RSS
US Mediation With Israel and Lebanon Is Futile and Destructive
Israeli firefighters work following rocket attacks from Lebanon, amid ongoing cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, near the border on its Israeli side, June 13, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Avi Ohayon
The Biden administration maintains the illusion that the nine months of violence between the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and Israel can be de-escalated and defused. The President is keen on preventing the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel from escalating further and engulfing the Middle East in a war. But US planning and thinking about de-escalating and defusing the conflict is pointless and shortsighted.
The administration seeks to configure a new status quo between Israel and Lebanon that cannot be sustained. Future violence is inevitable. If Biden succeeds, the initiator of the conflict — Hezbollah — would go unpunished. The militia would remain unchecked. The reason for the violence at the border would go unaddressed. And by connecting the Hezbollah-Israel conflict to an outcome of the Hamas-Israel conflict, the administration would empower the Lebanese militia.
President Biden dispatched envoy Amos Hochstein to the Middle East after Hezbollah initiated the almost daily cycle of violence with Israel. Hochstein’s shuttle diplomacy has produced several measures to prevent future outbreaks of violence and create greater security for communities inhabiting the border region. A negotiated settlement would entail: 1) officially demarcating the shared Israeli-Lebanese land border with adjustments at 13 disputed locations; 2) deploying additional United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) troops to areas between the Litani River and the Israeli-Lebanese border; 3) deploying the Lebanese army to the Lebanese-Israeli border; and 4) requiring the withdrawal of Hezbollah forces from the Israeli-Lebanese border and relocating them north of the Litani River in Lebanon.
The administration believes the realization of the aforementioned measures is connected to the cessation of violence in Gaza. Witness the words of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on June 12: “Now, there’s no doubt in my mind that the best way to empower a diplomatic solution to the north, Lebanon, is a resolution of the conflict in Gaza and getting the ceasefire. That will take a tremendous amount of pressure out of the system. It will take away a justification that Hizballah has claimed for the attacks it’s engaged in, and, I think, open a pathway to actually resolve this diplomatically.”
Hochstein affirmed Blinken’s statement during his June 19 visit to Beirut.
But the measures and thinking of Hochstein and Blinken are plagued by problems and dangers.
Firstly, the initiator of the conflict at the Israeli-Lebanese border — Hezbollah — would not be a party to an Israeli-Lebanese settlement. As a non-signatory, the militia is not obliged to formally endorse the agreement or maintain adherence to it. Without making Hezbollah accountable to the agreement, future violence is likely.
Why?
History demonstrates that Hezbollah is indifferent to the concerns, interests, and decisions of the Lebanese state. Hezbollah’s agenda always trumps the state.
For example, the militia ignored the government’s policy of disassociation from the Syrian civil war and entered the conflict in 2012. Similar to what Lebanon is currently experiencing with Israeli retaliatory strikes, the country became a victim of violence because of Hezbollah’s self-interest. The militia’s intervention in Syria precipitated several ISIS suicide bombings perpetrated against the Lebanese public. There is no indication that Hezbollah has learned a lesson and would act differently following a Lebanese government decision to enter into a settlement with Israel.
History also demonstrates the inability or unwillingness of the Lebanese state to keep its word and enforce agreements. A notable example is the resolution to the 2006 33-day Israel-Hezbollah war. Despite endorsing UN Resolution 1701, the state failed to fully implement the resolution’s stipulations. Today’s nine-month conflict is a direct result of that failure.
Secondly, a negotiated Israeli-Lebanese settlement allows Hezbollah to effectively go unpunished for starting the conflict. The measures being discussed are not punishments — at best, they are temporary inconveniences. Hezbollah would be required to move its militia north of the Litani River in Lebanon (roughly 12 miles from the Israeli border), while the Lebanese army and more UNIFIL troops will stand between the militia and Israel.
A similar expectation was stipulated after the fighting in 2006. It never happened. Furthermore, if Hezbollah is convinced to relocate its militia, how can anyone guarantee that it will stay behind the Litani River? Or will Hezbollah just launch missiles and drones at Israel from behind the Litani River — over the heads of UNIFIL and the Lebanese army?
Going relatively unpunished also absolves the terrorist militia of responsibility for initiating the latest round of conflict, and leaves Hezbollah undeterred. An absolved and undeterred Hezbollah entails a more empowered militia. The question then becomes when, not if, future violence will occur.
Thirdly, the proposed settlement between Israel and Lebanon would ignore the reason for the latest round of violence. The diplomacy addresses a land dispute between two countries and the relocation of a militia. Neither are central to why violence erupted on October 8.
Hezbollah’s leadership stated that their October 8 and subsequent attacks on Israel are an act of solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinians of Gaza. Hezbollah maintains that it will not relent until the violence ends in Gaza. The militia is attempting to insert itself into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by working to exact leverage or deterrence over fighting between Israel and the Palestinians. The goal is for the Israelis to think twice about responding to Palestinian terrorism and violence in the future because they will be forced to fight on a second front–southern Lebanon. The proposed Israeli-Lebanese settlement does nothing to prevent this new Hezbollah objective.
Lastly, the Biden administration’s pointless diplomacy also has the makings of becoming damaging. Instead of defusing the conflict, it would lay the foundation for future conflict. As demonstrated by Blinken and Hochstein’s words, they are linking the de-escalation of the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict to a ceasefire in Gaza. Linking the conflicts plays into the hands of Hezbollah. It empowers the militia by enabling it to claim a victory of sorts — it maintained its pressure on Israel until Israel conceded to a ceasefire. Linkage also enables future Hezbollah aggression against Israel for the sake of solidarity with Hamas and the Palestinians. For example, Hezbollah would be empowered to act if Israel launches a major operation in the West Bank.
US plans to de-escalate and defuse the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah would do little except make a bad situation worse. A US-mediated settlement between the Israeli and Lebanese governments does not prevent future conflict. It would allow Hezbollah, the initiator of the violence, to go unchecked and unpunished while failing to directly address the new objective of Hezbollah’s aggression. Compounding the predicament is their willingness to empower the militia by connecting the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah to a ceasefire in Gaza. The Biden administration’s mediation is proving to be futile and damaging.
Eric Bordenkircher, Ph.D., is a research fellow at UCLA’s Center for Middle East Development. He tweets at @UCLA_Eagle. The views represented in this piece are his own and do not necessarily represent the position of UCLA or the Center for Middle East Development.
The post US Mediation With Israel and Lebanon Is Futile and Destructive first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Abraham Accords Tested on 5th Anniversary as Arab Leaders Gather to Condemn Israel’s Strike on Hamas in Qatar
Qatar’s Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani, attends the preparatory ministerial meeting for emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 14, 2025. Photo: Qatar Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Handout via REUTERS
The fifth anniversary of the Abraham Accords was overshadowed on Monday as top Arab diplomats gathered in Doha for an emergency summit after Israel’s strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar last week.
Five years on, experts say that, despite war and political shocks, the US-brokered deals that normalized relations between Israel and several Araba countries have endured, though not without setbacks, and many argue that strengthening them is the most effective way to defeating the hatred and terrorism that led to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
Trade between Abraham Accord countries in 2025 increased from the year before, though it remained well below the levels seen before the Hamas-led attack. The UAE, Israel’s most significant new trading partner, has dominated the commerce generated by the accords, signed on the lawn of the White House on Sept. 15, 2020.
Hundreds of Israeli companies now operate in the UAE, with Emirati investors channeling capital into Israeli tech startups and sovereign funds taking stakes in gas and technology ventures, though a planned $2 billion acquisition was shelved after the outbreak of the Gaza war. Recent figures show trade between Israel and the UAE reached $293 million in July 2025, a 4 percent rise from the year before, while trade with Morocco grew 32 percent in the same month to $8.7 million, according to data published by the Washington DC-based Heritage Foundation. Over the first seven months of 2025, Israel–Morocco trade totaled $71 million, a 7 percent increase from the same period in 2024, the report said.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then-US President Donald Trump, and United Arab Emirates (UAE) Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed display their copies of signed agreements as they participate in the signing ceremony of the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and some of its Middle East neighbors, in a strategic realignment of Middle Eastern countries against Iran, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, US, Sept. 15, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Tom Brenner
Asher Fredman, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation who also served as Israel director of the Abraham Accords Peace Institute — a nonprofit founded by former White House adviser and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner to promote and expand the accords — said the agreements had “proven their resilience.”
He noted that the war had exposed how Hamas, with its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, continues to threaten the region’s stability.
“Many regional leaders appreciate Israel’s efforts to remove Hamas, a terrorist group affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, from power, even if they are critical of Israel’s tactics,” he told The Algemeiner.
But he went on to say that the war had resulted in diminishing many aspects of the “warm peace and people-to-people cooperation that made the accords so unique” and that restarting momentum will require “regional projects with tangible benefits,” with strong US backing, and ensuring Hamas can no longer undermine progress toward peace.
“Lasting regional integration will depend on removing Hamas as the dominant military and governing power in Gaza,” he said.
Defense trade has also expanded, with Abraham Accords countries accounting for 12 percent of Israel’s $15 billion in arms exports last year, and major defense projects, including the UAE’s co-production of Israeli drones, continuing in 2025 – though many are now under wraps.
Middle East experts Elie Podeh and Yoel Guzansky, from the Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University, respectively, noted in The Jerusalem Post that Washington’s 2021 decision to place Israel within US Central Command signaled Arab states’ readiness to work with Israel openly, not just behind closed doors. Israel had already taken part in joint drills with regional neighbors, but its integration into CENTCOM created what they described as a qualitative shift in collaboration — a shift that was evident during Iranian attacks on Israel in April and October 2024 and again in June 2025.
But the UAE’s decision to bar Israeli defense firms from a major global defense and aerospace expo in Dubai later this year – reportedly in response to Israel’s strike in Doha – highlighted the political strains now testing the accords.
Podeh and Guzansky agreed with Fredman that people-to-people ties have suffered during the war but emphasized the particular impact on younger Arabs. “The gap between elite positions and Arab public opinion – especially among younger generations – continues to widen across all countries, placing pressure on ruling elites to respond,” they said.
Earlier this month, the UAE also issued a rare public rebuke to Israel over reports of renewed annexation ambitions in the West Bank. A senior Emirati official, Lana Nusseibeh, warned that any Israeli move to apply sovereignty would constitute a “red line” for Abu Dhabi that “would severely undermine the vision and spirit of the Abraham Accords” – marking the Gulf country’s toughest criticism of Israel since the war began.
On Friday, the UAE said it had summoned Israel’s deputy ambassador over the strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s subsequent “hostile and unacceptable” remarks, in another sign of strain between the two countries with close economic and defense ties. The Emirati foreign ministry said it told David Ohad Horsandi that “the continuation of such hostile and provocative rhetoric … solidifies a situation that is unacceptable and cannot be overlooked.”
A draft resolution from the Arab-Islamic summit in Doha, a day before Monday’s emergency summit, warned that Israel’s “brutal” strike in Qatar and other actions “threaten prospects of peace and coexistence in the region, and threaten everything that has been achieved on the path of normalizing ties with Israel, including current agreements and future ones.”
The text accused Israel of “genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation, siege, and colonizing activities and expansion policies,” and said such conduct jeopardized efforts to expand normalization with Arab nations.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman with Emir Of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and GCC representatives pose for a group photo ahead of an emergency Arab-Islamic leaders’ summit convened to discuss the Sept. 9 Israeli attack on Hamas on Qatari territory, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 15, 2025. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
Podeh and Guzansky noted that Saudi Arabia, once seen as the most likely next signatory to the Abraham Accords, is “treading very carefully” since the outbreak of the Gaza war. As the guardian of Islam’s holiest sites and a leading voice in the Sunni world, Riyadh is reluctant to proceed without “significant progress on the Palestinian issue” or firm American commitments on security and civilian nuclear cooperation.
Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Israel’s special envoy for trade and innovation and co-founder of the UAE-Israel Business Council, struck a more positive note, saying that the Abraham Accords have been “game changing for Israel and the Middle East,” and stressing that even after an extensive regional war they have “stood strong.” She noted that the signatory states have consistently condemned Hamas, blocked boycott efforts against Israel at the Arab League, and made no overtures toward unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, unlike Canada, the UK, France and Australia.
“Even with the current tensions, it is the Abraham Accords countries who are clearly calling for the end of Hamas, as European countries remain silent,” Hassan-Nahoum told The Algemeiner.
“I am extremely optimistic about the long-term viability and even expansion of the Abraham Accords in the next ten years,” she concluded.
RSS
Anti-Israel Protests Force Early End to Vuelta a Espana Cycle Race
Cycling – Vuelta a Espana – Stage 21 – Alalpardo to Madrid – Madrid, Spain – Sept. 14, 2025: Barriers are smashed by anti-Israel protesters during Stage 21. Photo: REUTERS/Ana Beltran
Anti-Israel protests forced the Vuelta a Espana cycle race to be abandoned at its finale on Sunday, with Danish cyclist Jonas Vingegaard declared winner as police sought to quell demonstrations against an Israeli team’s participation.
Protesters chanting “they will not pass” overturned metal barriers and occupied the Vuelta (Tour of Spain) route at several points in Madrid as police attempted to push them back.
Two people were arrested and 22 police officers injured, the Spanish government said.
“The race is over,” said a spokesperson for the organizers, who also canceled the podium ceremony, leaving Vingegaard celebrating in the back of his team car.
Earlier, Spain’s Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez expressed “admiration for the Spanish people mobilizing for just causes like Palestine” by protesting during the race.
Israel‘s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar posted on X that Sanchez and his government were “a disgrace to Spain.”
“Today he encouraged demonstrators to take to the streets. The pro-Palestinian mob heard the incitement messages – and wrecked the La Vuelta cycling race.”
The demonstrations have targeted the Israel-Premier Tech team over Israel‘s actions in Gaza. Some riders had threatened to quit last week as routes were blocked, causing some falls.
Israel‘s war against Palestinian terrorist group Hamas has sparked protests globally and affected several sporting events.
Seven Israeli chess players withdrew from a Spanish tournament starting on Friday after organizers told them they would not be competing under their flag, citing the Gaza conflict and expressing solidarity with the Palestinians.
On Sunday in Madrid, more than 1,000 police officers were on duty as cyclists reached the final stage of the 21-day race – the biggest deployment since the Spanish capital hosted the NATO summit three years ago.
PROTESTERS CLASH WITH RIOT POLICE
Police held back a crowd of hundreds bearing placards and waving Palestinian flags for several hours as the cyclists snaked their way through towns and villages towards Madrid.
As the riders drew closer to the capital, the demonstrators hurled plastic bottles and traffic cones, upended blue barriers and surged onto the road. Baton-wielding riot police fired smoke bombs to try to disperse them.
Sanchez has repeatedly clashed with Israel over its war in Gaza, describing it as genocide. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused his Spanish counterpart of antisemitism and making genocidal threats.
Madrid’s Mayor Jose Luis Martinez-Almeida blamed Sanchez.
“[It’s] violence that the prime minister is directly responsible for due to his statements today in the morning instigating the protests,” Martinez-Almeida said.
“Today is the saddest day since I became mayor of this great city.”
Santiago Abascal, leader of the far-right Vox party, posted: “The psychopath has taken his militias to the streets.”
“He doesn’t care about Gaza. He doesn’t care about Spain. He doesn’t care about anything. But he wants violence in the streets to maintain power.”
It is the first time one of cycling’s Grand Tours has been prevented from completing its final stage by political demonstrators since the Vuelta in 1978 was halted by Basque separatists in San Sebastian.
Health Minister Monica Garcia said the latest protests showed Spain was a “global beacon in the defense of human rights.”
“The people of Madrid join dozens of demonstrations across the country and peacefully bring to a halt the end of a cycling race that should never have been used to whitewash genocide,” Garcia said in a post on Bluesky.
Israel‘s nearly two-year-long campaign against Hamas in Gaza was prompted by the Palestinian terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. The onslaught, in which Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages, was the deadliest single day for Jews since the Holocaust.
RSS
Iran’s Uranium-Enrichment Program Must Be Dismantled, US Energy Secretary Says
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright speaks on the opening day of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) General Conference at the agency’s headquarters in Vienna, Austria, Sept. 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Lisa Leutner
Iran’s uranium–enrichment program must be “completely dismantled,” US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the UN nuclear watchdog’s annual General Conference on Monday.
The US and Israel bombed Iran’s uranium–enrichment plants in June, arguing Iran was getting too close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency that inspects Iran’s nuclear facilities said it had no credible indication of a coordinated weapons program.
The IAEA has, however, said it is concerning that Iran amassed an estimated 440.9 kg (972 lbs) of uranium enriched to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent of weapons-grade. That is enough, if enriched further, for 10 nuclear bombs, according to an IAEA yardstick.
Iran’s enrichment plants were seriously damaged or destroyed in the attacks. It is less clear what happened to its stock of enriched uranium. The IAEA has not been able to carry out verification inspections since the attacks.
“If it wasn’t already clear enough, I will restate the United States’ position on Iran,” Wright said in a speech to the meeting of all IAEA member states.
“Iran’s nuclear weapons pathway, including all [uranium] enrichment and [plutonium] reprocessing capabilities, must be completely dismantled.”
E3 IN PROCESS OF REIMPOSING SANCTIONS
Britain, France, and Germany, known as the E3, have initiated a one-month process to re-impose sanctions on Iran lifted under a 2015 nuclear deal that unraveled after President Donald Trump pulled the United States out in 2018.
The E3 have said they might hold off on completing that process if Iran lets IAEA inspections fully resume, accounts for its enriched uranium, and holds direct nuclear talks with the United States.
Iran reached an agreement with the IAEA last week to pave the way towards resuming inspections. It is unclear whether enough progress will be made to satisfy the Europeans.
Tehran insists, however, that it has the right to enrich uranium, as all parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) do, provided they use nuclear technology solely for peaceful purposes. It denies seeking nuclear weapons.
Israel, by contrast, is not a party to the NPT and is widely believed to be the only country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons. Israel has a policy of not commenting on that subject.
“We hope dialogues restart, and we hope they’re successful. I think there’s a reasonable chance they will be,” Wright later told a press conference.
Asked what the United States was offering Iran, he said: “Rejoining the community of trading nations, removal of sanctions. It would be a home run for the Iranian people, and we’ve talked about other things as well, so there’s plenty of carrots for Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program.”