Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

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.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Iran, Lebanon speakers agree trilateral unit to end Israeli aggression

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.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on How The Israel/Lebanon Deal Destroys Lebanese Sovereignty And The MoU With Iran

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.

June 27, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , | Comments Off on US-backed deal with Israel has ‘no legitimacy’, top Lebanese cleric warns

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.”

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , | Comments Off on Washington agreement ‘will not pass’: MP Fadlallah

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.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Middle East is wringing its hands of Washington. Finally

‘Israel not party to US-Iran talks, will continue full operations in Lebanon,’ Israeli far-right minister says

MEMO | June 23, 2026

Israel is not part of the negotiations between the US and Iran and will continue its offensive on Lebanon until Hezbollah is “fully dismantled,” not just disarmed, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said.

Smotrich, a far-right extremist member of Israel’s security cabinet, made the remarks Tuesday morning in an interview with Israeli Army Radio.

“Israel is not part of the negotiating talks with Iran by choice,” he said, adding: “We will not hold talks with the devil.”

“We are not a party to the negotiations between the United States and Iran, and they do not concern us at all,” Smotrich said.

“We will continue operating in Lebanon fully,” he added.

“The Israeli army will not withdraw from the security zone in Lebanon, including the Beaufort Castle, as long as Hezbollah exists,” he said.

“We will not withdraw not only until Hezbollah gives up its weapons, but until it is fully dismantled,” he continued.

“We do not only want Hezbollah to be stripped of its weapons, but to be fully dismantled, not be part of the government in Lebanon, and not have any military force that threatens Israel,” he said.

The remarks come amid growing disputes within Israeli political and security circles over a memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran and their possible implications for ending the war on the Lebanese front.

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz and army chief Eyal Zamir vowed in a joint statement to continue controlling the “security zone” in southern Lebanon, despite the memorandum of understanding signed between the US and Iran, which calls for respecting Lebanon’s unity and territorial integrity.

“The [army] will continue to act decisively to thwart threats to our soldiers and civilians, destroy terror infrastructure, and continue maintaining the security zone in southern Lebanon,” according to the statement.

“The security of Israel’s civilians and IDF troops will continue to remain before their eyes without compromise,” it added.

Israel received a message from the US in recent weeks that “the previous authorization for unrestricted action in Lebanon had expired,” Israel’s Channel 13 quoted an unnamed senior Israeli official Monday.

The Hebrew newspaper Maariv also reported Monday that there are differences between the US and Israel over the Lebanon file.

It also reported growing differences between the US and Israel over the Lebanese file, saying Washington views southern Lebanon within a broader regional framework linked to the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices, the Iranian nuclear issue and the Trump administration’s pursuit of a diplomatic achievement.

In contrast, Israel believes that any early withdrawal from southern Lebanon could be interpreted as a sign of weakness and a reward for the Hezbollah group.

Israel and Lebanon are set to hold a fifth round of direct negotiations in Washington on Tuesday. The upcoming talks follow four previous rounds between the two sides that began in April as part of a track aimed at ending the Israeli war in Lebanon.

The US-mediated negotiations come as criticism grows inside Israel over Washington handling of talks with Iran and Hezbollah.

Israeli news site i24NEWS, citing Israeli officials, said Tel Aviv fears that an agreement between the US and Iran could strengthen Tehran and its allies in the region.

Israeli attacks in Lebanon have killed more than 4,100 people and injured over 12,000 others since March 2, according to official Lebanese figures.

Israel continues to occupy areas in southern Lebanon, some held for decades and others seized during the 2023–2024 war.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on ‘Israel not party to US-Iran talks, will continue full operations in Lebanon,’ Israeli far-right minister says

First round of Swiss-hosted Iran-US talks ends with 5 key agreements

Al Mayadeen | June 22, 2026

Following the conclusion of the first round of the Iran-US talks in Switzerland on Monday, the media committee of the Iranian negotiating delegation issued a statement outlining the main points and understandings reached during the talks.

The Bürgenstock talks outline a phased framework linking security arrangements, financial measures, and sanctions relief to conditional implementation steps.

Key developments include a Lebanon ceasefire monitoring mechanism, structured communication over the Strait of Hormuz, coordinated asset release arrangements, and temporary sanctions relief measures tied to energy exports.

Lebanon ceasefire monitoring mechanism

According to the statement, continued pressure from the Iranian negotiating delegation since Saturday afternoon contributed to maintaining a fragile ceasefire in Lebanon for the time being.

To support stabilization efforts, the parties agreed to establish a monitoring framework titled the “Conflict Control Unit.” Iran is expected to participate in this mechanism, which will oversee developments related to the ceasefire.

The statement further noted that this arrangement would formally integrate the Islamic Republic of Iran into Lebanon’s security-related discussions, despite US efforts in recent months to exclude Iran from Lebanese affairs. It also stated that “Israel” will have no role in this mechanism.

Strait of Hormuz communication channel

Regarding discussions on the Strait of Hormuz, the statement said an understanding was reached to establish a communication channel aimed at addressing potential implementation issues.

Through this channel, relevant parties would be able to directly contact Iran and present concerns related to maritime coordination and regional navigation.

It characterized this arrangement as part of broader discussions on the management and gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Conditional launch of nuclear and sanctions working groups

The agreement also includes the formation of three working groups focused on nuclear issues, sanctions, and monitoring mechanisms.

These groups are set to begin their work only after the implementation of Article 13 of the memorandum of understanding, which outlines several key steps, including:

Iran will not enter the final phase of negotiations before these conditions are fulfilled.

Iran–Qatar agreement on frozen assets

During the same round of talks, Iran and Qatar signed a memorandum of understanding concerning the release of Iranian frozen assets. The agreement is presented as part of ongoing financial and diplomatic coordination between the two sides regarding outstanding economic issues.

US OFAC 60-day sanctions suspension

The statement also referenced documents issued by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) during the negotiations.

According to the statement, these documents provide for a 60-day suspension of sanctions targeting oil, petrochemical, and related sectors. This arrangement would allow Iran to resume oil sales to its customers and receive payments through formal mechanisms managed by the Central Bank, the statement explained.

Bilateral and trilateral meetings at Bürgenstock resort

Al Mayadeen’s Geneva Bureau chief reported on Sunday that various bilateral and trilateral meetings have begun at the Bürgenstock resort ahead of the first official session of Iran-US talks. The opening session took place at 2:30 PM al-Quds time.

The first file discussed after the inaugural session was the implementation of the first clause, which relates to ending the war, particularly on Lebanon.

Al Mayadeen’s Geneva bureau chief later reported that the Iranian delegation held talks with the Qatari delegation in Geneva to discuss the ceasefire in Lebanon. He also reported that, following a meeting with the Iranian delegation, the Pakistani Prime Minister and Chief of Army Staff held talks with the US delegation, headed by Vice President JD Vance.

According to an Iranian official, speaking to CNN on Saturday, before departing for Switzerland, Vance said that one of the top concerns included in the talks would be to make progress towards a ceasefire in Lebanon. “I think we’re going to hopefully make progress on the nuclear issue, make progress on the Lebanon ceasefire issue. Those are the two big things that I think we’re going to be focused on,” the US vice president told reporters, noting that he expected to participate in the talks for only “a day or two”.

June 22, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on First round of Swiss-hosted Iran-US talks ends with 5 key agreements

IRAN WALKS OUT ON PEACE DEAL DUE TO TRUMP’S THREATS – w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi

Mario Nawfal | June 21, 2026

June 21, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on IRAN WALKS OUT ON PEACE DEAL DUE TO TRUMP’S THREATS – w/ Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi

Hezbollah lawmaker says Israel has 60 days to withdraw from Lebanon

MEMO | June 19, 2026

Mohammad Raad, head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, said Israel has 60 days to complete its withdrawal from Lebanese territory, urging Lebanese authorities to study the understanding signed between the United States and Iran “carefully and objectively”.

In a statement issued on Thursday, Raad made the remarks as Israel continues its military actions and maintains its presence in areas it occupies in southern Lebanon.

He noted that the first clause of the agreement signed between Tehran and Washington calls, in part, for the “immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”.

The agreement also includes a commitment to “guarantee Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty” and confirms a “permanent end to the war on all fronts” in its final form.

On Wednesday evening, US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian electronically signed the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding”, which aims to end the war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran on 28th February.

A Pakistani mediator later announced that the memorandum had entered into force. Under the arrangement, Iran is expected to begin reopening the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, while the United States starts lifting its naval blockade on Tehran.

Raad called on Lebanese authorities to “read the text of the memorandum carefully and objectively and draw conclusions about the realities and prospects that will have a significant impact on the region and the world, including Lebanon”.

He also warned against “underestimating Iran’s ability to fulfil its commitment to deter the Zionist enemy should it insist on violating the terms of the memorandum”, according to the statement.

June 19, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Hezbollah lawmaker says Israel has 60 days to withdraw from Lebanon

Syria, Lebanon, and the limits of power

By Bassam Abu Abdallah | The Cradle | June 19, 2026

Remarks by US President Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News earlier this month, in which he said he would like to see “a more precise surgical attack on Hezbollah” and suggested that Syria’s Ahmad al-Sharaa (formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani) could play a role in reaching an agreement over the conflict in Lebanon, have revived a familiar question across the region.

Trump later escalated his rhetoric, saying that if Israel “can’t do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job.” Describing the war on Lebanon as a secondary front, he suggested that Syria, in coordination with the US, could take on Hezbollah if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could not be reined in.

Whenever the region enters a period of major change, the same issue resurfaces. Can Syria once again play a direct security or military role in Lebanon, as it did in 1976?

The comparison is tempting on the surface. It invites parallels between the current leadership in Damascus and the late president Hafez al-Assad, who sent Syrian forces into Lebanon during the civil war. Yet even a brief look at the surrounding conditions suggests that the resemblance is largely superficial.

Trump himself did not clarify what form of assistance he had in mind. The possibilities range from border control and curbing smuggling routes to a broader attempt to pressure Hezbollah.

An old question returns

Similar ideas have surfaced before. In a July 2025 interview with The National, US envoy Tom Barrack warned that Lebanon faced an “existential threat” if it failed to address Hezbollah’s weapons, adding that “if Lebanon doesn’t move, it’s going to be Bilad Al Sham [Greater Syria] again.”

In March, Reuters reported that Washington had encouraged Syria to consider sending forces into eastern Lebanon to help disarm Hezbollah, a claim later denied by Barrack. The episode nevertheless fueled speculation about a possible Syrian role in Lebanon.

The responses from Sharaa’s government, however, have remained cautious and indirect. Sharaa has expressed support for Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s efforts to consolidate arms under state authority, while recent exchanges with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have emphasized coordination between military and security institutions in both countries.

Syria’s self-appointed president and former Al-Qaeda chief Ahmad al-Sharaa dismissed reports that Syrian forces could enter Lebanon as “rumors.”

At the same time, periodic announcements from Syrian authorities about dismantling alleged Hezbollah-linked cells have been interpreted by some observers as signals aimed at Washington, suggesting readiness to engage if political backing is secured. Whether this reflects a concrete agreement or simply an attempt to keep options open remains unclear.

What is clear is that the renewed discussion comes at a moment when broader regional balances are in flux, particularly after the collapse of the previous Syrian order. The question is not whether Syria once intervened in Lebanon, but whether the conditions that made that intervention possible still exist.

1976 and the architecture of intervention

By the time Syrian forces entered Lebanon in 1976, the civil war had pushed the state to the brink. Importantly, the intervention took shape within a web of regional bargains and international understandings, rather than a unilateral move by Damascus.

The move was carried out at the request of the Lebanese president at the time, Suleiman Frangieh, and was supported by influential Lebanese actors who feared a decisive shift in the internal balance of power. It also aligned with broader concerns shared by regional and international players who were wary of Lebanon descending into total disorder.

Accounts in both western and Arab sources point to quiet understandings between the US, Saudi Arabia, and France that gave Syria space to act as a stabilizing force. The objective was about containing a crisis that risked spilling beyond Lebanon and unsettling the wider region.

The intervention was later formalized through the Arab Deterrent Forces (ADF), which provided a measure of regional legitimacy under the umbrella of the Arab League. This layer of political cover mattered as much as the military dimension.

Equally important was the nature of the Syrian state itself at the time. Syria in 1976 was a cohesive political entity with functioning institutions and a professional army that ranked among the largest in the region. Assad’s leadership carried both domestic and international recognition, reinforced by the aftermath of the 1973 war.

From Assad’s perspective, Lebanon was not a distant arena but an extension of its own security environment. The prospect of a hostile force dominating Lebanon was treated as a direct threat to Syrian national security.

Even so, the intervention was not without tension. The Soviet Union, Syria’s principal ally, expressed reservations, reflecting its own alignment with other forces inside Lebanon. Assad nevertheless proceeded, guided by his assessment of Syria’s strategic interests.

The ability to make such a decision rested on a combination of factors: a stable state, a centralized leadership, a disciplined army, regional acceptance, and working relationships with key Arab actors. Together, these elements created a framework that made intervention both possible and, for a time, sustainable.

A different Syria

None of these conditions applies in the same way today. The current leadership in Damascus operates from a transitional position, still seeking to consolidate authority within a country deeply affected by years of conflict.

There is no broad national consensus over the future political order, and the institutional framework remains incomplete. Legislative bodies and representative structures that might anchor political legitimacy are either absent or still in formation. External backing, whether from the US, Turkiye, Qatar, or others, does not substitute for internal acceptance.

Experience suggests that states cannot rely on external recognition alone to secure stability. Durable governance depends on a social contract that reflects a degree of consensus among citizens. In Syria’s case, that process is ongoing and far from settled.

The challenges facing the current authority are primarily internal. Rebuilding state institutions, addressing economic collapse, and managing the social consequences of prolonged conflict all demand sustained attention. Large segments of the population continue to face economic hardship, while public services and infrastructure remain under strain.

The divisions forged during the war have not receded. Political, social, and sectarian fault lines still cut across the country. In this context, the priority remains consolidation at home, not projection abroad.

A leadership still working to establish its authority is unlikely to commit to a regional role that would require resources, cohesion, and legitimacy it has yet to secure.

The question of the military 

The structure and character of the military institution further complicate the picture. The Syrian army that entered Lebanon in 1976 was a regular force with a defined command structure and a coherent doctrine.

Today’s military formations are the product of a long, fragmented war. At their core are factions that once operated as distinct armed groups – among them elements that emerged from or overlapped with networks such as the Nusra Front and other Salafi extremist currents, alongside local militias and foreign fighters folded in over time. Efforts to weld these strands into a single national army remain partial and uneven.

Questions also persist regarding leadership structures, external affiliations, and the presence of foreign fighters within certain units. These factors have drawn scrutiny from international actors and have been reflected in sanctions targeting individuals linked to these formations.

Reports of violations during operations along Syria’s coast and in Suwayda have kept questions of accountability and discipline alive. That record complicates attempts to present these formations as a cohesive national army capable of assuming a wider regional role.

Without a unified command structure and broad public confidence, the military lacks the foundation required for sustained operations beyond Syria’s borders.

Lebanon without an invitation

The Lebanese context has also changed in fundamental ways. In 1976, Syria’s intervention was facilitated by internal Lebanese dynamics, including a formal request from the presidency and support from key political forces.

Today, there is no comparable call for Syrian involvement. Across the political spectrum, Lebanese actors tend to view the period of Syrian tutelage as a chapter they do not wish to revisit, regardless of their differing positions on Hezbollah or regional alignments.

The absence of a domestic Lebanese consensus is matched by a lack of regional endorsement. No major Arab state is advocating for a renewed Syrian military role in Lebanon, and the political environment offers little space for such a move.

Regional risks and the Turkish factor

Another variable that did not exist in 1976 is the extent of Turkish involvement in Syria. Ankara’s presence adds a layer of complexity to any potential Syrian move beyond its borders.

Any Syrian move into Lebanon would run straight into Turkish red lines, Iranian interests, and Hezbollah’s own calculations. What begins as a limited step risks quickly widening, pulling in actors who are already embedded across the same theater.

The prospect of Syrian forces entering Lebanon could also deepen sectarian tensions, extending beyond Lebanon into Syria and Iraq. In an already volatile environment, such a development would be difficult to contain.

If the equation shifts

The equation has already begun to shift. Washington and Tehran have signed an interim memorandum that freezes the conflict and opens the door to wider negotiations. Whether that process produces a lasting settlement or merely a temporary pause remains unclear, but the assumptions that governed the region before the agreement are already being tested.

Such a shift would likely alter priorities across multiple arenas, including Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The emphasis could move from confrontation to managing balances of influence, reducing the relevance of some of the initiatives that emerged during periods of heightened tension.

In that context, the role of actors such as Hezbollah would be recalibrated within a different strategic environment, one where stability takes precedence over escalation.

Limits of power

Comparisons between 1976 and the present miss how far the ground has shifted. That intervention rested on a particular convergence of internal strength, regional acceptance, and international cover.

Syria today sits in a different position. Questions of legitimacy, institutional reconstruction, economic recovery, and social cohesion remain unresolved. The regional environment has also changed, with little appetite for a renewed Syrian role in Lebanon.

The question of intervention is not about intent alone. It turns on power, resources, and the condition of the state itself.

From that perspective, the more pressing question is not whether Damascus can re-enter Lebanon, but whether it has fully reconstituted itself at home.

As the familiar political saying goes, those who have yet to put their own house in order are unlikely to reorganize the neighborhood around them.

The debate, in the end, returns to a simple constraint: power is bounded by geography.

June 19, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Syria, Lebanon, and the limits of power

How Multipolarity Forced Trump to Capitulate… For Now

By Eric Striker • Unz Review • June 19, 2026

When describing Donald Trump’s new Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, Foreign Policy magazine summarized the seeming end to the war as a “bigger defeat than Vietnam.”

This negation of American militarism has been felt strongest in Israel, where the Jewish state’s executors in Jerusalem and Washington/New York are throwing a fit. JD Vance, thrown in front of the cameras to own the administration’s retreat before their masters, is now openly telling the furious Jewish-American press “Trump is your [Israel] only ally left in the world.”

Has the White House had enough of Jewish domination of its policies? Is the pause in fighting Iran, which through Persian and Shia tenacity has significantly risen the bar for any continuation of hostilities, permanent?

Not so fast.

Passengers pulling the emergency break on the runaway train should not be seen as a change of guard, but rather a hard check placed on the Jewish domination of Washington DC by the combined forces of several major regional actors the American empire relies on to project power on behalf of Israel.

Forcing America to halt a war it was clearly losing and go to the negotiating table took Turkey (NATO’s second largest army), Pakistan (a nuclear power), the Gulf States (hosts of US CENTCOM with $2 trillion dollars parked in American foreign direct investment) and Egypt to pool their immense lobbying and diplomatic resources together. They offered an ultimatum: America must pause to reconsider its pursuit of Israel’s maximalist objective of conquering Iran and breaking it up into multiple rump states or they will form a new power bloc of their own to deal with this problem. As the American empire declines, multipolarity — which is bringing about the genesis of regional power blocs beyond the familiar Chinese, Iranian and Russian alliance — flexed its bicep.

Even as the administration realized it had no choice but to cave under the pressure exerted by the united front of its growing list of disgruntled associates, Trump audaciously demanded they first sign the Abraham Accords embracing Israel before any Iran negotiations began. The exasperated Muslim states responded with a resounding “No!”

This reaction, equal parts panicked and assertive, is a consequence of Iran’s unorthodox decision to focus its strategy on taxing the collaborationist Gulf regimes. The war has so far cost Gulf Cooperation Council states $200 billion dollars worth of economic damage, prompting public threats from Arab monarchs being pummeled to pull their trillions of dollars currently helping keep American tech, real estate, and bonds afloat.

In other words, the Saudis, Qataris and Emiratis pay the American empire to protect them, in addition to offering their soil for US bases and playing nice with Israel.

Yet at the height of the conflict, Iran and its allies quickly destroyed the expensive and difficult to replace THAAD network integral to the air defenses of both the Gulf and Israel. During the commotion, America’s Middle East protectorates endured blow after blow from Iranian missiles and drones, and Washington’s response was to anger another one of its client states — South Korea — by hastily moving its THAAD defense systems from East Asia to Jordan in order to better protect Israel, an act of brazen Jewish favoritism.

Working with America used to make one untouchable, but today it paints a bullseye on your country. The United Arab Emirates thought it could hedge against potential Iranian retaliation by allowing Russian billionaires to use Dubai to skirt sanctions, only to be taken aback by the revelation that Putin doesn’t care what the oligarchs think, preferring to help the IRGC in acquiring Gulf targets, including hotels in its fragile and decadent cities where US soldiers thought they were hiding.

The US’ catastrophic failure to keep up its end of the bargain is forcing Gulf planners to begin considering concessions to Iran, such as paying Tehran not to spare them. The GCC has hitched itself to the US-Israeli wagon as a realist acknowledgement that neither Israel or America can be militarily or economically defeated. The Iranians, who have limitless ability to sustain damage and are constantly innovating in the realm of warfare, have now demonstrated that this assumption is false, which will inevitably force a change in calculation from cowardly and cynical regional actors down the road.

With now a year and a half worth of Barak Ravid’s fairy tales alleging that Trump has had enough of Israel and Netanyahu indexed at Axios, nobody believes it anymore. For this reason, the administration is now forced to make a public spectacle of condemning Israel. This is geared at making America’s Muslim friends and foes — who currently have all the leverage — think Washington has the whip hand, when the reality is that Israel and the Jewish-American elite do. This was proven for the umpteenth time when Trump’s recent command for Netanyahu to “stop!” was immediately met by Israeli strikes on Iran and Lebanon.

As expected, Iran has already made good on its side of the bargain. The Strait of Hormuz has been reopened and a global economic depression has been averted. On the other hand, the major concessions from America to Iran highlighted by commentators in the MOU have stipulations deferring them pending further negotiations, like a hundred-dollar bill being pulled by a fishing line. One of the MOU’s major promises, that Israel’s war in South Lebanon is to immediately cease, continues to be flagrantly violated even at the expense of enormous IDF casualties in recent days.

As for planned talks in Switzerland to actualize the terms of the agreement, they are already failing.

It is unclear whether Benjamin Netanyahu, whose post October 7th wars have largely failed to achieve any strategic objectives, will survive electorally, but favorites to replace him like former IDF chief Eisenkot are just as bloodthirsty.

As for Trump, Witkoff and Kushner’s latest “time out” on Iran, they have so far been lulls to recalibrate with the intent of continuing. There’s no reason to believe this time is any different.

June 19, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on How Multipolarity Forced Trump to Capitulate… For Now

Switzerland confirms US-Iran talks planned for Friday are cancelled

Al Mayadeen | June 19, 2026

Talks that had been planned for Friday between the United States and Iran at the Burgenstock mountaintop resort in Switzerland will not take place, according to a Swiss foreign ministry statement.

The announcement came after a White House spokesperson said overnight that US Vice President JD Vance had pulled out of a planned trip to meet Iranian negotiators in Switzerland on Friday to begin talks to implement an agreement struck between Tehran and Washington to end the war.

Vance had been expected to travel to Geneva on Friday to begin technical negotiations on implementing the 14-point agreement reached between Tehran and Washington. However, a White House spokesperson said the visit was called off because arrangements for the talks had not been finalized.

A White House statement detailed that Vance and the US delegation were prepared to depart once arrangements had been finalized. “But the logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable,” the statement added.

Iran seeks implementation before new negotiations

The Iranian negotiating delegation had earlier postponed its trip to Switzerland due to the ongoing Israeli aggression on southern Lebanon, an informed source told Al Mayadeen on Thursday.

According to the source, the delegation had already been preparing to depart Iran and launch the first round of negotiations, scheduled to span 60 days, before the decision to suspend the trip was made.

Tehran had previously informed both Washington and the mediators that the Lebanon file remains a central component of the negotiations and will directly influence whether the talks proceed, the source stated, citing Iranian warnings that continued Israeli aggression extending up to 10 kilometers deep inside Lebanese territory constitutes a clear violation of the first clause of the Memorandum of Understanding and the framework agreement.

What does the MoU include? 

Iran revealed on Thursday the full text of the Memorandum of Understanding, which declares the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, with a final deal to be concluded within 60 days following continued talks.

The US agreed to remove its naval blockade within 30 days, end all sanctions on an agreed schedule, and issue waivers for Iranian oil exports and associated services.

The US also undertakes to release frozen Iranian funds and work with regional partners on a reconstruction plan worth at least $300 billion for Iran.

Iran reaffirmed it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons, with stockpiled enriched material to be resolved via a mutually agreed mechanism under IAEA supervision, while enrichment and other nuclear issues were expected to be discussed in final negotiations.

Israeli aggression continues against Lebanon despite MoU

Despite the agreement, the Israeli occupation has continued its aggression against southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah resistance fighters continue to engage Israeli forces in the town of Kfar Tibnit.

Today at dawn, Israeli bombing on residential areas in southern Lebanon killed and wounded civilians, with casualties reported across several villages in the Nabatieh district.

According to preliminary reports, Israeli airstrikes targeted inhabited homes in the towns of Harouf, Kfar Sir, and al-Sharqiyeh, resulting in several martyrs, injuries, and several missing persons trapped beneath the rubble.

In a separate attack, two civilians were martyred and two others wounded after an Israeli strike targeted the southern town of Qatrani.

The latest attacks come as Israeli occupation forces continue targeting civilians, medical crews, and residential areas across southern Lebanon despite the ceasefire agreement and ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at ending hostilities on all fronts.

Resistance confronts Israeli advance toward Kfar Tibnit

For its part, the Lebanese Resistance confronted an attempted advance by Israeli occupation forces toward the town of Kfar Tibnit overnight Thursday.

Resistance fighters targeted Israeli military vehicles attempting to move toward the town using anti-tank guided missiles and previously prepared ambushes. Several Israeli vehicles were struck during the confrontation, with flames seen rising from some of the targeted vehicles on the outskirts of Kfar Tibnit.

The Resistance affirmed that the Kfar Tibnit–Ali al-Taher area would remain impervious to Israeli incursions and vowed to continue defending Lebanon and its people.

June 19, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Switzerland confirms US-Iran talks planned for Friday are cancelled

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »