RSS
Israel-Hezbollah War: To Cease or Not to Cease
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem leads prayers during funeral of Hezbollah senior leader Ibrahim Aqil and Hezbollah member Mahmoud Hamad, who were killed in Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, in Beirut, Lebanon, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
There were reasons for Israel to have accepted an American-authored “ceasefire” agreement with Hezbollah.
First, Iran is Israel’s chief security priority, not Hezbollah. In addition, Israel has been fighting the longest war of its modern existence, and its forces are being stretched. During that war, Hezbollah has been helping Hamas by diverting Israel’s military capability and attention; this ceasefire will allow Israel to put the focus of its deployment back on Gaza.
And not to be underestimated is the US “soft embargo” on weapons to Israel. There are rumors that the Biden administration has said that it will ensure deliveries on time if Israel agrees to the Lebanon plan. It would not be in Israel’s interest to further aggravate the outgoing administration.
There were also reasons for Israel to reject the current incarnation of a “ceasefire,” beginning with the way the signatories are positioned. Israel and the US have an agreement; the US and Lebanon have a separate one, although the language is the same; and there is an “authorized” non-Hezbollah representative as a third party.
The US tried the same fiction during the “Maritime Border Agreement” talks — separate US-Israel and US-Lebanon agreements, and a nod from Hezbollah. It failed when Hezbollah decided to break it.
Hezbollah had control not only of territory in the south, in which it had buried its arsenal, but also of the government in Beirut. Its control of territory is — happily — diminished, but it retains its place in Beirut. There is no assurance that Hezbollah will do other than what it chooses to do, and no assurance that the “Government of Lebanon” can operate independently.
According to the agreement, “both nations” — meaning Lebanon and Israel — retain their “inherent right of self-defense.” The kindest way to look at Lebanon is to say that it is occupied by Hezbollah, in which case, it has no ability to defend itself and requires rescue from its occupier. Neither the UN nor the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have that capability. Israel might, but only if the international community agrees that Hezbollah has to go. No such policy has been articulated.
Moving through the terms, they are precisely those of the failed UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of 2006. Reports say that both Israel and Lebanon simply “reaffirmed” their commitment to the resolution. Hezbollah, it seems, simply reaffirmed its commitment to a “ceasefire.” Under the terms of 1701, the LAF was charged with enforcing conditions including, “Any other armed groups will be disarmed, and unauthorized military facilities or weapons caches will be dismantled.”
The LAF failed to do this in 2006, and there is no reason to believe it will succeed in 2024. Although it has received millions of US dollars, the US has had no influence on the political leaning of LAF commanders and troops.
Next, Israel has 60 days in which to operate in southern Lebanon and then gradually withdraw to the Blue Line (the UN-demarcated Lebanon-Israel border). Hezbollah has been tunneling and accumulating weapons inside civilian infrastructure — houses, mosques, schools — for 28 years. What if the job isn’t done in 60 days?
Hezbollah can wait 60 days, regroup its commanders and forces in Beirut, and then plan for its future. There is no international penalty on Hezbollah for its terrorist behavior or its violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) for abusing the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon.
An “Oversight Committee” will “oversee” compliance. That was, in fact, the job of UNIFIL — which not only failed, but operated in conjunction with Hezbollah to protect it and enhance its capabilities. Now the Oversight Committee will report violations of the new agreement to — wait for it — UNIFIL.
And finally, the US will facilitate indirect talks between Israel and Lebanon to finalize a “mutually agreed-upon land border.” This is obscurantism.
There is already a UN-demarcated land border between Israel and Lebanon, but there is also an unmentioned maritime border — encompassing vast natural gas reserves. This has been a separate but related bone of contention (see Maritime Border Agreement, above).
That covers the main points in the agreement, but what about the fundamental points that are NOT in the agreement?
There is no mention of eliminating, or even extracting a price from Hezbollah — an Iranian-funded proxy organization that has wrecked the once-prosperous nation of Lebanon, and threatens Israel as well as the broader region.
Speaking of the broader region, there is no mention of controlling the Iranian military supply lines that run through Syria and into Lebanon. Is that the responsibility of the LAF? UNIFIL?
The IDF, in conjunction with a deconfliction agreement with Russia, has worked to keep Iranian weapons out of Lebanon. Will that continue? Who says?
There is no mention of a peace agreement, or Lebanese recognition of the State of Israel, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed in 1967.
Without those, everything agreed to is temporary and lives at the convenience of organizations and countries uninterested in peace — but very much interested in the elimination of the State of Israel.
A ceasefire is not peace.
Survival is not victory.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly magazine.
The post Israel-Hezbollah War: To Cease or Not to Cease first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
3rd Round of Nuclear Talks Between Iran, US Concludes in Oman
Atomic symbol and USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, September 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
i24 News – The third round of talks between Iran and the United States over Tehran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program has concluded on Saturday, US media reported.
The two sides are understood to have discussed the US lifting of sanctions on Iran, with focuses on technical and key topics including uranium enrichment.
On April 12, the US and Iran held indirect talks in Muscat, marking the first official negotiation between the two sides since the US unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 during President Donald Trump’s first term.
The second round of indirect talks took place in Rome, Italy, on April 19.
All parties, including Oman, stated that the first two rounds of talks were friendly and constructive, but Iranian media pointed out that the first two rounds were mainly framework negotiations and had not yet touched upon the core issues of disagreement.
According to media reports, one of the key issues in the expert-level negotiations will be whether Washington will allow Iran to continue uranium enrichment within the framework of its nuclear program. In response, Araghchi made it clear that Iran’s right to uranium enrichment is non-negotiable.
The US, Israel and other Western actors including the United Nation’s nuclear agency reject Iranian claims that its uranium enrichment is strictly civilian in its goals.
The post 3rd Round of Nuclear Talks Between Iran, US Concludes in Oman first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Says It’s Open to 5-Year Gaza Truce, One-Time Release of All Hostages
Demonstrators hold signs and pictures of hostages, as relatives and supporters of Israeli hostages kidnapped during the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas protest demanding the release of all hostages in Tel Aviv, Israel, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Itai Ron
i24 News – The Palestinian jihadists of Hamas said they were willing to secure an agreement with Israel that that would see them remain in charge of the enclave, a source told international media. The deal would include an internationally guaranteed five-year truce and the release of all Israeli hostages in a single batch.
The latest bid to seal a ceasefire follows an Israeli proposal which Hamas had rejected earlier in April as “partial,” urging a “comprehensive” agreement to halt the war ignited by the October 7 massacres.
Israel demands the return of all hostages seized in the 2023 attack, and the disarmament of Hamas, which the jihadists rejected as a “red line.”
An earlier Israeli offer, rejected by the Palestinian terrorists, included a 45-day ceasefire in exchange for the return of 10 living hostages.
More than a month into a renewed Israeli offensive in Gaza after a two-month truce, a Hamas official said earlier this week that its delegation in Cairo would discuss “new ideas” on a ceasefire.
The post Hamas Says It’s Open to 5-Year Gaza Truce, One-Time Release of All Hostages first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Suspected Chemical Blast at Iran’s Bandar Abbas Kills 4, Injures Hundreds
People walk after an explosion at the Shahid Rajaee port in Bandar Abbas, Iran, April 26, 2025. Photo: Mohammad Rasoul Moradi/IRNA/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
A huge blast on Saturday likely caused by the explosion of chemical materials stored at Iran’s biggest port, Bandar Abbas, killed at least four people and injured more than 500, Iranian state media reported.
The explosion, which hit the Shahid Rajaee section of the port, occurred as Iran began a third round of nuclear talks with the United States in Oman, but there was no immediate indication of a link between the two events.
Hossein Zafari, a spokesperson for Iran’s crisis management organization, appeared to blame the explosion on poor storage of chemicals in containers at Shahid Rajaee.
“The cause of the explosion was the chemicals inside the containers,” he told Iran’s ILNA news agency.
“Previously, the Director General of Crisis Management had given warnings to this port during their visits and had pointed out the possibility of danger,” Zafari said.
An Iranian government spokesperson, however, said that although chemicals had likely caused the blast, it was not yet possible to determine the exact reason.
Iran’s official news channels aired footage of a vast black and orange cloud of smoke billowing up above the port in the aftermath of the blast, and an office building with its doors blown off and papers and debris strewn around.
Bandar Abbas is Iran’s largest port and handles most of its containers in transit.
The blast shattered windows within a radius of several kilometers and was heard in Qeshm, an island 16 miles south of the port, Iranian media said.
The semi-official Tasnim news agency posted footage of injured men lying on the road being tended to amid scenes of confusion.
State TV earlier reported that poor handling of flammable materials was a “contributing factor” to the explosion. A local crisis management official told state TV that the blast took place after several containers stored at the port exploded.
As relief workers tried to put out fires, the port’s customs officials said trucks were being evacuated from the area and that the container yard where the explosion occurred likely contained “dangerous goods and chemicals.” Activities at the port were halted after the blast, officials said.
DEADLY INCIDENTS
A series of deadly incidents have hit Iranian energy and industrial infrastructure in recent years, with many, like Saturday’s blast, blamed on negligence.
They have included refinery fires, a gas explosion at a coalmine, and an emergency repairs incident at Bandar Abbas killed one worker in 2023.
Iran has blamed some other incidents on its arch-foe Israel, which has carried out attacks on Iranian soil targeting Iran’s nuclear program in recent years and last year bombed the country’s air defenses.
Tehran said Israel was behind a February, 2024 attack on Iranian gas pipelines. And in 2020, computers at Shahid Rajaee were hit by a cyberattack. The Washington Post reported that Iran’s arch-foe Israel appeared to be behind that incident as retaliation for an earlier Iranian cyberattack.
Israel has indicated it is nervous about the outcome of US-Iran talks, demanding a full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran says the program is used solely for peaceful purposes, while international observers say it is getting closer to being able to build a bomb.
There was no immediate comment from Israeli military or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office when asked for comment on whether Israel was in any way involved in Saturday’s explosion.
Oil facilities were not affected by the blast on Saturday, Iranian authorities said. The National Iranian Petroleum Refining and Distribution Company said in a statement that it had “no connection to refineries, fuel tanks, distribution complexes and oil pipelines.”
The post Suspected Chemical Blast at Iran’s Bandar Abbas Kills 4, Injures Hundreds first appeared on Algemeiner.com.