Strait of Hormuz closed over Israeli aggression on Lebanon
Al Mayadeen | June 20, 2026
The Strait of Hormuz is shut down in response to ongoing Israeli aggression on southern Lebanon, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters announced, deeming Israeli actions a violation of Iran’s agreement with the US.
In a statement carried by Iranian state television, the Khatam HQ accused the United States of breaching its obligations under a memorandum of understanding related to ending the war, and also cited continued Israeli military actions in southern Lebanon, including ceasefire violations, killings, forced displacement of civilians, and failure to withdraw from Lebanese territory. It added that the measure reflects a response to the deterioration of compliance by the opposing parties and the persistence of hostilities on the ground.
“In light of the United States’ blatant violation of its commitments and breach of the provisions of Article One of the memorandum of understanding to end the war and in response to the ongoing and continuous violation of the ceasefire by the Israeli entity in southern Lebanon, the continued brutal killing and forcible displacement of the Lebanese people, and its failure to withdraw from southern Lebanon, it is hereby announced that the Strait of Hormuz will be closed to maritime navigation,” the statement read.
More steps to follow
The statement from Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters concluded by emphasizing that the measure was presented as an initial response to what it described as the enemy’s breach of commitments, warning that any continued escalation would prompt additional actions aimed at compelling compliance with its stated obligations.
“It is noted that this first step is a response to the enemy’s breach of promise, and if the aggression continues, further steps will be planned and taken to force the enemy to comply with its obligations,” it asserted.
37+ martyrs in continued Israeli attacks on southern, eastern Lebanon
Israeli occupation forces (IOF) carried out a fresh wave of attacks across southern Lebanon and western Bekaa on Saturday morning, killing at least 37 people and extending a pattern of aggression that has persisted despite an alleged ceasefire in place since April 17, 2026.
In the Nabatieh area alone, at least 25 people were martyred and another 35 were injured in an initial toll, as reported by the Civil Defense Operations Room of the Islamic Health Authority’s Jabal Amel II region. Rescue and ambulance teams are still clearing rubble and searching for missing people. Among those martyred in the Nabatieh area is a Lebanese Army soldier killed in an Israeli drone strike in Kfar Rumman.
Meanwhile, an Israeli attack on a residential building in the town of Qennarit in the Saida district killed 7 and injured 13 others, among them 5 children and 5 women, as per the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health.
In western Bekaa, Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that four people were killed in an Israeli attack on a house in the town of Sohmor, in addition to a person killed earlier in a separate drone attack that targeted a motorcycle in the same town, bringing the death toll in Sohmor to five. Lebanon’s National News Agency reports that a child remains under the rubble in Sohmor, with rescue teams working to save him.
Dozens of towns bombed
Local media reports that the IOF carried out at least 80 attacks on southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa since early morning on Saturday, comprising 65 airstrikes and 15 drone strikes, in addition to artillery shelling and sweeping fire.
The hardest hit areas are al-Nabatieh al-Fawqa (8 times) and al-Rihan heights (6 times). Kfar Tebnit and its surroundings, Jabal al-Rafi’, Shoukin, and Nabatieh city were each bombed four times, while Kfaroumman, Aramta, the al-Aroush quarry, Harouf, and Habboush were each bombed three times.
Sojod, the area between Toul and Kfour, Kfar Joz, Zebdine and its surroundings, and Shhour were each attacked twice, while Nmairiyeh, Arabsalim, al-Mahmoudiyeh, Borj Qalaway, Qabrikha, Barish, al-Qatrani, and Qennarit were each bombed once.
Drone attacks, artillery shelling
Israeli drones, meanwhile, attacked Nabatieh city four times and Arabsalim twice, with single drone attacks hitting Deir al-Zahrani, Doueir, Deir Qanoun Ras al-Ain, Kawthariyet al-Riz, Sohmor, Harouf, Jibchit, and al-Nafakhiyeh.
Israeli artillery also shelled Majdal Zoun, Habboush, Harouf, and Ali al-Taher, while occupation forces carried out sweeping-fire operations in Buyout al-Sayyad.
Friday’s escalation
Saturday’s strikes followed a sharp escalation on Friday, when the IOF expanded its attacks to include several southern villages, the outskirts and northern entrance of Baalbek, and the Litani Riverbed near the town of Zellaya in the western Bekaa, attacks that resulted in massacres of civilians.
The bombardment continued even as Reuters reported that a ceasefire agreement between “Israel” and Hezbollah had taken effect at 4 pm that day. Within moments of the so-called ceasefire taking hold, Israeli occupation warplanes launched more than 16 attacks on areas across the South, according to Al Mayadeen’s correspondent.
The Lebanese Ministry of Public Health confirmed that the intensified aggression carried out from midnight through Friday afternoon martyred 47 people and injured 97 others, an updated toll showed. The Ministry put the cumulative toll of Israeli attacks between March 2 and June 19 at 3,980 martyred and 12,001 injured.
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.
Israeli regime’s only interest is ‘permanent war,’ Iran’s FM Araghchi says
Press TV – June 19, 2026
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has condemned provocative statements by senior Israeli ministers advocating intensified attacks on Lebanon, warning that the only interest of the genocidal Israeli regime is permanent war.
In a post on X on Friday, Araghchi denounced comments made by Israel’s far-right minister Itamar Ben-Gvir following the deaths of four Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon.
Ben-Gvir wrote on X that “all of Lebanon must burn,” and that “for every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep.”
“This is not a rant by a random genocidal lunatic,” Araghchi wrote. “It’s a public post by the national security minister of the Israeli regime.”
“The genocidal death cult headquartered in Tel Aviv is a threat to all of humanity. It threatens all humans,” he added.
Araghchi said that Tel Aviv’s “only interest is permanent war.”
Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich also called for a harsher military aggression against Lebanon, writing on the social media platform that it was “time to speak with fire” and “open the gates of hell.”
Iranian officials have repeatedly warned that halting Israeli attacks in Lebanon is a key component of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the presidents of Iran and the United States on Thursday.
Israeli warplanes bombed residential areas in southern and eastern Lebanon before dawn Friday.
At least 31 Lebanese have been killed as Israel keeps attacking the country despite the US-Iran deal coming into force.
Lebanon’s National News Agency reported that strikes targeted inhabited homes in the towns of al-Sharqiyah, Harouf and Kfar Sir in the Nabatieh district.
In an earlier statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei underscored Washington’s direct responsibility under the current circumstances.
He said the Islamic Republic of Iran “will take all necessary measures to safeguard its interests, security and rights, as well as those of its allies.”
According to official Lebanese figures, the death toll from Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon has risen to 3,912.
More than 11,870 people have been wounded and over one million displaced, according to official figures.
Meanwhile, Reuters reported that a ceasefire has taken effect between Hezbollah and the Israeli regime as of 4 PM local time. However, Lebanese media outlet Al Mayadeen has reported Israeli strikes following the start of the reported ceasefire.
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.
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.
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.
Syria ‘unwilling, unprepared’ to attack Lebanon despite US pressure: Report
Damascus is reportedly prepared to reconsider its position if Tel Aviv were to withdraw its occupation troops from Syria
The Cradle | June 17, 2026
Syrian President and former Al-Qaeda chief Ahmad al-Sharaa is “unprepared and unwilling” to launch a military offensive against Lebanon despite growing US pressure, Israel’s Broadcasting Corporation (KAN) reported on 16 June.
KAN cited an informed Syrian source who said that Sharaa is “concerned” that an attack by Damascus against Hezbollah will be seen across the region as “serving” Israel’s interests.
This could negatively impact Damascus’s “legitimacy.”
For now, the self-appointed Syrian president is ruling out an attack against Lebanon and its resistance forces unless Israel decides to pull its forces out of Syria, the report states.
Israel has rejected withdrawal from both Syria and Lebanon.
KAN also said that Turkiye – a longtime backer of Sharaa since his days as Abu Muhammad al-Julani, founder and leader of Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front – has urged Damascus against such an incursion.
Ankara is reportedly concerned that a Syrian assault on Lebanon would “embolden” Tel Aviv and “strengthen” its position.
“Trump proposed a framework in which the Syrian military would play a central role in a future effort to disarm Hezbollah,” i24 reported on Wednesday.
Lebanese authorities reportedly felt uneasy about the idea during recent US-backed direct talks with Israeli officials, which have taken place despite Lebanon’s legal restrictions.
Additionally, Israeli authorities are reportedly concerned about the effectiveness of a Syrian attack on Hezbollah.
“Some of the arrangements currently under discussion could ultimately strengthen Hezbollah politically and militarily rather than diminish its influence,” i24 reported.
Sharaa said earlier this week that talk of a Syrian incursion into Lebanon was a “rumor.” “Syria’s approach aims to end the war in Lebanon, not to expand it or get involved,” he stressed.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on Syria to attack Hezbollah.
Iraqi resistance groups allied with Hezbollah have cautioned the Syrian government and its forces that they will act if Damascus initiates an attack on Lebanon.
Syria experienced a significant geopolitical change following the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, as Sharaa’s government aligned with Washington and engaged in discussions with Israel.
The US has largely lifted sanctions on Syria and called Damascus a “partner” in the global fight against ISIS — overlooking Sharaa’s past as an Al-Qaeda leader and earlier as deputy to ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Hezbollah fought in Syria for years with the former government, helping recapture areas from extremist groups like Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, Ahrar al-Sham, and others considered by the west as the “Syrian opposition.”
The Nusra Front, led by Sharaa, was rebranded into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and ended up toppling Assad’s government in 2024.
HTS and other extremist factions with links to ISIS currently dominate what has become the new Syrian Defense Ministry and military.
Tom Barrack, US special envoy to Syria and Iraq, threatened Lebanon last year with a Syrian incursion, and said Damascus would “actively assist us in confronting and dismantling … Hezbollah.”
He also said Syria viewed Lebanon as its “beach resort” and would carry out an assault against the country unless Hezbollah is disarmed.
Hezbollah thwarts Israeli advances into Kfar Tebnit-Ali al-Taher
Al Mayadeen | June 18, 2026
The Islamic Resistance in Lebanon – Hezbollah released a detailed statement regarding confrontations along the Kfar Tebnit-Ali al-Taher axis in South Lebanon, after four days of failed Israeli attempts to advance toward the area via multiple axes under the cover of aerial surveillance, heavy artillery, and smoke screens.
The Operations Room stated that its fighters have consistently engaged all Israeli advance attempts by targeting troop movements and concentrations with rockets, drones, and FPVs, inflicting significant losses in personnel and equipment among Israeli officers, soldiers, and armored vehicles.
It added that, as a result of these engagements, Israeli occupation forces were compelled to withdraw and conduct nighttime helicopter evacuations under smoke cover and artillery fire to recover casualties.
According to the statement, on Wednesday, June 17, at 8:00 pm, following the detection of an Israeli infantry unit attempting to establish positions on the northeastern outskirts of Kfar Tebnit, Resistance fighters engaged the force using a swarm of drones and Ababil FPV drones, confirming casualties among its members, including killed and wounded. The operation was subsequently followed by rocket salvos and artillery fire directed at the same area.
Several hours later, at approximately 01:50 am on Thursday, June 18, amid enemy attempts to regroup in a crossing area, Hezbollah fighters targeted a Merkava tank with the appropriate weapons, achieving a direct hit and forcing the withdrawal of the Israeli force from the sector.
The Resistance confirmed that Israeli occupation forces remain present on the southern outskirts of Kfar Tebnit toward Arnoun, vowing that the Kfar Tebnit–Ali al-Taher axis will remain inaccessible to enemy advances.
The operations come as Hezbollah defends Lebanese territories from ongoing Israeli violations of the April 17 ceasefire and the memorandum of understanding reached between the United States and Iran, which clearly stipulates “Israel’s” withdrawal and cessation of attacks in Lebanon.
The art of the recycled deal: Trump and the outcome Israel cannot tolerate
By Jamal Kanj | MEMO | June 17, 2026
There are many lessons to be learned from the latest made-for-Israel war on Iran. The first and most damning is that the war resolved the very crisis it created. Donald Trump celebrated the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of the blockade against Iran. Two conditions that were fully in place before Benjamin Netanyahu dog walked Trump into this war. The agreement that concluded the war took us back to exactly where we stood before America spent $200 billion, and where Americans continue to pay Israeli surcharge tax at the pump and grocery stores.
As for Iran’s nuclear program, the arithmetic does not lie. The 400 kilograms of 60-percent enriched uranium that Iran possessed were zero before Trump — pressured by his largest Israel-first donors — tore up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran had fully complied not only with the IAEA non-proliferation agreement, which Israel has never signed nor accepted, but with the additional protocols governing verification and monitoring of its civilian nuclear program.
Trump canceled the deal anyway, not because it failed America, but because it did not satisfy Israel’s veto.
The deepest irony is that Iran’s nuclear knowledge and capabilities are more advanced today than when Trump discarded the JCPOA. Any new agreement — even one stricter in structure than the original — is therefore being negotiated from a fundamentally weaker position than the one that existed in 2018. No treaty can unlearn what Iran already knows.
On Monday, June 15, Trump heralded the end of war bragging that Iran agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. In a leaked copy of the supposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), item 8 states: “The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons ...” The word reiterates is not incidental. It is a direct reference to Article III of the 2015 JCPOA, which Trump most likely never read, where Iran had already affirmed: “… that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” Same commitment. Same language. Different signatures. Twelve weeks of a war that went nowhere to get here.
From “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” to celebrate an MoU to reopen a Strait that was open before $200 billion and countless American and Iranian lives were squandered. Trump’s triumph is much ado about nothing.
He canceled an existing deal that took years to negotiate, inflicted economic hardship on ordinary Iranians, and allowed Iran’s nuclear advancement to leap forward. It is, in the most literal sense, like redefining water as H2O. The molecule did not change. Only the dressing did. Israel’s war took Trump back to the starting point, at twice the cost to American taxpayers.
The same special-interest group that pushed Trump to cancel the JCPOA, lobbied him long before the 2024 election. Israel-first donors poured hundreds of million into his campaign as a down payment for this war. Netanyahu visited Trump seven times in thirteen months, manipulating, and scheming for another made-for-Israel war.
This war should also carry a lesson for the Arab Gulf states that long believed American military bases were a guarantee of their security. Instead, they found themselves sidelined and never consulted on a war waged, directly or indirectly, from their own soil, ultimately in service of an Israeli agenda. Foreign military presence does not deliver security. It delivers dependency. Lasting regional stability is built through regional cooperation, on terms beneficial to the region.
More importantly, the region must now reckon with a pattern it can no longer afford to ignore: wherever Israel goes, instability follows. The so-called Abraham Accords brought Israel into the Gulf. What followed was bombs, drones and economic ruins never seen since the Second World War.
I have lived in the Gulf. The only pop people could hear was the backfire of an aging car exhaust. In the last three months, friends shared recordings of ballistic missiles splitting the sky and drones buzzing overhead. Israel did not bring a defense shield; it brought a target. Its presence is a magnet for unrest. It is a carcass attracting wasps.
In fact, Israel is an agent of disorder and a parasite nurtured by chaos. It wraps itself in the language of partnership, mutual benefit, and shared values, deceiving others into believing the arrangement is reciprocal when it is entirely one-directional.
Israel’s record speaks for itself: a genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing across the West Bank, 1.3 million internal refugees in Lebanon, the occupation of Syrian land following Assad’s fall, destabilization operations in northern Iraq and Sudan.
In Iraq, the American invasion and regime change did not satisfy Israel’s insatiable lust for total chaos. It targeted Iraqi scientists and waged war against knowledge itself. The blueprint, in this view, has not changed for Iran. Israel’s dissatisfaction over the MoU with Tehran is not that it fails to produce a non-nuclear Iran, but that it fails to wipe out knowledge. Its broader objective is the suppression of scientific and technological development across the region. Israel seeks neighbors unable to think independently, consume, not produce, import rather than innovate. It wants to maintain a monopoly over nuclear capabilities and control over regional scientific advancement.
Israel brought ruins to the U.S., too. The made-for-Israel Iraq war helped detonate the financial crisis of 2008, saddling future American generations with trillions in accumulated debt that has never been fully reckoned with. A war that Trump condemned, criticizing Democratic leadership for failing to impeach George W. Bush who “got us into the war with lies.”
The cost of current Trump’s made-for-Israel war on Iran requires no economist to explain. It arrives uninvited in every American home, at the meat counter, in every grocery bill, every gas receipt, every price that keeps rising without explanation. They may not realize its extent, yet. By the time they do, the damage to the U.S. economy, as in 2008, will be too deep to reverse.
To undermine potential peace with Iran, the ungrateful Israel-first loyalists like Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin are already panicking and challenging Trump’s MoU. Israel will activate the constellation of media outlets controlled by Israel-first billionaires to shape what Americans see, read, and are permitted to question. The once-respected 60 Minutes, under a new Israel-first boss, Bari Weiss, allows Netanyahu to handpick his own interviewer. Who knows, maybe he submits his own questions, too.
Now, Netanyahu and American Zionists have sixty days to sabotage a final deal with Iran. Israel will mobilize its donors, lobby Congress, and if that fails, resort to what it has perfected. A false flag operation against American forces in the region, or another assassination in Lebanon.
A conflagration ensues, and once again, it will be fought with American money and American lives. Because a Middle East free of American military entanglement is the one outcome Israel cannot tolerate — a prospect more threatening than any Iranian nuclear centrifuge.
UN: Israel continues to violate Lebanon airspace in defiance of Iran-US MoU
Press TV – June 16, 2026
The United Nations has reported ongoing Israeli military offensives in southern Lebanon, including projectile launches and repeated violations of airspace, though it recorded a decrease in overall violence following a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States.
UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said during a news conference on Monday that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) had “observed a decrease in violence and exchanges of fire” from midnight until 4 p.m. local time.
UNIFIL also documented “133 trajectories of projectiles and 2 airstrikes” conducted by Israeli forces, while noting “no trajectories from Hezbollah or non-state actors.”
Dujarric further explained that peacekeepers had recorded 25 violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli forces, with a cumulative overflight duration of “approximately 40 hours.”
“Prior to the announcement of the agreement yesterday between the US and Iran, our UNIFIL peacekeepers noted 135 violations of Lebanese airspace by the [Israeli military], with a total overflight time exceeding 222 hours,” he stated, adding that the peacekeeping mission had recorded a total of “1,374 trajectories of projectiles over the weekend, with 1,328 attributed” to Israeli forces.
Regarding the humanitarian situation, Dujarric highlighted the prevailing uncertainty on the ground, stating, ”Some families have reportedly begun to return to their homes or are evaluating the conditions in communities in parts of southern Lebanon, particularly in Nabatieh.”
“However, no large-scale returns have occurred thus far,” he added.
On Monday evening, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council announced that the memorandum of understanding (MoU) reached between Tehran and Washington earlier in the day will bring an end to warfare on all fronts, including in Lebanon.
The SNSC secretariat also announced that the MoU is scheduled to be officially signed on Friday, June 19.
Despite the agreement, the Israeli army conducted demolitions and shelling in several towns in southern Lebanon on Monday. Reports indicated that displaced residents were returning to some southern villages, while local municipalities advised caution and urged residents to postpone their returns.
Since March 2, Israel has been conducting an extensive military offensive in Lebanon, killing 3,783 individuals and injuring 11,699 others, as reported by the Lebanese Health Ministry. Additionally, over one million people have been forced to flee their homes.
Israel maintains its occupation of certain regions in southern Lebanon, with some areas being held for decades and others since the onset of the 2023-2024 war. Israeli troops have also penetrated more than 10 kilometers into Lebanese land.
Featured Video
Marjorie Taylor Greene: The Money Trail in Washington DC
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
New book reveals how the Israel lobby destroyed US diplomacy with Iran
Eli Clifton and Ian Lustick Reveal How The Israel Lobby Paved The Way For A U.S. War On Iran
By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | August 11, 2026
Investigative journalist Eli Clifton and political scientist Ian Lustick have released a detailed history of the Israel lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy titled “Israel’s Lobby: America in the Grip of a Foreign Power”.
The book contains a detailed history of the Israel lobby’s influence over various U.S. administrations going back to its creation.
Among the book’s most interesting revelations is how the Israel Lobby pushed anti-Iran propaganda in the United States in order to destroy U.S. diplomacy with Iran. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- UK withholds files on Israeli firm accused of meddling in Scottish election, citing national security
- Iran says US ‘unprecedented violations’ of Geneva Conventions cannot be ignored
- Pentagon accused of ‘whitewashing’ civilian casualties
- Why does Turkey transfer ATACMS and will this save Neo-Nazi junta?
- Putin warns West over ship seizures
- Moscow mocks Romanian ‘evidence’ linking downed drones to Russia
- Britain and Germany Among Largest Suppliers of Parts for Ukrainian Drones – Russian Diplomat
- New Book Reveals How The Israel Lobby Destroyed U.S. Diplomacy With Iran
- By Normalizing Ties With Israel, Delcy Rodriguez Betrays The Bolivarian Revolution
- Marjorie Taylor Greene: The Money Trail in Washington DC
- If Americans Knew
- ‘See. Listen. Speak’: Palestinian Churches Call for Action against Israeli Violations
- Turkey suspects Israel fabricated Trump Air Force One assassination plot to derail US-Iran deal
- Israeli Bulldozing Intensifies Destruction of Farmland, Water Systems in West Bank and Gaza
- Gazans struggle with “slow and cumulative effect of…manufactured deprivation” – Daily Update
- Israel’s siege cripples transport system in Gaza, cuts off food and medicine, pushing residents back toward famine
- “She was shot in the head. She was in the prayer area memorizing the Quran.”
- ‘Is this how our story ends?’ Palestinian refugees live in fear as Israel takes aim at West Bank camps
- ISRAELI MEDIA: International Media Is Failing Palestinian Journalists in Gaza
- Zionism has warped the lexicon, so words are now convenient weapons
- Israel’s siege cripples transport system in Gaza, risking return to famine in Gaza: Rights monitor
- No Tricks Zone
- Germany Also Saw Extreme Drought Conditions In The 1940s…Worse Than Today
- Another New Study Links Modern And Past Global Warming To Natural Changes In Cloud Clover, Not CO2
- Uncertainty In Estimating Solar Forcing Across The Arctic Is 100-350x Larger Than CO2’s Alleged Climate Impact
- Farce Of The Week: Germany’s Weather Site Donnerwetter.de Attempts To Measure The Rhine River’s Temperature!
- Analysis: Robert Koch Institute’s Heat Death Model Is “A Joke”… Deaths “Assumed” To Be Due To Heat
- New Research Finds Increasing CO2 Induces Cooling In The Lower Atmosphere Over The Arctic
- Germany’s Industrial Suicide… Grid Agency Prepares Secret Power Rationing Plans Amid Electric Power Bottlenecks
- ECMWF Models Throwing Cold Water On Extreme Germany Heat Wave Forecast Next Week
- Greenland’s Ice Sheet Was Supposed To Be Rapidly Melting Away. It Hasn’t Been.
- Global Temperature Trend Has Cooled Over The Past 6500 Years, Scientists Have Found
Aletho News 