Israel kills Lebanese army officers days after declaring ‘no hostile intent’ against Beirut
The Cradle | June 6, 2026
An Israeli airstrike in southern Lebanon on the morning of 6 June killed Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) Brigadier General Martyr Wassim Sabra, Captain Martyr Eli Khoury, and enlisted soldier Hussein Abdul Ali Ghazal.
The LAF issued a statement condemning the “barbaric” attack and said continued Israeli violations will “only increase our steadfastness … to confront these aggressive attempts aimed at thwarting all efforts to reach a solution that allows for the restoration of stability.”
After the attack, the LAF released images showing the aftermath, revealing that the military vehicle was completely destroyed.
The Israeli military claimed the vehicle was “moving suspiciously” in a “combat zone” without “coordination” with Tel Aviv.
“Following the identification, and due to the warning information and the danger to the forces, the vehicle was struck,” the Israeli army said, adding that the operation is “under review.”
Over 30 LAF soldiers have been killed by Israel since 2 March. At least six other people were killed in Israeli strikes across south Lebanon on Saturday
Hezbollah condemned the strike on the Lebanese military vehicle, calling it a “deliberate crime.”
“This is a natural outcome of the state’s disregard for the country’s sovereignty and the blood of its people, alongside its gratuitous concessions—the latest of which was its complete surrender to the enemy’s conditions in Washington,” the Lebanese resistance group stated, extending condolences to the families of the soldiers.
The ongoing Israeli violations of Lebanon’s state institutions are taking place simultaneously with direct negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv, facilitated by Washington.
On Wednesday, both sides issued a statement declaring “no hostile intent” toward one another and agreed to extend the so-called “ceasefire.”
Beirut also agreed to a deal requiring Hezbollah to withdraw from the south Litani area amid ongoing Israeli bombardment and occupation, while not demanding an Israeli withdrawal from the south.
The proposal calls on Hezbollah to end resistance operations in exchange for Israel refraining from strikes on the capital only.
On Friday, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and President Joseph Aoun both issued public statements accusing Iran of “destroying” southern Lebanon and declaring that the war, which has killed more than 3,500 Lebanese and displaced over 1.2 million, is “not ours.”
“If I may address a word to Iran … Have mercy on our south, stop treating it … as merely a bargaining chip to improve the terms of your negotiations … Iran was the very first to reject the ceasefire. This confirms that this war is not ours, it is not being fought for our sake, but rather on our land and at the expense of our people,” Salam said.
“It’s not your country, it’s our country,” Aoun said hours later on 5 June, addressing Iran during an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN.
“You are not trying to help us … the people of Lebanon are paying the price … for the sake of your own interest … Our interests … do not coincide with your interests,” he added, claiming that displaced Lebanese Shias have told him they are “fed up” with “Hezbollah’s war.”
For its part, Hezbollah has vowed to continue fighting until Israel ends its attacks, withdraws from Lebanon, and releases all Lebanese prisoners.
US Military: Who’s Pulling the Strings? /Lt Col Daniel Davis
Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 4, 2026
IRGC: No peace without Israel’s withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territories
Press TV – June 4, 2026
The Islamic Revolution Guards Corps has stated that no peace will be established in the region without the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories in Lebanon, as it condemns ongoing Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.
In a statement issued on the recent events in Lebanon on Thursday, the IRGC declared that international condemnations and expressions of disgust from countries and nations around the world have had no effect on the behavior of Tel Aviv’s “bloodthirsty rulers.”
“The arrogant American regime, under the pretext of establishing peace, has only increased crime and genocide through its interventions,” the statement read.
The IRGC described the Israeli army as “cowardly and incapable,” stating that it tries to compensate for its battlefield defeats by killing civilians and destroying homes, hospitals, and schools.
“This racist regime, despite unlimited support from America and European countries, has not even been able to win the hearts of the people of a single occupied village during its shameful existence,” the statement said.
“Its skill is merely ruling over burned lands, and every day we witness the destruction of the homes of the oppressed people of Palestine and Lebanon at the hands of this aggressor regime,” it further said.
The IRGC asserted that the Lebanese nation will not allow the occupying regime to achieve through a forced agreement what it could not achieve through war, even with the support of the “child-killing American regime.”
“Our primary condition for accepting a ceasefire in the regional war has been a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon,” the statement said.
The IRGC stated that the enemy must urgently halt its attacks on the Lebanese people, immediately withdraw from occupied Lebanese territories back behind international borders, and recognize Lebanon’s territorial integrity.
“The Lebanese nation is the pride of the Ummah and a symbol of the honor of the region’s peoples. We will support them with all our being. No peace will be established in the region without withdrawal from the occupied territories of Lebanon,” it said.
On Monday, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he had ordered strikes on the Dahiyeh area, a predominantly Shia district in Beirut’s southern suburbs, and issued evacuation orders covering the entire area.
In response, Iran’s central military command warned that if Israel carried out its threat to bomb southern Beirut, Iranian forces would retaliate against the northern occupied territories.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry also said Tehran was ready to help Lebanon resist the “illegal aggression,” adding that a Lebanon ceasefire is “an integral part of any ceasefire and any final agreement” with the United States.
Shortly after Iran’s warning, US President Donald Trump said on social media that he had intervened, claiming he had held a “very productive conversation” with Netanyahu that prevented further escalation.
He also said he had reached an understanding with Hezbollah through senior representatives, stating that the resistance group had agreed to halt attacks in exchange for Israel refraining from strikes.
A Pakistan-brokered ceasefire between Tehran and Washington, which also covers Lebanon, has been in place since early April, though Israel has continued carrying out daily attacks on the Arab country in violation of the truce.
Iran has repeatedly said that any ceasefire must be comprehensive, covering all fronts, including Lebanon, and has warned it will not tolerate continued Israeli attacks on the country.
Israeli war chief vows continued strikes on Lebanon as part of ‘conditional’ truce
The Cradle | June 4, 2026
Israeli War Minister Israel Katz vowed on 4 June that Tel Aviv will continue attacking Lebanon and that any truce is conditional on Hezbollah’s withdrawal from the south Litani area, after Beirut announced its acceptance of a framework allowing continued attacks on its country.
The war chief’s comments coincided with continued airstrikes on south Lebanon.
“Any ceasefire in Lebanon remains conditional on the prior removal of Hezbollah elements from the area south of the Litani River,” Katz’s statement read.
He emphasized that Israel “will not” withdraw its troops from south Lebanon, including from the Beaufort Castle, and said residents of the south “will not return at this stage.”
Katz said the Israeli army will remain in what he described as a “security zone” in Lebanon up to the ‘Yellow Line’ area or so-called ‘Forward Defense Line.’
He also claimed that the reality “imposed” by Israel in Lebanon will lead to an agreement that achieves security for the residents of the north “for the first time in 50 years.”
The war minister also stated that, with US backing, Israel reserves the right to carry out strikes, including in Beirut, in response to any rocket fire toward Israeli settlements.
His comments coincided with continued Israeli strikes on south Lebanon.
Israel’s Channel 12 reported that the Israeli army is continuing its operations in Lebanon and has not received any new instructions despite the announced ceasefire understandings.
A series of drone strikes was reported across southern Lebanon on Thursday morning.
An Israeli drone strike targeted a vehicle between the towns of Kfarwa and Zefta. Additional strikes were reported at the Kfar Rumman roundabout near the Al-Aytam station and the Nejda Hospital Road.
Drone strikes also targeted a vehicle near the Nmairiyeh junction, as well as the towns of Shhour and Bastat.
Hezbollah resistance fighters remain present across the areas of south Lebanon that Israel has occupied. Hezbollah said on Thursday that its fighters targeted Israeli troops at the Beaufort Castle at around midnight, and later announced rocket attacks on forces in Qantara and Al-Bayyada.
While speaking to journalists on Thursday, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said that Wednesday’s negotiations were extremely difficult and resumed only after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio intervened, following their suspension by delegation head Simon Karam.
He added that he is awaiting responses from all concerned parties and compliance guarantees, and that implementation could begin within 24 hours of final approval.
Aoun warned that the agreement that has been reached represents the “last” opportunity.
On Wednesday, a new round of US-hosted direct talks between Lebanon and Israel – a violation of Lebanese law – concluded.
After the talks, the US, Israel, and Lebanon announced that they reached an agreement on the implementation of a conditional ceasefire.
According to the joint statement, the arrangement is “contingent” on a complete halt to Hezbollah fire and the withdrawal of all Hezbollah operatives from the area south of the Litani River.
The agreement calls for the creation of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would exercise exclusive control, excluding all non-state actors. The parties said these measures are intended to pave the way toward a broader security and political agreement between Lebanon and Israel.
The statement also outlined plans for continued direct negotiations under US sponsorship, including discussions on a security framework focused on strengthening Lebanese state control, preventing the re-emergence of “armed groups,” and advancing a comprehensive “peace and security” agreement between Israel and Lebanon.
The next round of talks is scheduled for the week of 22 June.
The three governments also condemned Iran’s regional activities, while Israel reiterated that its security requires the disarmament of Hezbollah and the dismantlement of its infrastructure across Lebanon.
Lebanon, for its part, pledged to strengthen the LAF with US support and reaffirmed its commitment to state “sovereignty” and the implementation of the cessation of hostilities.
The statement contains no explicit Israeli commitment to halt attacks on Lebanon. Instead, the proposed ceasefire is conditioned on a complete cessation of Hezbollah fire and the withdrawal of Hezbollah operatives from south of the Litani River.
The arrangement effectively requires Hezbollah to withdraw under continued Israeli fire.
The Lebanese resistance has repeatedly vowed that it will not return to the November 2024 deal or any agreement allowing Israel to attack at will and maintain an occupation in Lebanon. It has yet to officially comment on the deal announced by the US, Lebanon, and Israel.
Hours after reiterating ‘ceasefire’, ‘Israel’ targets car in S.Lebanon
Al Mayadeen | June 4, 2026
An Israeli drone strike targeted a vehicle on the Nmeiriyeh road in the Nabatieh district, injuring three people, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent in southern Lebanon reported early Thursday.
According to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent, an Israeli airstrike targeted the towns of Deir al-Zahrani and Shoukin in the Nabatieh region. Israeli warplanes also targeted al-Mansouri in Tyre.
Another Israeli drone strike hit the Nabatieh–Kfar Reman road, and another targeted a roundabout in the town of Kfar Tebnit.
In Tyre, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that an Israeli drone carried out a strike on the town of Shhour, alongside artillery shelling that targeted the towns of Hanine and Mansouri. Israeli occupation forces also carried out a large-scale detonation on the outskirts of the town of Zawtar al-Sharqiyah.
Two airstrikes targeted the towns of Shaqra and Burj Qalawiyah in southern Lebanon overnight as well.
Meanwhile, Israeli reconnaissance drones continue hovering over the coastal road in the Tyre area, the entirety of South Lebanon, reaching the capital, Beirut, and its southern suburbs.
US-Israeli-Lebanese statement reiterates ‘ceasefire’
The attacks come after the US State Department released a joint statement by the United States, the Lebanese government, and “Israel” outlining the outcome of US-mediated negotiations aimed at implementing a ceasefire in Lebanon. The agreement stipulates a “complete cessation of fire by Hezbollah” and the withdrawal of all its fighters from areas south of the Litani River.
Under the framework, the two sides also agreed to swiftly establish so-called “model zones” in which the Lebanese Army would exercise exclusive authority, with all non-state actors excluded from those areas.
The US State Department said the measures could facilitate progress toward “a comprehensive agreement for peace and security,” adding that all parties reaffirmed that the future of relations between Lebanon and “Israel” should be determined by their respective governments through US mediation rather than any parallel track.
The latest strike comes amid continued Israeli attacks across Lebanon despite the ceasefire announced by Washington in April. Since then, the Israeli occupation has carried out hundreds of airstrikes and attacks targeting civilians, towns, and areas in southern Lebanon, while the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, continued to respond with operations against occupation forces and settlements in support of Lebanon and its people.
What is the Resistance’s position?
Speaking to Al Mayadeen, Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah affirmed on Monday the Resistance’s support for a comprehensive ceasefire across all Lebanese territory, noting that only a full ceasefire would be accepted by the Resistance, as a prelude to the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from all Lebanese soil.
Fadlallah said that there was an attempt by the US Secretary of State on Sunday to promote a new deterrence equation, “the Southern Suburb for the North,” without a commitment to a comprehensive ceasefire, reiterating that this proposal was rejected. He noted that a development also occurred in light of the Iranian position regarding intervention.
He warned that Lebanon is facing a treacherous enemy, stressing that what matters is reaching what serves the country’s interests and safeguarding its sovereignty, and that they will not accept a return to what existed before March 2.
US says Lebanon, Israel reach new ceasefire deal, Hezbollah vows resistance, rejects disarmament
Press TV – June 4, 2026
The United States says Lebanon and Israel have agreed to implement a new ceasefire following Washington-mediated talks in the US capital, as Hezbollah stresses that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv has any authority to dictate the future of the Lebanese resistance movement.
Lebanon and Israel on Wednesday agreed to move forward with a ceasefire aimed at ending months of hostilities, the US State Department announced in a joint statement issued after US-led negotiations in Washington.
The agreement requires a “complete cessation” of fire by Hezbollah and the evacuation of all of the movement’s “operatives from the South Litani Sector.”
Hezbollah has not been a party to the talks and contends it will not abide by any agreement that would undermine Lebanese sovereignty and benefit the Israeli regime.
The agreement announced by the US also includes the establishment of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon where the Lebanese army “will take exclusive control of the territory to the exclusion of all non-state actors.”
“Israel and Lebanon reaffirmed that they have no hostile intent toward one another and committed to continuing direct negotiations to build confidence, resolve all outstanding issues, and work toward a comprehensive agreement” between the two sides, it further read.
The latest understanding emerged despite continued violence on the ground, including Israeli attacks that reportedly killed at least nine people in southern Lebanon on Wednesday and cross-border operations claimed by Hezbollah.
The ceasefire effort follows several rounds of direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials, who do not maintain formal diplomatic relations.
Earlier this week, Iran warned that Israel’s military offensive in Lebanon could jeopardize ongoing talks with Washington.
Trump acknowledged growing frustration with the Israeli regime’s actions, claiming he had intervened to prevent an imminent Israeli strike on Beirut and had spoken with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hezbollah representatives who agreed that “all shooting will stop.”
Trump also confirmed reports that he had called Netanyahu “crazy,” explaining that he was “a little bit perturbed” by Israeli attacks on Lebanon that were undermining US diplomatic efforts.
Separately on Wednesday, Mahmoud Qomati, deputy head of Hezbollah’s Political Council, stressed that the resistance would neither retreat nor surrender its arms.
“The resistance continues and will prevail,” he told Al Jazeera.
“All US and Israeli efforts will fail. The confrontation continues, and the resistance against Israeli aggression remains steadfast,” he added.
Rejecting foreign demands regarding Hezbollah’s military capabilities, Qomati emphasized that “the United States and Israel have no right to speak about the weapons of the resistance, because this is an internal Lebanese matter on which we agree.”
Pointing to Hezbollah’s long history, the movement’s official also stressed, “We have been fighting for 50 years and are not among those who have weakened the Lebanese state. No one can force the Lebanese resistance to disarm.”
Qomati also noted that previous Lebanese governments had supported the resistance, unlike the current administration, emphasizing that while Iran supports Hezbollah as a resistance movement, “we are not a pawn in the hands of any country.”
Al Jazeera Claims The US-Iran Deal is Done… Not So Fast
By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | May 27, 2026
Notwithstanding the Al Jazeera report, there are still significant areas of disagreement that make a deal between Iran and the US unlikely. The Pakistan-Qatar mediation channel toward a possible memorandum of understanding remains active. But “active” does not mean “settled.” The unresolved center of gravity remains sequencing. The following is based on information I received from a knowledgeable source with access to the negotiations. It mirrors my analysis.
Washington and Israel want Iranian concessions first, while Tehran wants tangible, front-loaded economic and security relief before it gives ground on anything that matters. That is the heart of the present deadlock.
Iran’s position is not theatrical. It is rooted in a clear strategic doctrine: after decades of sanctions, pressure, assassinations, sabotage, and military threats, Tehran will not trade hard leverage for verbal assurances or a memorandum of understanding.
Promises are not enough. Mechanisms matter. Sequencing matters. Asset movement matters. Enforcement matters. The central judgment is this: Iran is not blinking.
Tehran is not operating from weakness, confusion, or desperation. It is executing a highly disciplined strategic posture: firmness on the fundamentals, flexibility on the margins, and careful use of its available leverage across the nuclear file, the Strait of Hormuz, regional alliances, frozen assets, and the Pakistan-Qatar mediation channel.
This is not the behavior of a state preparing for unconditional surrender. Nor is it the behavior of a state recklessly lurching toward total war. It is the behavior of a state converting pressure into leverage — and leverage into economic and security guarantees.
The Nuclear File: Sovereignty Is the Red Line
According to a knowledgeable source, enrichment is not a negotiable bargaining chip. Tehran views enrichment as three things simultaneously:
- A sovereign right;
- A deterrence instrument;
- A domestic legitimacy anchor.
No meaningful quantity of enriched uranium will leave Iranian territory under the present framework. That line is firm.
On weaponization, the assessment is more nuanced. Iran is not presently building a bomb. But it is deliberately preserving the capability to move toward one if it concludes that its survival is at stake.
The phrase “all bets are off” should not be read as an announcement of imminent weaponization. It should be read as doctrine: if Iran faces an existential assault, it will not leave any strategic option permanently closed. That is virtual deterrence — and, at least for now, it is working.
Strait of Hormuz: Tehran’s Non-Nuclear Strategic Lever
The Strait of Hormuz is Iran’s most powerful non-nuclear instrument. The logic from Tehran is blunt: the United States cannot freeze Iranian assets, sanction Iranian exports, suffocate Iranian banking channels, and then expect unconditional maritime passage as though nothing has happened.
Iran’s emerging posture appears tiered and deliberate. Friendly states receive passage. Neutral states are handled selectively. Hostile or adversary-linked shipping will face interdiction, delay, or denial. This is not simply military posturing. Tehran is attempting to convert maritime geography into a regional security architecture based on reciprocity: if Iran’s economy is strangled, the economic arteries of others will not remain entirely immune.
The reported MOU framework involving the Strait appears real: Iranian de-escalation in exchange for sanctions relief, asset movement, and restoration of commercial access. But the sequencing dispute remains unresolved. Iran wants assets released before surrendering maritime leverage. Washington wants compliance in the Strait before releasing assets. As I write this (Tuesday evening eastern time) this issues remains unresolved.
The Drone and Air-Defense War: Contested Skies, Real Costs
The airspace over Iran, the Persian Gulf, and adjacent maritime corridors has become a live drone and air-defense battlespace. Iran’s message is clear: it may not dominate the air domain, but it can make aerial operations expensive, politically visible, and operationally imperfect. Every drone interdicted, every platform forced down, every failed or disrupted operation adds friction. That friction shapes how Washington and Tel Aviv assess the real cost of escalation.
This is deterrence by attrition. Not absolute deterrence. Not total denial. But enough to complicate operational planning and raise the political price of continued pressure.
Frozen Assets: The Economic Core of the Negotiation
The frozen-assets file is not peripheral. It is central. According to a knowledgeable source with access, Iran is demanding immediate movement on approximately $12 billion held through Qatar-linked channels, within a much larger claim that Tehran places at more than $100 billion in frozen overseas assets.
This is the economic heart of the negotiation. Tehran wants asset release as a precondition for meaningful concessions. Washington wants asset relief conditioned on Iranian performance first. Until this is resolved in a concrete, enforceable way — not with vague language or aspirational language — no MOU is likely to hold. Iran is leery of any verbal assurances from the West and does not trust a MOU having been burned previously on this issue after signing the JCPOA.
For Tehran, this is not merely about money. It is about proof of seriousness. If Washington cannot or will not move assets, Tehran will conclude that the negotiation is designed to extract concessions without delivering relief.
Lebanon and Hezbollah: The Detonator Built Into the System
Lebanon remains the most dangerous variable in the entire equation. The diplomatic architecture now being constructed contains a structural flaw, and that flaw runs directly through Beirut. Lebanon is not a side theater. It is the tripwire.
Israel wants continued freedom of operation in southern Lebanon. Iran views Hezbollah as a central pillar of its regional deterrence architecture. From Tehran’s perspective, Hezbollah is not a disposable card. It is non-negotiable. Hezbollah has not agreed to disarm. Israel has not abandoned its operational doctrine. Iran has not agreed to separate the Lebanese file from its broader regional deterrence posture.
The American formula — that if Hezbollah behaves, Israel will behave — is not a guarantee. It is an aspiration dressed up as a diplomatic condition. This means that even a signed MOU between Washington and Tehran could be blown apart by one Israeli operation in Lebanon, or one Hezbollah response, that crosses a threshold neither side can fully control. In fact, Israel has renewed its offensive in Lebanon on Tuesday, but apparently acceded to Donald Trump’s demand to halt bombings of Beirut.
The ground war in southern Lebanon, however, is back on in its full fury, with Israel trying to push beyond the Yellow Line while Hezbollah is scoring major hits on Israeli forces, tanks and vehicles. Netanyahu is facing major pressure from Ben Gvir and Smotrich to expand military operations
Abraham Accords and the Pakistan Variable
Iran’s rejection of the Abraham Accords is categorical. Tehran views the Accords as a U.S.-backed normalization architecture designed to entrench Israeli regional legitimacy while hollowing out the Palestinian cause. Any attempt to fold that architecture into an Iran settlement cuts directly against Tehran’s strategic and ideological position.
The Pakistan dimension is especially sensitive. Islamabad is functioning as a key mediation channel between Washington and Tehran. But pressuring Pakistan to join or support the Abraham Accords while simultaneously relying on Pakistan to carry messages to Tehran creates a structural contradiction. Pakistan understands this. Its public rejection of forced linkage is not diplomatic boilerplate. It is the condition under which Islamabad preserves credibility with Tehran and keeps the mediation channel alive.
Saudi Arabia remains in its established position: no normalization without a credible path to Palestinian statehood. In the current environment, that condition cannot be met.
Three Triggers That Could Blow This Up
The negotiations remain alive because both sides understand the danger of uncontrolled escalation. But there is no strategic trust. The situation remains combustible and highly sequenced. One operational incident could change the trajectory very quickly.
The three most dangerous triggers are:
1. Failure of the frozen-asset transfer mechanism
If Tehran concludes that Washington is blocking relief while extracting concessions, the entire diplomatic framework could collapse.
2. An Israeli operation in Lebanon that crosses Iran’s response threshold
This could force Hezbollah into a major confrontation and pull Iran back into a harder regional posture.
3. Renewed US strikes during the ceasefire or negotiation window
If Iran reads such strikes as negotiation under fire, it is likely to conclude that diplomacy is merely cover for coercion.
The journey to the second liberation of South Lebanon
The spider’s web theory lives on
By Robert Inlakesh | Al Mayadeen | May 25, 2026
Twenty-six years on from the liberation of South Lebanon, the message has become clear: as long as the Israeli regime remains, peace will never be possible. This year’s Liberation Day anniversary will be observed by a population that is now fighting another struggle against occupation, one that will have implications beyond the freeing of Lebanese lands alone.
On May 25, 2000, the Israeli occupation forces withdrew from most of the Lebanese lands they had occupied illegally in 1982; a move that came following nearly two decades of brutal oppression and was triggered as a result of the fierce resistance waged by the local population. For the Arab World, and specifically for the Palestinian cause for national liberation, that day became a signal that resistance does work.
A day later, former Hezbollah Secretary General, martyr Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, delivered his famous ‘Spider’s Web’ speech from a small football stadium in Bint Jbeil, arguing that the Lebanese model of armed resistance is a blueprint for the Palestinian people. This address has haunted the Israeli senior leadership ever since.
What Sayyed Nasrallah laid out was the theory that the Zionist regime was frailer than a spider’s web, meaning that despite its exterior, internally it was weak and could easily be cut down. He paid particular attention, when stating this metaphor, to ensuring the public knew precisely what he meant, which was that the Israeli society was incapable of enduring the repercussions of the regime’s policies. Today, this speech could not be more relevant.
The Israeli military doctrine, since the entity’s founding, has been based on the concept of always fighting short wars and avoiding wars of attrition. David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, was the first to ensure that his settler project implemented this doctrine, arguing that because his military was more advanced, they could manage to inflict defeats on the enemies, but that the wars it fought had to be limited due to the overwhelming numerical advantages on the Arab side.
If you look back through Israeli military history, you will also notice a pattern of short wars, especially those in which the Zionist entity achieved significant gains. Their most successful war was the “6-Day War” for example. Even last year, their attack on Iran became the “12-Day War”.
The Israelis withdrew from South Lebanon because they understood that the fight they were facing was going to bog them down and drain them, especially as the Lebanese Resistance was gradually growing in strength. In the Gaza Strip, the same concept applied in 2005. They ran cost-benefit analyses and decided it was best to leave.
Over the years, having only fought short wars against militarily inferior opponents, the Israeli society was able to live in its own bubble world. The consequences of their actions were a small price to pay, especially if these consequences were only felt during shorter periods of time. Other than this, they maintained belligerent occupations, meaning that their army was transformed into more of a riot police force than a proper standing army.
During the Second Intifada, which began in 2000, only months after the liberation of South Lebanon, the Israelis then transitioned into a method of warfare that depended more heavily on “targeted assassinations” and special forces raids. They implemented this strategy, alongside their counterinsurgency approach to warfare, and specialized in occupying civilian populations.
In 2006, they encountered a new obstacle, sustained rocket fire on their settlements, managing to blast as deep into occupied Palestine as Haifa. Later on, the Palestinian Resistance would develop its own rockets and eventually reach Tel Aviv and beyond. However, due to Gaza’s resistance being significantly weaker than Hezbollah, they settled for limited wars of aggression where they would implement the infamous “Dahieh Doctrine” – targeting the civilian population as a means of achieving future “deterrence”.
Lebanese Hezbollah managed to deter the Israelis for 17 years, even managing to force the Zionists to accept an agreement demarcating Lebanese maritime borders. However, the October 7 Al-Aqsa Flood operation jolted the Israelis into a reactionary and accelerationist mindset; they were no longer willing to slowly achieve their goals; instead, they had to do things at a pace in their minds.
But they fell into a trap; they were dragged into a war of attrition. In Gaza, this was something they could survive because the rocket fire gradually dwindled, and their soldiers refused to actually fight the Palestinian Resistance head-on. Instead, they carried out a genocide from a distance, mainly, with their main goal being to destroy buildings.
Which brings us back to South Lebanon. As you read this, the second guerrilla war of liberation is being waged, aiming at achieving an even bigger goal than was achieved in 2000. Hezbollah is now facing a similar predicament to what occurred in 1982 when the Israelis declared a “security zone” in southern Lebanon, which they maintained until the formal occupation was declared in 1985.
The major difference is that the Lebanese Resistance was still in its infancy in the 1980s, and the Palestinian Resistance had left in 1982. This time, the Israelis have been drawn into a trap, one that they cannot easily get out of. It is the beginning of the spider’s web theory proving itself in real time.
Although the war is being fought at a somewhat lower intensity since the announcement of a temporary ceasefire, the invading Zionist militants are being dealt blows on an hourly basis in the south and northern occupied Palestine. You need only look at their media to realize that Israeli society is under pressure in the north already, and the war of attrition has just begun.
The people of Lebanon and Palestine, who form the backbone of their national liberation movements, have proven themselves hardy and capable of enduring the hardships of war, while standing behind their Resistance fighters who come from amongst them. In the case of the Zionists, their army is formed of their public, who are conscripted into it, meaning it is a settlers’ armed forces, but they are a fundamentally weak society.
For the Israelis, they are more interested in living a Western European style of life and aren’t willing to make the necessary sacrifices to win wars of attrition, despite the superiority of their military equipment and intelligence services. A few occasional rockets are enough for tens of thousands to flee their homes, while a Lebanese farmer will remain in his fields as the bombs drop on his village. Right after the so-called ceasefire of November 2024, the people of the South immediately returned home; the settlers did not.
The Israeli army is also suffering a manpower shortage, has drawn back its presence in South Lebanon already due to the FPV drone threat, and has to score fake symbolic victories, such as planting flags in Bint Jbeil, while failing to properly maintain control of the area where Hezbollah fighters continue to watch and target them.
While the initial period between 1982 and 1985 was simple for the Israelis in the way of securing their occupation of the South, this time they are already being battered and have not achieved one goal yet. Desperately, they cling to their targeted assassinations, believing this will transform the battlefield. Another mistake born out of arrogance.
South Lebanon’s liberation in May 2000 birthed the Spider’s Web Theory of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. In May 2026, that theory is being put to the test. So far, we see that the fighters on the ground are proving Sayyed Nasrallah correct.
Iran lawmaker outlines five conditions for any understanding with US
Al Mayadeen | May 26, 2026
The head of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Ebrahim Azizi, said there is “no meaning” to any understanding or negotiations with the United States unless Washington takes five concrete confidence-building measures.
Speaking to Iranian state television, Azizi said the measures include ending the war on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon, lifting the maritime blockade, guaranteeing the passage of non-military vessels through the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian supervision, suspending oil sanctions for 30 to 60 days, and releasing frozen Iranian assets.
Azizi stressed that even if an agreement is reached, it would not signify the end of confrontation with the United States, adding that “Iran after the war is completely different from Iran before the war.”
His remarks come amid growing anticipation over indirect US-Iran contacts being conducted through regional mediators, including Pakistan and Qatar. In this context, Iranian Parliament Speaker and head of the negotiating delegation Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf visited the Qatari capital, Doha, on Monday.
For his part, US President Donald Trump said negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran were “going well,” describing the process as one that could either lead to “a great deal for everybody” or “no deal at all.” Trump also linked any potential agreement to the need for Arab and Islamic states backing the talks to sign normalization agreements.
On the Lebanese front, which Iran insists must be included in any prospective agreement aimed at halting the war, the Israeli occupation continues its large-scale attacks on towns in southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa.
Israeli media also reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the occupation’s security minister approved plans to expand the war and target civilian buildings in the Lebanese capital, Beirut, after drone operations carried out by the Islamic Resistance that have inflicted losses on occupation forces.
Fars debunks NYT claims ‘Israel’ was exempted from US-Iran agreement
Al Mayadeen | May 24, 2026
Claims that President Donald Trump exempted “Israel” from commitments under a potential agreement with Iran appear to be baseless, Fars News Agency revealed, based on a review of the final draft text.
Fars reported that The New York Times had alleged “Israel” was granted an exemption from the obligations outlined in the emerging draft MoU with Tehran.
However, an examination of the explicit wording of the prospective agreement shows the opposite. According to the draft text, should the agreement be finalized, the United States and its allies would be bound not to launch any form of aggression against Iran or its allies.
In return, Iran has committed that neither it nor its allies would carry out preemptive military strikes against the United States and its allies.
Consequently, the media outlet’s claim that “Israel’s” regime is exempt from any commitments toward Iran directly contradicts the explicit provisions of the final agreement, rendering the assertion false and unfounded.
US and Iran reportedly near agreement
This closely follows a report by Axios citing a US official familiar with the talks, stating that the United States and Iran are nearing a draft agreement that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, ease pressure on global oil markets, and launch a new round of talks over Tehran’s nuclear program.
The proposed deal, which mediators and President Donald Trump have suggested could be announced as early as Sunday, would establish a 60-day ceasefire framework that could later be extended by mutual consent. However, officials cautioned that talks remain ongoing and the agreement could still collapse before being finalized.
According to the US official, both sides would sign a memorandum of understanding under which Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, remove naval mines deployed in the waterway, and allow unrestricted maritime traffic to resume. In return, Washington would lift its blockade on Iranian ports and issue sanctions waivers enabling Tehran to freely export oil.
The official acknowledged that the arrangement would provide a major boost to Iran’s economy, but argued that it would also stabilize global energy markets by restoring oil flows through one of the world’s most strategically important shipping lanes.
