingent on the Lebanese Army first disarming Hezbollah, meaning civil war. This flips international law on its head. Israel’s occupation is illegal whether Hezbollah exists or not. The agreement states: ‘the LAF will restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of associated infrastructure, enabling the IDF to progressively redeploy out of Lebanese territory.’ By agreeing to disarm Hezbollah first, with the markers for ‘verified disarmament’ yet to be determined by the U.S., the Lebanese government has cemented the occupation of the south.”.
An anchor on the Israeli channel 13 boasted, “It seems we’re leading the state of Lebanon towards civil war. Maybe it’s not so bad for us. Let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah”.
Furthermore, Rania Khalek noted, “Point 13 demonstrates shocking incompetence as it gives up Lebanon’s right to ‘hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.’ That means the Lebanese government agreed to forfeit using the law against Israel for the endless list of war crimes they’ve committed against Lebanon. It’s wild that this is coming from a government whose Prime Minister was a judge on the International Court of Justice and presided over South Africa’s case on the genocide in Gaza.”
The End Of The MoU
Aside from giving up Lebanese Sovereignty to Israel and the United States, it destroys the U.S.-signed MoU with Iran, which includes an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
Point one of the MoU reads , “The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this MoU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”
But as Elijah J. Magnier noted, “The Washington framework effectively empties paragraph 1 of the US-Iran MOU of its meaning. That paragraph required an end to the war, respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty, and Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory. The new framework replaces that obligation with a conditional mechanism: Israel withdraws only when it decides that Hezbollah has been disarmed and the threat has disappeared. In other words, Netanyahu has turned an Israeli duty to withdraw into a Lebanese obligation to prove itself under Israeli supervision.”
Iran has stayed strong in stating that an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon is a red line in the future of the MoU.
Iran Press TV reports that during a call between Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said, “Our goal is to end the war in Lebanon, [help] return of refugees to their homes, end the occupation and [secure] withdrawal of the Zionist regime from Lebanese territory” and “reiterated Iran’s seriousness in pursuing the issue.”
According to Press TV, both speakers of parliament agreed that the Israel/Lebanon deal was in violation of the MoU. The report noted:
The Lebanese parliament speaker warned that the Zionist enemy seeks to circumvent the issue related to Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under the Islamabad MoU through alternative means.
Berri described the Washington-brokered agreement between Lebanon and the Israeli regime as a conspiracy and sedition.
The Iranian and Lebanese parliament speakers emphasized the need for an early meeting of the deconfliction unit to help oversee implementation of the Islamabad-brokered MoU and end the war in Lebanon.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has similarly reiterated that an unconditional Israel withdrawal from South Lebanon is crucial to the future of the MoU.
Press TV reported, “He reiterated Iran’s longstanding position on Lebanon’s sovereignty, saying the Islamic Republic considers the protection of Lebanon’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, along with safeguarding the dignity and security of all Lebanese citizens, to be a fundamental prerequisite for any sustainable agreement aimed at ending the war and Israel’s military presence in the country.”
It added:
He also emphasized that Tehran had placed an end to Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon alongside the termination of hostilities against Iran as one of its principal demands and has consistently insisted on the implementation of those commitments.
The Iranian spokesman further stated that the full implementation of the first provision of the memorandum—which calls for ending Israeli attacks against Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all occupied Lebanese territories—is essential for reaching a final and lasting agreement capable of restoring stability to the region.
Referring to the United States’ explicit commitment under the first provision of the June 18 memorandum, Baghaei urged Washington to take all necessary measures to compel Israel to halt all acts of aggression and military offensives across Lebanese territory.
He also called for the prompt establishment of a timetable for Israel’s unconditional withdrawal from the occupied areas of Lebanon, saying that such a step is necessary for the successful implementation of the agreement and the achievement of durable peace and security.
The remarks came after Israel and Lebanon signed a 14-point framework agreement in Washington aimed at ending hostilities and addressing long-standing security issues along their shared border.
US-backed deal with Israel has ‘no legitimacy’, top Lebanese cleric warns
Press TV – June 27, 2026
Lebanon’s Grand Ja’afari Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Qabalan has taken a swipe at the US-sponsored framework agreement between the Beirut government and the Tel Aviv regime, saying that the deal is not legitimate.
“There is no legitimacy for the agreement between the incumbent Lebanese government and the occupying regime,” Sheikh Qabalan said.
He added, “The dangerous point is that the framework (agreement) gives the Zionist army practical guardianship over the activities of the Lebanese army and the occupied Lebanese territories.”
The prominent Lebanese Shia cleric noted that the agreement means tacit recognition of the Israeli military’s dominance over the occupied territories of Lebanon.
“What was agreed upon between the current Lebanese government and the terrorist Israeli regime under the supervision of the evil America is the worst national disaster that Lebanon has ever witnessed,” he noted.
Sheikh Qabalan further argued that “with such an approach, the current Lebanese government only represents itself and not the Lebanese people.”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Friday that a framework agreement had been established between Lebanon and Israel, characterizing the deal as an initial step in what he referred to as a “challenging journey.”
Rubio said that the agreement would create a legal basis for negotiations between the two parties, adding that “this is merely the beginning of the beginning,” and that “there remains a lengthy path ahead for Lebanon and Israel.”
Yechiel Leiter, the Israeli envoy to the United States, said the framework signifies that “the pathway to peace between Israel and Lebanon is open.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the agreement as a significant accomplishment for the occupying regime.
Netanyahu stated that Israel would prevent Lebanese citizens or Hezbollah resistance fighters from returning to the security belt area under Israeli control, insisting that Israel would continue to occupy regions of southern Lebanon until “Hezbollah is disarmed.”
Israeli Hebrew-language Channel 12 reported that a senior Israeli official referred to the agreement with the Lebanese government as a “remarkable achievement for Israel.”
The Lebanese Embassy in the United States also asserted that the execution of the framework agreement with Israel will commence with the withdrawal of Israeli troops from two designated pilot areas in southern Lebanon, followed by the deployment of the Lebanese army in those regions.
In a statement released after the signing ceremony held in Washington, which marked the conclusion of the fifth round of discussions between Beirut and Tel Aviv, the embassy clarified that the agreement “stipulates the implementation of arrangements in two pilot areas, which include an Israeli withdrawal, the deployment of the Lebanese army, and the disarmament of non-state armed groups.”
It added that these preliminary actions represent “the initial step towards a gradual and comprehensive withdrawal from all Lebanese territory, ensuring complete respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty.”
The embassy also said that the agreement was reached “under the leadership of President Joseph Aoun, in collaboration with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and through the coordinated efforts of Lebanon’s constitutional institutions.”
Thus, Lebanon has embarked on “a sovereign path founded on dialogue rather than conflict,” the statement concluded.
Washington agreement ‘will not pass’: MP Fadlallah
Al Mayadeen | June 26, 2026
The current Lebanese government lacks both constitutional and consensual legitimacy and is in no position to impose its will on the country, a senior Hezbollah parliamentarian said on Thursday, rejecting the framework agreement signed in Washington and dismissed its enforceability on the ground.
In a phone interview with Al Mayadeen following the signing of a framework agreement between Lebanese authorities and “Israel”, Fadlallah called on the Lebanese authorities to “withdraw from the direct negotiation path” and to rescind “all decisions taken against the Lebanese people” in that context.
He dismissed as “baseless” reports suggesting that Lebanon’s position had been formulated in meetings between himself, Major General Hassan Choucair, and Brigadier General André Rahal. He added that what had been circulated “contradicted what was communicated to relevant officials in the Lebanese state” regarding Hezbollah’s rejection of direct talks.
‘Do not rush to deliver good news to your people’: Fadlallah to Netanyahu
Fadlallah addressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly, telling him: “Do not rush to deliver good news to your people.”
He stated that Netanyahu was effectively “negotiating with himself,” describing the current Lebanese government as “constitutionally and consensually illegitimate” and “incapable of imposing dictates.”
“This administration will not be able to enforce the agreement signed in Washington unless it resorts, with US support, to a civil war,” Fadlallah said.
He characterized the Washington deal as “an attempt to derail the Islamabad track” and insisted that “without the resistance, nothing will pass,” vowing that Hezbollah “will not allow the authorities to destroy Lebanon” nor “surrender the country’s fate” to them.
“The important factor is the battlefield, and we own the battlefield; we are the people of the land,” he said.
Iran will not sign any agreement before full Israeli withdrawal
On Iran, Fadlallah stated that Tehran’s position “is clear” and that it “will not sign any agreement before an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon,” asserting the Lebanese government has given a “gift” to “Israel” that “will have no effect on the ground.”
The lawmaker warned that Hezbollah would “confront any government measure” and would “cling more” to its resistance and its weapons. He affirmed that the group’s opposition is “serious” and would not allow the authorities to “implement their commitments on the ground.”
Addressing Hezbollah’s continued participation in the cabinet, Fadlallah said: “The presence of our ministers in the government has its own calculations, and our presence in it does not mean we approve of its decisions.”
He argued that direct talks with “Israel” violate Article 52 of the constitution, adding: “No individual has the right to cancel the state of hostility toward Israel.”
Fadlallah also stressed that Hezbollah seeks no confrontation with the national army, saying: “We do not want any clash with our national army, which is carrying out its duties to the fullest, and the army will remain, the resistance will remain, and the people will remain.”
He concluded with a direct message to Netanyahu: “You have reached an agreement with one who possesses nothing. The state of hostility toward Israel will remain, and whoever shakes hands with the enemy is complicit in its crimes.”
The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally
By Martin Jay | Strategic Culture Foundation | June 25, 2026
The unintended consequences of Trump’s Iran Deal are too many to list. Chief among them is that Trump’s own buffoonery has injected cash and power into the regime in Iran that it could only have previously dreamt of. But the “unconditional surrender” deal has also probably destroyed the petrodollar – leading, most likely, to a faster demise of the US as what was once called a “superpower”, or even sometimes the superpower. Trump’s idiotic outburst of “unconditional surrender” is, of course, the greatest irony of the entire fiasco, given that it is Trump who is on his knees and has given Iran so much simply to open the Straits of Hormuz, simply to bring down the global price of oil.
Yet what happens now in the region, both to Israel and the GCC countries? For Israel, many leading commentators like Alistair Crooke claim that its people are in a state of shock and that it will take some time before they wake up after the party the night before and realise that things got a little out of hand and that a certain process of cleaning up and repair needs to take place. Crooke and others even go further and believe that Israel can no longer continue to indulge itself in the delusional notion of ’Greater Israel’ – i.e. having regional ambitions of hegemony beyond its borders – and needs to recalibrate its goals, starting with the admission that it is not winning its war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. There is a general consensus among analysts that most Israelis are in a state of shock about how the war in Iran was lost, how America itself didn’t and couldn’t deliver on its military promises, and how even the IDF is no match for Hezbollah. This will take some time for them to sink in – that Israel has simply overstretched itself both politically and militarily, and that the reality is that it is in a deep hole and perhaps a solution might be to stop digging.
But a period of sombreness and solace is hardly what Netanyahu has in mind, and it is likely now that he will become a silent enemy of Trump, who needs him to stop fighting in Lebanon. This relationship between Washington and Israel will also come under strain and enter a new period of saliency, which might briefly mean Congress voting to withhold Israel’s funding, to remind Bibi and his coalition partners who really is the superpower (to coin Bill Clinton’s comment once in the White House when Bibi attended a press conference).
What is perhaps even more worrying is the region and how America now retreats. It is inconceivable that US forces will return to the dozen or so military bases in the Gulf, as it is unthinkable that those elites will keep the cash flowing into Wall Street. Indeed, a bundle of $3 trillion USD which Saudi Arabia and the UAE had earmarked for the US AI sector will now not make it, as those countries no longer have the cash flow in their economies, with hotels in Dubai only catering to about 10 percent capacity. Trump’s war literally sent missiles to these new economies, and the Donald cannot complain now that this cash will not make it to the US.
Yet remarkably, Trump is still dreaming. He is still delusional about who he is and what America currently is, and seems to be stuck with his own ideas which feel like they’re from the 1970s rather than 2026. What we are witnessing in the Middle East is the beginning of the end. The loss of the petrodollar and the GCC countries with their fast cash feels like the first domino falling for the old empire, while Trump obsesses with tiny minutiae details which take up time posting on social media late at night. In the last days of the Roman Empire, its emperor was said to have been concerned about “Rome” – but this was not a reference to a crumbling civilisation, but to his pet chicken of the same name. When we see the puerile, juvenile row between the diminutive Georgia Meloni and Trump, there is a sense of déjà vu with Rome. A row on X which Meloni keeps alive for days might be seen as incongruous to the bigger picture of the US and EU falling into the abyss, with the EU being such a dog’s breakfast that even bankrupt Britain wouldn’t even want to re-join it now, despite most Brits in polls conceding Brexit was a failure.
The recent comments by the Saudi foreign minister might signal that KSA and the UAE are looking for a completely different defence set-up which might actually bypass the US altogether. Other countries like Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt are stepping forward and taking on the challenge by themselves, while leading the anti-Israel doctrine. It is rumoured that Bibi complained to Trump recently about Turkey’s tough talking, but Trump told him to forget about even thinking about hitting the NATO country, as it is simply out of Israel’s league – or words to that effect. But Turkey is the new enemy of Israel. That ball has been rolling for some time.
