Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

The monopoly of arms: Why the doctrine is enforced only where resistance exists

By Sondoss Al Asaad | Al Mayadeen | July 15, 2026

For decades, the slogan of “restricting arms to the state” has been presented as a universal principle of sovereignty and state-building. Yet a closer geopolitical examination reveals a striking inconsistency: the doctrine is aggressively promoted in countries like Lebanon and Iraq, while it is largely absent from discussions in surrounding countries such as Syria, Libya, or other fragmented states where multiple armed actors continue to exist.

This selective application raises an uncomfortable question: Is the objective truly the consolidation of state authority, or is the slogan primarily employed where armed movements challenge Israeli military superiority and American hegemony?

Political philosopher Carl Schmitt argues that sovereignty ultimately belongs to whoever decides the exception.

Modern geopolitical practice appears to confirm his observation. The international order invokes legal principles selectively, depending on whether they reinforce or undermine prevailing strategic interests. The debate over arms, therefore, is not merely legal; it is profoundly political.

The Lebanese case illustrates this contradiction with exceptional clarity.

Following the November 2024 ceasefire, “Hezbollah withdrew from the north of the Litani River and ‘accepted’ that decisions regarding war and peace would rest exclusively with the Lebanese state and its armed forces”. The expectation promoted by Western capitals was that this would allegedly strengthen Lebanese sovereignty and reduce tensions.

The reality unfolded differently; the Israeli enemy, unable to establish a lasting foothold inside southern Lebanese villages during sixty-six days of warfare, achieved after the ceasefire what military operations had failed to accomplish. It maintained positions inside Lebanese territory, continued near-daily airstrikes across Lebanon, and expanded targeted assassinations while facing little meaningful deterrence.

The sequence of events inevitably fuelled a renewed domestic debate. If sovereignty means that only the state possesses weapons, what happens when the state itself lacks the capacity to prevent violations of its own borders?

This dilemma reflects what Thomas Hobbes identified centuries ago as the fundamental purpose of political authority: providing security.

The legitimacy of the state rests not merely on possessing legal authority but on its ability to protect those living under its jurisdiction. When that capacity weakens, alternative security arrangements inevitably emerge.

The issue extends beyond Lebanon; In Iraq, international pressure consistently emphasizes integrating or dismantling armed resistance groups under the banner of state monopoly over force. Yet comparable urgency is rarely directed toward states where numerous militias continue to operate without challenging Israeli strategic dominance.

Syria offers another revealing comparison. Multiple foreign militaries, including American, Turkish, and Israeli forces, remain active on Syrian territory alongside various local armed factions.

Libya remains fragmented among competing military authorities and militias. Yet the international discourse seldom revolves around an immediate imperative to monopolize arms before broader political settlements are achieved.

Such inconsistencies have led many observers to conclude that the slogan itself is not universally applied but strategically deployed.

French philosopher Michel Foucault argued that power operates through discourse by defining what becomes accepted as common sense.

The phrase “arms outside the state” has increasingly become one such discourse. It transforms a complex security equation into a simplified legal formula while avoiding a more difficult question: Can sovereignty exist when a state cannot defend its territory?

July 15, 2026 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on The monopoly of arms: Why the doctrine is enforced only where resistance exists

After US policy whiplash, Iran sets the rules in Strait of Hormuz

Press TV – July 12, 2026

The section of the 14-point memorandum that emphasizes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz under “Iranian arrangements” has become the focal point of confrontation, driven primarily by hostile US actions and its repeated, explicit breaches of commitments.

The exchange of fire between Iran and the US early Sunday once again demonstrated that Washington is not only unwilling to honor its commitments but has effectively blocked any path toward a diplomatic resolution through hostile actions and repeated violations.

Under the 14-point memorandum signed between Iran and the US, Article Five explicitly assigns the management of the Strait of Hormuz to Iran, giving Tehran responsibility for its future administration and maritime services in consultation with Oman.

The inclusion of the phrase “under Iranian arrangements” in the memorandum reflects recognition of Tehran’s central role in governing this strategic waterway.

The text of the memorandum, which was also published by the White House, states that Iran “will guarantee the safe passage of commercial vessels, free of any tolls or charges, for a period of 60 days between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman”.

It says that the Islamic Republic “will consult with the Sultanate of Oman regarding the future administration and maritime services of the Strait of Hormuz.”

The wording, according to this interpretation, makes clear that responsibility for administering the strait initially rests with Iran, while Oman assumes a consultative and coordinating role.

Immediately after the memorandum was signed, the United States, in coordination with Oman, unveiled a southern shipping corridor designed as an alternative to the Iranian route through the strait.

In a statement, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) described the newly announced route as “unacceptable and extremely dangerous,” adding that it had been established “without prior notification or coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

As indicated, the actions of the United States and Oman constitute a clear violation of Article Five of the memorandum, which assigned management of the Strait to Iran.

According to unofficial reports, Oman has declined to fully align itself with Iran and continues to insist that maritime traffic should operate in both directions.

This suggests that Oman, under US pressure, has moved away from its neutral position and begun acting in ways that undermine Iranian interests.

Oman’s foreign minister told a meeting of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council that Muscat, as a littoral state, bears a special responsibility and stressed that any future arrangements for the strait should not include transit fees.

This position comes despite Article Five of the memorandum, which designates Iran as the principal authority responsible for administering the strait, while assigning Oman only a coordinating role.

The corridor violation is not the only breach by the US of the memorandum’s provisions. The list of America’s overt and repeated violations since the signing of the memorandum clearly shows that Washington has never been committed to its obligations:

1. Violation of Article One (Ending the war on all fronts): The United States had committed to ending hostilities across all fronts, including Lebanon, and to securing the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.

However, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israeli troops would remain in Lebanon for as long as necessary. According to this account, Washington neither enforced this provision nor acted to prevent the continued occupation.

2. Violation of Article Two (Respect for sovereignty and non-interference): The United States had pledged to respect the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and refrain from interfering in its internal affairs.

However, the military attacks last night on Iranian cities, as well as the attacks of previous nights—all of which originated from or were facilitated by American bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and Kuwait—constitute a gross violation of this clause.

3. Violation of Article Four (Lifting the maritime blockade): Washington had committed to ending the maritime blockade and restoring shipping traffic to full capacity within 30 days. Not only was the blockade maintained, but US officials also threatened to intensify it.

President Donald Trump reportedly told Axios that he would not lift the blockade on Iranian ports because doing so would deprive Washington of its principal source of leverage over Tehran.

4. Violation of Article Six (Economic reconstruction): The United States had committed to guaranteeing a comprehensive reconstruction program for Iran backed by at least $300 billion in financing. No meaningful steps were ever taken to fulfill that commitment.

5. Violation of Article Seven (Lifting sanctions): Washington had pledged to terminate all sanctions imposed on Iran. Instead, sanctions remained in place, while the US Treasury warned that if Oman assisted in establishing a toll collection system, it would face “aggressive” sanctions.

6. Violation of Articles Ten and Eleven (Oil export waivers and release of frozen assets): The United States had committed to immediately issuing waivers for Iranian crude oil exports, petrochemical products, and all related services, while also releasing Iran’s frozen assets.

Through pretext and hostile actions, the US refused to deliver Iran’s $24 billion in blocked assets and revoked Iran’s oil sales license, citing Iran’s actions against unauthorized vessel movements through the Strait of Hormuz—a justification that stemmed from Washington’s own breach of the memorandum.

7. Threats of regime change and assassination of Iranian officials: Despite its explicit commitment not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs, US officials have continued to issue statements advocating regime change.

More importantly, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio openly rejected the prospect of Iranian administration of the Strait of Hormuz, stating: “We will not tolerate that.”

Before the US and Israeli terrorist attacks against Iran, the Strait of Hormuz remained open, and Iran had no interest in controlling it. Today, however, Tehran is determined to maintain control over the waterway in the future to ensure that the United States can never again use the Persian Gulf as a staging ground for attacks against Iran.

The strikes carried out last night and on previous nights were launched from or facilitated by US bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. As long as the United States and Israel pose a threat to Iran’s national security, Tehran will maintain a heavy presence in the Strait of Hormuz.

A crucial legal point is that the Strait of Hormuz lies entirely within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman and under international law, no part of it constitutes international waters open to unrestricted passage.

Unlike certain international waterways, the Strait of Hormuz is not part of the high seas but a coastal passage where navigation is governed by the regulations of the littoral states. This legal reality strengthens Iran’s position in administering the strait and challenges US claims regarding freedom of navigation.

Iran, based on its defense doctrine, views control of the strait not as an economic instrument but as a vital requirement for its survival and national security.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf summarized Tehran’s position: “The era of one-sided deals is OVER. We told you: keep your word or pay the price. Reality is knocking.”

July 12, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on After US policy whiplash, Iran sets the rules in Strait of Hormuz

Prof John Mearsheimer – Iran Hardliners Proven Right

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026

IRAN GOT NOTHING FROM the MoU – Nima Alkhorshid

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – July 10, 2026

July 10, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on Prof John Mearsheimer – Iran Hardliners Proven Right

Trump Declares MoU With Iran is Dead

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | July 9, 2026 

The drama over the Strait of Hormuz escalated on Wednesday with Donald Trump declaring the MoU with Iran is dead and vowed more attacks on Iran. Trump continues to insist that Iran has no right to interfere with any ship trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz, but the fact is that Iran is acting within its rights under the terms spelled out in paragraph five of the MoU (which I discussed in my previous post). The US attack on Iranian outposts along the shore of the Persian Gulf on Tuesday was a set up — i.e., the US coordinated with Qatar and Saudi Arabia to have their ships defy the Iranian protocol to register the voyage with the IRGC, which precipitated the Iranian attack on those vessels. While falsely claiming this was a violation of the MoU, Donald Trump hit Iran with bombs starting late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning Iranian time.

Unlike the previous incidents on June 25 and June 26, where Iran hit non-compliant ships and the US did a one-off airstrike on Iranian positions on the shore of the Strait of Hormuz following each incident, Trump launched a new series of attacks on Iran on July 8 (Wednesday) even though Iran had not attacked another ship. Why did Trump do this? Was it retaliation for some anti-ship missiles fired at the US Carrier Strike Group operating 200 miles off the coast of Iran? That’s my hypothesis… One or more missiles hit one or more US vessels, causing some damage that has not been reported publicly.

Trump’s Wednesday strikes doubled the size of the ones he ordered on Tuesday. Iran, in response, launched ballistic missiles and drones at US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE and Muwaffaq al Salti airbase in Jordan. I have no reports regarding physical battle damage. However, the Trump attack prompted an ominous warning from the spokesman for Iranian Parliament’s National Security Committee, who stated that a renewed US attack will be answered with a change in nuclear doctrine. He also said:

➡ In any future confrontation, the enemy will face a comprehensive, all-out surprise offensive from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

➡ We have many options available that were not even used during the 40-day war.

➡ Options such as withdrawal from the NPT, changing nuclear doctrine, and closing the Bab al-Mandab Strait alongside the Strait of Hormuz are on the table for review.

➡ A bill for NPT withdrawal is also ready for review in parliament — and if Iran faces an existential threat, a change in nuclear doctrine could also be put on the agenda

Pressure is growing in Iran to withdraw from the MoU. The US has violated almost every section of the MoU while Iran has assiduously adhered to it — including keeping Hezbollah from going on the offensive against the Israelis. Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury announced on July 7 that the US would reinstate oil sanctions on Iran, which marks another clear violation of the MoU.

According to vesselfinder.com, the activity in the Strait of Hormuz as I write this article is scant, but the ships transiting the straight are abiding by Iran’s PGSA protocols. If Trump opts to continue attacking Iran on Thursday then I believe that Iran will expand the scope and severity of its retaliatory strikes. Without some immediate concessions from the US, I believe that Iran will agree with Trump — i.e., “The MoU is dead.”

Video Interview

July 9, 2026 Posted by | Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Declares MoU With Iran is Dead

Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s Drone War Plan for Israel’s Buffer Zone

Dialogue Works | July 8, 2026

July 8, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Laith Marouf: Hezbollah’s Drone War Plan for Israel’s Buffer Zone

Jewish Neocon Warhawks Want the United States to Resume its War with Iran

By Jose Nino | Occidental Review | July 7, 2026

The hawks who pushed the United States into its most expensive military operation in decades are already planning the next one. Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin, two of the most listened-to Jewish voices in conservative media, have made clear in the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding that they view the current peace not as a resolution but as an intermission, one they intend to use to rebuild the political and military conditions for a return to war.

Ben Shapiro published a Daily Wire piece titled “Why Trump Signed The Agreement With Iran,” explaining the MOU while making clear his deep reservations. In the same Fox News appearance hours after the text was released, he simultaneously called the war “the signal act of political bravery, perhaps, of my lifetime” and labeled the Memorandum of Understanding “a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning.” Shapiro laid out five specific objectives he said the administration had named —ending all nuclear enrichment, dismantling ballistic missiles, ending support for so-called terrorist proxies, permanently reopening the Strait of Hormuz toll-free, and conditioning sanctions relief on Iranian compliance—and argued the MOU met none of them. Despite his public condemnation of the deal, he nonetheless stopped short of urging Trump to reject it, thus revealing something more significant than mere disagreement. It exposed a proposed recalibration among hawkish commentators who now appear to be laying the groundwork for a resumption of hostilities after the November midterm elections.

While commentators debated the terms of the deal, the war itself had already delivered its verdict in blood. The war they championed exacted a staggering price. Operation Epic Fury, which began on February 28, 2026, killed between 7,144 and 9,676 people across multiple countries while wounding approximately 46,965 more. Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs confirmed 3,468 Iranian deaths while independent monitors documented higher figures. Among the dead were 240 women and 212 children. One American strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, Hormozgan province on February 28 killed approximately 175 to 180 people—the majority of them schoolchildren—a strike investigated by the New York Times, BBC Verify, Reuters, NPR, and CBC all of which concluded the United States was likely responsible. Over 4,000 people were killed in Lebanon according to its Health Ministry.

The economic devastation proved equally severe. The Pentagon reported spending $29 billion by May 12, though this figure excluded damage to American military bases from Iranian retaliation and the costs of munitions expended. By June, the Pentagon sought an additional $87.6 billion supplemental from Congress to cover the full costs of the campaign. Harvard economist Linda Bilmes projected that total costs could reach $1 trillion when accounting for long-term ripple effects including veteran care, replenishment of depleted weapons stockpiles, and regional economic disruption. Iran estimated its losses at $270 billion and demanded compensation as a condition of broader peace negotiations. CSIS independently assessed the total U.S. military campaign cost at approximately $34 to $42 billion—a figure that excluded base damage, munitions replacement costs, and long-term obligations.

This catastrophic toll apparently failed to satisfy those who pushed hardest for the conflict. Mark Levin emerged as the most explicit voice calling for a strategic pause followed by renewed military action. On June 18, the same day CNN reported that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was actively using pro-Israel media figures to influence the deal, Levin posted on X/Twitter his prescription for the path forward. “Time for a change in strategy. We should consider slow walking the enemy, building up our munitions, our oil reserves, get the price of gasoline down, get through the midterms, then knock them out. Instead of rushing to a deal, building up their oil industry, transferring billions to them, etc.”

Levin had advocated for military action against Iran long before the war began. He reportedly lobbied Trump directly at a private White House lunch in early June, falsely warning that Iran was “days away from a nuclear weapon”—a claim the U.S. intelligence community did not support. On his show in May he had argued that “The mass-murdering death cult that is the Iranian regime is not going to commit suicide” and that “they cannot” abide by any deal “because as a matter of religious and political ideology and doctrine, they will not in the end bend to the demands of the great Satan.”

Shapiro adopted a position less explicit but functionally identical. After the MOU was signed at Versailles on June 18, he declared the agreement a disaster and hoped that Trump would return to bombing Iran after November’s midterms. He had previously called the war “the single bravest foreign policy move of my lifetime,” telling Lara Trump on Fox News that what Trump was doing in Iran “has the potential to be a true game changer for America’s role in the world,

The broader hawk faction echoed the same framework for restarting the conflict. Hugh Hewitt called the MOU “halftime” and predicted a return to war after the election. Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade added that “After the midterms, the gloves come off.” Media Matters described this as the hawks’ new “cope” strategy—a way to avoid criticizing Trump directly while keeping the door open for future military escalation.

These commentators built their case for war over several years. Shapiro praised Trump’s 2020 killing of IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani as “utterly righteous,” calling Soleimani “one of the worst human beings on the planet,” and he consistently argued that Iran required direct confrontation rather than the appeasement he accused the Obama administration of pursuing. When Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025, Shapiro published a syndicated column declaring that “two lies die: the lie that only negotiations can end the threat of a rogue state seeking nuclear weapons, and the lie that every conflict must necessarily become Iraq.” Levin appeared on Hannity right before the 2026 conflict to argue that “If this Islamic Nazi terrorist mass killing regime gets a nuclear weapon, will they use it? The answer is yes” and that “We don’t need to put up with their crap. It’s time to put it to an end.”

Despite the memorandum of understanding being signed on June 17, the conflict remains far from resolved. The deal lifted the U.S. naval blockade, reopened the Strait of Hormuz, created a 60-day window to negotiate permanent terms, and proposed a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Critics noted that despite the war’s enormous costs, Iran’s government remained intact, its ballistic missile program is still functional, and its support for regional resistance organizations like Hezbollah is still unwavering. The statements from Shapiro and Levin give the game away. They have already begun conditioning their audiences for a second round of bellicosity against the Islamic Republic.

For the likes of Shapiro and Levin, conservatism is merely a skinsuit they don, carefully tailored to win trust and influence within the American Right. But the substance beneath it has nothing to do with American national interests. Every war they cheer, every deal they oppose, every argument they make is calibrated toward using American blood and treasure as a battering ram for the interests of World Jewry. The consequences for the United States, the American people, and the families who bear the cost of their wars are simply not part of their calculation. It is time to stop mistaking their fluency in conservative language for loyalty to this country.

July 8, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Jewish Neocon Warhawks Want the United States to Resume its War with Iran

Saudi, Qatari-flagged tankers damaged near Hormuz after US threatens Iran

The Cradle | July 7, 2026

A Saudi-flagged crude oil vessel and a Qatari tanker were damaged on 7 July after being struck by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz, multiple reports have confirmed.

Qatari liquefied natural gas (LNG) tanker Al-Rekayyat was “struck overnight and its engine room set on fire,” maritime sources told Reuters, adding that “a Saudi crude oil tanker has also been damaged.”

“Mayday … This is vessel Al-Rekayyat, LNG vessel Al-Rekayyat. We are being hit by drone on port side, top of engine room. Status: engine room fire and full of smoke. Unable to assess further damage,” the ship’s captain said in a recorded radio call heard by Reuters.

The ship was disabled and called for help, but the crew was unharmed, according to the report.

Iranian state television reported that an LNG ship was hit off the coast of Oman after “ignoring warnings.” Responsibility has yet to be officially claimed by Tehran.

According to Reuters, the Saudi oil tanker Wedyan was damaged in the same area – near Oman’s coast, close to the Strait of Hormuz.

The Wedyan vessel’s last position ​was inside ​the Persian ⁠Gulf on 3 July. Riyadh has not commented.

“Iran’s military fired at least two missiles at commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz,” US officials told Axios.

Nevertheless, the US government has not officially commented on the incident.

The latest escalation near the strategic waterway comes after Iranian officials responded to new threats from US President Donald Trump.

“Negotiations on final deal will not commence if threats continue. Honor your signature,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned on Tuesday, coinciding with a massive funeral for the country’s late supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

A day earlier, Trump threatened to “finish the job” and “knock down” bridges and energy sites across Iran.

In recent days, Iran has doubled down on its right to jointly manage the strait with Oman. The waterway is effectively under Iranian control.

Last month, a shipping corridor connecting the US and Oman via the Strait of Hormuz was launched, prompting Tehran to call it a breach of Clause 5 of the MoU.

Tehran has since announced that it has reached a deal with Oman on the management of the strait.

Since the MoU was signed, the illegal US blockade has largely ceased, and the Strait of Hormuz has been partially reopened by Iran.

However, Washington has continued to violate the MoU through multiple attacks on Iran, and a failure to rein in Israel’s brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing and occupation in Lebanon.

July 7, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Saudi, Qatari-flagged tankers damaged near Hormuz after US threatens Iran

Military expert: The battle of Ali al-Tahir heights will be costly for Israel

Palestinian Information Center – July 6, 2026

BEIRUT – The recent Israeli escalation in southern Lebanon has brought the Ali al-Tahir heights back to the forefront of the military scene, after the occupation forces intensified their raids on the area amid indicators that observers see as a prelude to a potential ground move. While estimates speak of an Israeli attempt to impose a new field equation, military experts warn that any incursion into these strategic hills could open up a wide confrontation with Hezbollah, given their military importance and the nature of their defenses.

Fiery prelude preceding the ground move

Israeli Channel 12 reported that the army launched an attack on the Ali al-Tahir heights area, while the Upper Galilee Regional Council informed the residents of the settlements that they would hear the sound of explosions resulting from the attacks in southern Lebanon.

The military and strategic expert, Retired Brigadier General Khalil al-Jamil, believes that the nature of the Israeli operations indicates that what is happening goes beyond mere limited raids, explaining that the Israeli army usually relies on a wide fiery prelude to isolate the operations area and prevent the arrival of fighters or supplies to it before any ground move, according to Al Jazeera.

He added that the shelling targeting the villages and towns surrounding the Ali al-Tahir heights falls within this framework, expecting the strikes to continue for hours before moving to a new stage with the onset of night, which is the timing during which Israel is accustomed to executing its ground operations.

He pointed out that the scale of the airstrikes is disproportionate to a limited targeting operation, as it was possible to execute such missions using drones, which reinforces, according to his estimation, the hypothesis of preparing for a ground incursion into parts of the heights.

He noted that the Ali al-Tahir heights extend for about three kilometers, and any incursion at its beginning may be limited to specific parts of them, but the nature of the current movements is consistent with the military method followed by the Israeli army before any field advance.

Hezbollah’s readiness and field complexities

Al-Jamil confirmed that Hezbollah will be ready to defend the area, expecting that the fire support units deployed in Iqlim al-Tuffah and neighboring areas will begin executing support operations to prevent Israeli forces from establishing any presence inside the hills.

He added that Israel tried during previous stages to advance in the area, but faced great field difficulties due to the rugged geographical nature and defensive readiness, making any new attempt more complex and costly.

He explained that the Ali al-Tahir heights constitute the main line of defense for southern Lebanon and the Nabatieh district, suggesting that violent confrontations would break out if the escalation develops into a direct ground operation.

He also pointed out that any advance inside the network of tunnels scattered in the area would place Israeli forces before complex fighting conditions, unless a collapse occurs in Hezbollah’s defensive system, a scenario he said is not supported by any field indicators so far.

Despite Israel possessing military capabilities that qualify it to reach the heights if it makes a decision to do so, al-Jamil stressed that achieving this goal would have a high military and human cost.

The policy of “nibbling” and the possibilities of expanding the confrontation

Al-Jamil considered that Israel relies on a policy of gradual “nibbling” of the heights, by combining airstrikes, fire pressure, and limited ground advance, instead of executing a broad operation all at once.

He explained that the Ali al-Tahir heights grant whoever controls them a great field advantage, as they overlook wide areas of southern Lebanon and the vicinity of Nabatieh, making them a controlling point in managing military operations.

He added that Israel views these hills as being within the areas it believes it had previously controlled, and sees that any military operation in them does not conflict, from its point of view, with existing arrangements, although actual control over them has not been achieved on the ground.

He believed that any ground incursion could push Hezbollah to expand the circle of response by targeting Israeli settlements with rockets, in an attempt to pressure the internal front and impose a new deterrence equation, a matter that could reignite the entire southern front.

This escalation comes at a time when the Lebanese Ministry of Health announced that the toll of victims of the Israeli aggression since the second of March has risen to 4,303 dead and 12,203 wounded, amid the continuation of military tension despite efforts aimed at stabilizing the calm on the border.

July 6, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , | Comments Off on Military expert: The battle of Ali al-Tahir heights will be costly for Israel

Qatar & Oman Delegations in Iran, Airspace Closed, Israeli Strikes Feared — w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen

Mario Nawfal | July 3, 2026

Elijah Magnier: As Israel’s Losses Mount, a Strategic Reckoning Begins

Dialogue Works | July 2, 2026

Substack: https://substack.com/@dialogueworks?u…

X (Twitter): https://x.com/Dialogue_NRA

Patreon: https://patreon.com/Dialogueworks?utm… 

Buy Me a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/dialogueworks

July 3, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Qatar & Oman Delegations in Iran, Airspace Closed, Israeli Strikes Feared — w/ Prof. Glenn Diesen

France, Italy to form new international force for southern Lebanon

MEMO | July 3, 2026

France’s Foreign Ministry has announced ongoing preparations with Italy to form new international coalition forces to be deployed in southern Lebanon after the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) ends.

Speaking to Saudi broadcaster Al Hadath, the ministry said the multinational force would be deployed in southern Lebanon with US backing and the participation of several European countries.

It said the force would be deployed at the request of the Lebanese authorities to support the Lebanese army in carrying out its duties and to strengthen stability.

The ministry added that consultations with partners are continuing to finalise the force’s deployment mechanism, amid security arrangements linked to the recent framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel.

July 3, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on France, Italy to form new international force for southern Lebanon

Why Iran believes Israel will attack again before October

By Trita Parsi | July 1, 2026

Will Israel restart the war with Iran before the October elections? This is the consensus view emerging within Iran’s internal national security debate over the past week.

Several factors are driving Tehran to this conclusion. Beyond its deep—and not entirely unwarranted—suspicion of President Donald Trump’s intentions, heightened by Vice President JD Vance’s recent remark that Trump wants to use the MOU to replenish global oil reserves and then “see where the hand is,” two developments stand out: the recent Israeli-Lebanese agreement and its impact on Hezbollah’s military posture over the coming months.

From Tehran’s perspective, the agreement hands Israel a significant advantage in any renewed war with Iran—one it lacked in February. By allowing Israeli forces to remain in parts of southern Lebanon, the deal appears to contravene the MOU while fundamentally reshaping the military balance. Israel’s continued presence in these strategic positions would make it far more difficult for Hezbollah to mount the kind of offensive operations that proved critical during the previous round of fighting.

That matters because, in February and March, the Iranians say they used only about 40 percent of their offensive capabilities against Israel, because Hezbollah carried much of the remaining burden. At the time, pundits in the West were debating why Tehran hit the UAE harder than it did Israel.

Part of it was because of Israel’s much higher pain tolerance compared to the GCC states. Tehran was aiming to reach the most accessible pain threshold to pressure the US to end the war. But part of it was the critical role Hezbollah played in the war, contrary to much of the press coverage at the time. It played a critical role in stretching Israel’s defenses, complicating its targeting decisions, and forcing it to divide resources across multiple fronts.

That role, however, was poorly understood because Israel imposed near-total military censorship during the war—far stricter than the censorship regime in June 2025—which sharply limited public visibility into Hezbollah’s operations and their impact. As a result, the degree to which Hezbollah shaped the course of the war has been significantly underestimated.

Unlike the MOU, the current Israeli-Lebanese agreement does not require Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory until Hezbollah has been disarmed. Since that outcome is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future, Israel is poised to retain its positions inside Lebanon, enabling it to renew the war with Iran without facing the same pressure from its northern front that constrained it during the previous conflict.

Netanyahu’s motivations are clear. Beyond his long-standing desire to use American force to subjugate Iran to Israeli domination and achieve a regional balance favourable to Israel, he now also has stark political and personal reasons to restart the war.

The MOU has come at a steep political cost for Netanyahu. His prospects for reelection in October are weaker than they have been in months. Once seen as the Israeli leader uniquely capable of delivering President Trump, he now confronts the prospect that both the war and the ensuing diplomacy will leave Israel in a strategically weaker position—undermining the very case he has made for his leadership.

And of course, if he loses the elections, he will likely spend the next few years in jail, as he will lose his immunity as Prime Minister and face trial over corruption charges.

Whether the Trump administration is coordinating with Israel on such a strategy remains unclear to Tehran. But suspicions surrounding Secretary of State Marco Rubio run particularly deep, given his role in brokering the Israeli-Lebanese agreement, his support for the war, and his perceived opposition to the MOU.

From Tehran’s perspective, there are three plausible scenarios. The first is that the White House is aware of Israel’s plans and helped broker the Lebanese agreement in part to facilitate them. The second is that Washington is unaware of Netanyahu’s intentions but would nonetheless come to Israel’s defense—and perhaps even join the offensive—once Netanyahu resumes the war. The third is that the administration is caught by surprise, chooses not to restrain Israel, but also refrains from direct military involvement in the conflict.

Tehran does not believe Israel’s advantage in Lebanon will prove decisive. Iranian officials remain confident they can impose severe costs on Israel and deny it its broader strategic objectives. But a renewed war could still achieve Netanyahu’s most immediate aim: killing the MOU. Given his mounting political and legal pressures, Netanyahu may be desperate enough to be willing to challenge Trump directly to ensure precisely that outcome.

The question is, once again, not how Trump will react, but if Trump will prevent Netanyahu from deliberately shaping and limiting Trump’s options. This is the test Trump has repeatedly failed.

July 1, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Why Iran believes Israel will attack again before October

Lebanon parliament speaker vows Israel deal ‘will not pass’

The Cradle | June 29, 2026

Lebanon’s Parliament Speaker and head of the Amal Movement, Nabih Berri, said on 29 June that the new US-brokered agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv – reached in violation of Lebanese law – “will not be implemented.”

“This agreement will not pass, and it will not be implemented,” Berri said in an interview with Al-Akhbar newspaper.

He stressed that his opposition to the agreement will remain “within constitutional frameworks,” and that his party – which is closely allied to Hezbollah – “will not boycott any cabinet session in which the agreement is discussed.”

“That is where we will confront it and state our position,” he added.

“The greatest danger posed by the agreement is not only its political content but also the possibility that it could fuel internal divisions and provoke Lebanese factions into confronting one another – something that would serve Israel above all else.”

Berri also responded to reports and claims that Lebanese authorities were planning to dismiss Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) chief Rudolphe Haikal.

“No one should even joke about such an idea, and no one should play games with the army. The military institution is a red line and one of the pillars of national stability and the primary guarantee for preserving civil peace,” the parliament speaker told Al-Akhbar.

Haikal, over the past year, has reportedly refused to move ahead with Hezbollah disarmament plans while Lebanon remains occupied and under attack. He is also said to have threatened resignation over the matter in 2025.

During a trip to Washington weeks before the latest war, Haikal angered US officials after he refused to call Hezbollah a terrorist organization at a meeting in Washington.

Hezbollah official Nawaf al-Moussawi recently said that Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had plans to dismiss the army chief.

During Monday’s interview with the Lebanese parliament speaker, Berri went on to refer to the Lebanon–Israel agreement as a series of “dictates.”

The speaker called the deal “10 times worse than the 17 May Agreement of 1983,” referring to a Lebanese–Israeli peace deal decades ago which failed to materialize.

Berri, who at the time was at the start of his political career, played a key role in collapsing the 17 May 1983 agreement.

“I’d take 17 May 10 times over this agreement,” Berri stressed.

Berri also affirmed that the only way to achieve the country’s national goals “lies in the US–Iran negotiations,” rejecting Washington and Tel Aviv’s efforts to separate Lebanon from the Islamic Republic.

The US–Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU) is “the only framework capable of creating a balance of power that would force Israel to meet its obligations.”

Berri added that “separating the Lebanese file from that process, or entering into separate negotiations with Israel under American and Israeli terms, would merely prolong the occupation and give Israel more time to impose new realities on the ground without providing Lebanon with any genuine guarantees.”

On 28 June, several Hezbollah officials slammed the agreement brokered by Washington – following months of direct talks that were conducted in violation of Lebanon’s laws and constitution.

MP Hussein al-Hajj Hassan reiterated Berri’s previous calls to avoid civil strife, but warned that the Lebanese state “bears the responsibility” for whatever “outcome” results if Beirut attempts to actually implement the outcome.

The US-Lebanese-Israeli deal signed in Washington on 26 June stipulates that Hezbollah must be disarmed before any withdrawal of occupation forces can take place.

The agreement also builds on aspects of earlier direct talks between Israel and Lebanon, specifically the establishment of “pilot zones” in which the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would deploy in order to dismantle “non-state armed groups,” including the resistance.

“Two initial zones have been agreed to by the [Israeli army] and the LAF, and future pilot zones will also be agreed upon by mutual consent,” Clause 3 of the framework stipulates, in effect forcing the Lebanese army to take permission from Israel on where it would deploy.

The deal would also bar Lebanon from filing legitimate international legal complaints against Israel, which has killed over 4,000 Lebanese and displaced over a million since the start of March this year.

This is represented by Clause 13 of the Lebanon–Israel deal, which calls for “the cessation of all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.”

One of the clauses also explicitly states that the “Government of Lebanon herewith requests the support of international and, particularly Arab partners, under the leadership of the US, to achieve this outcome.”

Lebanese journalist Hassan Illaik said this was among the “most dangerous” clauses, and interpreted it as a legitimization of a Syrian military assault against Hezbollah.

This is something US officials have repeatedly threatened, including President Donald Trump.

According to Israeli news outlet Channel 12, the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel includes a classified security annex that remained secret at the explicit request of the Lebanese government.

The report says the agreement does not set fixed implementation timelines, with every step instead conditioned on meeting specific requirements on the ground.

It adds that there will be no automatic Israeli withdrawals, with any redeployment depending on verified progress and the results achieved in the field.

It also says the two agreed “pilot zones” are the only ones currently approved, and that no additional pilot zones will be established in the foreseeable future without Israeli approval.

Channel 12 further reported that the Lebanese government granted Israel freedom of military operations inside the ‘security zone’ that Israel has illegally established inside Lebanon.

According to Israel’s Channel 15, the agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel grants the Israeli army the right to enter the “pilot zones” to verify that they have been cleared of weapons and military infrastructure by the LAF.

June 29, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism, Wars for Israel | , , , , , | Comments Off on Lebanon parliament speaker vows Israel deal ‘will not pass’

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »