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
Trump Proposes Resettlement of Gazans as Netanyahu Visits White House
US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Feb. 4, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday proposed the resettlement of Palestinians from Gaza to neighboring countries, calling the enclave a “demolition site” and saying residents have “no alternative” as he held critical talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House.
“[The Palestinians] have no alternative right now” but to leave Gaza, Trump told reporters before Netanyahu arrived. “I mean, they’re there because they have no alternative. What do they have? It is a big pile of rubble right now.”
Trump repeated his call for Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states in the region to take in Palestinians from Gaza after nearly 16 months of war there between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which ruled the enclave before the war and remains the dominant faction.
Arab leaders have adamantly rejected Trump’s proposal. However, Trump argued on Tuesday that Palestinians would benefit from leaving Gaza and expressed astonishment at the notion that they would want to remain.
“Look, the Gaza thing has not worked. It’s never worked. And I feel very differently about Gaza than a lot of people. I think they should get a good, fresh, beautiful piece of land. We’ll get some people to put up the money to build it and make it nice and make it habitable and enjoyable,” Trump said.
Referring to Gaza as a “pure demolition site,” the president said he doesn’t “know how they [Palestinians] could want to stay” when asked about the reaction of Palestinian and Arab leaders to his proposal.
“If we could find the right piece of land, or numerous pieces of land, and build them some really nice places, there’s plenty of money in the area, that’s for sure,” Trump continued. “I think that would be a lot better than going back to Gaza, which has had decades and decades of death.”
However, Trump clarified that he does “not necessarily” support Israel permanently annexing and resettling Gaza.
Trump later made similar remarks with Netanyahu at his side in the Oval Office, suggesting that Palestinians should leave Gaza for good “in nice homes and where they can be happy and not be shot, not be killed.”
“They are not going to want to go back to Gaza,” he said.
Trump did not offer any specifics about how a resettlement process could be implemented.
The post-war future of Palestinians in Gaza has loomed as a major point of contention within both the United States and Israel. The former Biden administration emphatically rejected the notion of relocating Gaza civilians, demanding a humanitarian aid “surge” into the beleaguered enclave.
Trump has previously hinted at support for relocating Gaza civilians. Last month, the president said he would like to “just clean out” Gaza and resettle residents in Jordan or Egypt.
Steve Witkoff, the US special envoy to the Middle East, defended Trump’s comments in a Tuesday press conference, arguing that Gaza will remain uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
“When the president talks about ‘cleaning it out,’ he talks about making it habitable,” Witkoff said. “It is unfair to have explained to Palestinians that they might be back in five years. That’s just preposterous.
Trump’s comments were immediately met with backlash, with some observers accusing him of supporting an ethnic cleansing plan. However, proponents of the proposal argue that it could offer Palestinians a better future and would mitigate the threat posed by Hamas.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the Gaza war on Oct. 7, 2023, when they invaded southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages back to Gaza while perpetrating widespread sexual violence in what was the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
Last month, both sides reached a Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal brokered by the US, Egypt, and Qatar.
Under phase one of the agreement, Hamas will, over six weeks, free a total of 33 Israeli hostages, eight of whom are deceased, and in exchange, Israel will release over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom are serving multiple life sentences for terrorist activity. Meanwhile, fighting in Gaza will stop as negotiators work on agreeing to a second phase of the agreement, which is expected to include Hamas releasing all remaining hostages held in Gaza and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the enclave.
The ceasefire and the future of Gaza were expected to be key topics of conversation between Trump and Netanyahu, along with the possibility of Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing relations and Iran’s nuclear program.
Riyadh has indicated that any normalization agreement with Israel would need to include an end to the Gaza war and the pathway to the formation of a Palestinian state.
However, perhaps the most strategically important subject will be Iran, particularly how to contain its nuclear program and combat its support for terrorist proxies across the Middle East. In recent weeks, many analysts have raised questions over whether Trump would support an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which both Washington and Jerusalem fear are meant to ultimately develop nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu on Tuesday was the first foreign leader to visit the White House since Trump’s inauguration last month.
The post Trump Proposes Resettlement of Gazans as Netanyahu Visits White House first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Reimposes ‘Maximum Pressure’ on Iran, Aims to Drive Oil Exports to Zero
US President Donald Trump speaks at the White House, in Washington, DC, Feb. 3, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday restored his “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran that includes efforts to drive its oil exports down to zero in order to stop Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Ahead of his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump signed the presidential memorandum reimposing Washington’s tough policy on Iran that was practiced throughout his first term.
As he signed the memo, Trump described it as very tough and said he was torn on whether to make the move. He said he was open to a deal with Iran and expressed a willingness to talk to the Iranian leader.
“With me, it’s very simple: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. Asked how close Tehran is to a weapon, Trump said: “They’re too close.”
Iran‘s mission to the United Nations in New York did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump has accused former President Joe Biden of failing to rigorously enforce oil-export sanctions, which Trump says emboldened Tehran by allowing it to sell oil to fund a nuclear weapons program and armed militias in the Middle East.
Iran is “dramatically” accelerating enrichment of uranium to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level, the UN nuclear watchdog chief told Reuters in December. Iran has denied wanting to develop a nuclear weapon.
Trump‘s memo, among other things, orders the US Treasury secretary to impose “maximum economic pressure” on Iran, including sanctions and enforcement mechanisms on those violating existing sanctions.
It also directs the Treasury and State Department to implement a campaign aimed at “driving Iran‘s oil exports to zero.” US oil prices pared losses on Tuesday on the news that Trump planned to sign the memo, which offset some weakness from the tariff drama between Washington and Beijing.
Tehran’s oil exports brought in $53 billion in 2023 and $54 billion a year earlier, according to US Energy Information Administration estimates. Output during 2024 was running at its highest level since 2018, based on OPEC data.
Trump had driven Iran‘s oil exports to near-zero during part of his first term after re-imposing sanctions. They rose under Biden’s tenure as Iran succeeded in evading sanctions.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency believes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other OPEC members have spare capacity to make up for any lost exports from Iran, also an OPEC member.
PUSH FOR SANCTIONS SNAPBACK
China does not recognize US sanctions and Chinese firms buy the most Iranian oil. China and Iran have also built a trading system that uses mostly Chinese yuan and a network of middlemen, avoiding the dollar and exposure to US regulators.
Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy, said the Trump administration could enforce the 2024 Stop Harboring Iranian Petroleum (SHIP) law to curtail some Iranian barrels.
SHIP, which the Biden administration did not enforce strictly, allows measures on foreign ports and refineries that process petroleum exported from Iran in violation of sanctions. Book said a move last month by the Shandong Port Group to ban US-sanctioned tankers from calling into its ports in the eastern Chinese province signals the impact SHIP could have.
Trump also directed his UN ambassador to work with allies to “complete the snapback of international sanctions and restrictions on Iran,” under a 2015 deal between Iran and key world powers that lifted sanctions on Tehran in return for restrictions on its nuclear program.
The US quit the agreement in 2018, during Trump‘s first term, and Iran began moving away from its nuclear-related commitments under the deal. The Trump administration had also tried to trigger a snapback of sanctions under the deal in 2020, but the move was dismissed by the UN Security Council.
Britain, France, and Germany told the United Nations Security Council in December that they are ready — if necessary — to trigger a snapback of all international sanctions on Iran to prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
They will lose the ability to take such action on Oct. 18 when a 2015 UN resolution expires. The resolution enshrines Iran‘s deal with Britain, Germany, France, the United States, Russia, and China that lifted sanctions on Tehran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program.
Iran‘s UN ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, has said that invoking the “snap-back” of sanctions on Tehran would be “unlawful and counterproductive.”
European and Iranian diplomats met in November and January to discuss if they could work to defuse regional tensions, including over Tehran’s nuclear program, before Trump returned.
The post Trump Reimposes ‘Maximum Pressure’ on Iran, Aims to Drive Oil Exports to Zero first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Stops US Involvement With UN Rights Body, Extends UNRWA Funding Halt
An UNRWA aid truck at the Rafah border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip. Photo: Reuters/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to US engagement with the United Nations Human Rights Council and continued a halt to funding for the UN Palestinian relief agency UNRWA.
The move coincides with a visit to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long been critical of UNRWA, accusing it of anti-Israel incitement and its staff of being “involved in terrorist activities against Israel.”
During Trump‘s first term in office, from 2017-2021, he also cut off funding for UNRWA, questioning its value, saying that Palestinians needed to agree to renew peace talks with Israel, and calling for unspecified reforms.
The first Trump administration also quit the 47-member Human Rights Council halfway through a three-year term over what it called chronic bias against Israel and a lack of reform. The US is not currently a member of the Geneva-based body. Under former President Joe Biden, the US served a 2022-2024 term.
A council working group is due to review the US human rights record later this year, a process all countries undergo every few years. While the council has no legally binding power, its debates carry political weight and criticism can raise global pressure on governments to change course.
Since taking office for a second term on Jan. 20, Trump has ordered that the US withdraw from the World Health Organization and from the Paris climate agreement — also steps he took during his first term in office.
The US was UNRWA’s biggest donor — providing $300 million-$400 million a year — but Biden paused funding in January 2024 after Israel accused about a dozen UNRWA staff of taking part in the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Palestinian terrorist group Hamas that triggered the war in Gaza.
The US Congress then formally suspended contributions to UNRWA until at least March 2025.
The United Nations has said that nine UNRWA staff may have been involved in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack and were fired. A Hamas commander in Lebanon — killed in September by Israel — was also found to have had a UNRWA job.
An Israeli ban went into effect on Jan. 30 that prohibits UNRWA from operating on its territory or communicating with Israeli authorities. UNRWA has said operations in Gaza and West Bank will also suffer.
The post Trump Stops US Involvement With UN Rights Body, Extends UNRWA Funding Halt first appeared on Algemeiner.com.