Tag: israel

The $300 Billion Mirage: How the U.S.-Iran Deal is destined to fail because Israel won’t stop the bloodshed in Lebanon

Vice President JD Vance told CBS News that Iran “could have access” to a $300 billion reconstruction fund, funded by the Gulf Coast coalition, provided they “honor their end of the obligation.” Trump immediately denounced reports of a $300 billion payment as “Fake News, put out by the Dumocrats,” writing on Truth Social that “Iran has agreed to never have a Nuclear Weapon!”

This contradiction between the administration’s messaging and the reality of the deal raises serious concerns. The fund, as described by Vance, would be a massive financial injection into an Iranian economy that has been crippled by sanctions, a move that critics argue could free up resources for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump insists the deal is about preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but the timing is suspicious. Commercial oil inventories are already 7 million barrels below the early 2022 trough and declining at a weekly rate of 11 million barrels, according to Barclays analyst Amarpreet Singh.

With the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve releases structured as loans rather than supply additions, the Trump Administration’s energy policies have left the country vulnerable. Now Trump appears to be negotiating from a position of weakness, offering financial lifelines to a regime that has repeatedly violated international agreements.

Israel’s rejection: The most dangerous wildcard

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staked his political future on his relationship with Trump, but that relationship is now a liability. The U.S.-Iran deal leaves the Islamic Republic intact, an unpalatable prospect for Israelis across the political spectrum. Netanyahu, facing an election this fall, must contend with an agreement that effectively legitimizes Iran’s regional influence.

Israeli officials have already declared that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us,” and troops will remain in southern Lebanon despite Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi demanding a full Israeli withdrawal as part of the deal. The situation is dangerously volatile: Iran has linked the deal’s survival to Israeli compliance, while Israel has made clear it will pursue its own security interests.

If Netanyahu feels cornered politically, a preemptive strike against Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities could trigger the exact scenario the deal is supposed to prevent. Iran has shore batteries on the islands of Hormuz and Abu Musa, missile launchers in Bandar Abbas and Jask, and the capability to block the strait within hours. The Houthis have already demonstrated in the Red Sea how easily a determined adversary can disrupt global shipping with relatively primitive weapons. Iran’s arsenal is far more sophisticated, including seaborne drones and missiles that could sink any ship attempting to navigate through. History shows that these people refuse to capitulate to one another, and years of resentment and distrust and the war in 2026 have only renewed the hatred toward one another. The U.S. Iran Deal seeks a  buyout to keep the peace, but the deal will be temporary like all the others that followed it.

Keep reading

Israel And Hezbollah Trade Fire In Southern Lebanon, Deaths On Both Sides, Israeli Media Goes After Trump, Vance Cancels Swiss Iranian Negotiation Trip As Violence Rages, Iran Says Deal In Jeopardy

Hezbollah fired missiles into Northern Israel yesterday, which were intercepted by Israeli missile systems. Israeli leadership responded angrily to the U.S.-Iran peace deal as the IDF continued operations in Southern Lebanon. Multiple Israeli soldiers were killed south of Beirut as Israeli forces continue to consolidate positions and go after Shia proxy army targets in the south. The IDF continues to be challenged by FPV drones, which are effective against armor and infantry in southern Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz rages on Israeli TV:

“Nobody can tell us what to do, and we’ve proven it. The entire first line of Lebanese villages has been destroyed.  We are destroying all the houses. The residents will never see them standing before their eyes again.

“In Lebanon, the 200,000 residents who lived in the “security zone” are not returning.  Not one of them is returning.

“We are fighting there. We do not need al-Julani. Al-Julani, the terrorist in a suit, does not need to come and help us. We know Syria well. He is not going to help us in Lebanon. He should stay in Syria, not interfere with us, and not make us interfere with him.

“Do you know what really hurts the jihadists? Maybe it hurts them when you kill them personally, but they don’t care as much about that.  What really hurts them is when you take territory from them and destroy their homes—and that’s what we did.

“You remember the raids? They would go in and come out.  We go in, destroy, and do not leave. That’s what we’re doing now in Lebanon

“The IDF must be on the other side of the border, beyond the border, defending the State of Israel against jihadist organizations in Lebanon, in Syria, and in Gaza. We will not move from the “security zones”—not in Syria, not in Gaza, and not in Lebanon.

“Why are we on the other side in Syria?  Because we need to be there to protect ourselves against what we see in Syria.

“We are already in more than 60% of Gaza, and all of it is destroyed. It is destroyed above ground and underground. That is the difference in the approach we introduced.”

Keep reading

Israeli Desperation Leading to Enormous Sums for Lobbying, Media Manipulation

Things aren’t going so well these days for Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. While his partner President Trump is working actively to end the war with Iran by inking a memorandum of understanding to halt the fighting, American public opinion of Israel continues to plummet. That is no surprise — Israel’s war on Gaza has now killed over 73,000 Palestinians (at least), the Gaza Strip is largely rubble, and Israel has moved to do the same in south Lebanon.

Netanyahu blames the loss of support on TikTok and social media writ large (not his government’s own policies) and is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue media management and pro-Israel advocacy in the U.S. On a parallel track, Israel is seeking unprecedented integration with the U.S. military and its intelligence agencies — which would mean co-production on weapons, technology and sharing of sensitive intel. Experts say this is why Israel has been insisting it doesn’t “need” the 10-year agreement that provides Israel $3.8 billion annually in military aid. This would shift that aid to the places that don’t require the same oversight and overt American buy-in.

My colleagues Ben Freeman and Nick Cleveland-Stout, who form up the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute, have been digging away at these Israel efforts on myriad fronts. Ben has been writing about the integration legislation on both the military and intel sides, now making their way through Congress. Nick has been sifting through Foreign Agent Registration Act and other public efforts to expose the millions that have been going to former Trump campaign guy Brad Parscale to push pro-Israel messaging through conservative media platforms, text campaigns, manipulating ChatGPT, and more.

Both talk to me this week about how all of these efforts have ramped up as Israel is more keenly aware that it has lost the thread with the American people and that powerful lobbying forces like AIPAC are not enough.

Keep reading

The US-Israel Wars on Iran: Follow the Money

Like most of America’s wars in West Asia, the current joint U.S.-Israel attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran is about securing control over the region’s energy resources and preserving oil currency policies; practices that have fueled its expansive economy since the end of the Second World War.

Ultimately, this conflict, which has sent shockwaves through the global economy, boils down to who will reign in West Asia, control the world’s energy lifeline, and dictate the rules of global finance.

Beneath the veneer of geopolitical diplomacy and rhetoric about global order, the true catalyst for U.S. wars in the Persian Gulf – from the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to the current Iran war – has always been monetary supremacy, “money.” They have been rooted in oil revenue, debt leverage, and the staggering economic stakes of global energy and currency dominance.

Washington’s hardline stance, economic strangulation and military interventions  have been designed to enforce compliance. Countries, like Iran, that resist U.S. hegemony face severe financial and military pressures, because their defiance challenges America’s regional security architecture and unipolar dominance over the global financial system.

Since the 1970s, the “petrodollar system” has been the invisible engine of American prosperity and power.  However, the economic scaffolding that has buoyed its global hegemony is fraying, as geopolitical shifts and de-dollarization trends gradually erode the U.S. dollar’s absolute grip on global energy markets.

To make sense of how we reached this point, it is important to consider how the U.S. dollar achieved its global dominance and shaped our current economic reality.

In June 1974, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed a landmark economic and military cooperation agreement, establishing what has come to be known as the “petrodollar system.”

This consequential bargain was born in an era of political and economic uncertainty – inflation, Vietnam War and the 1973 Arab oil embargo. With the U.S. economy in a nosedive, then-President Richard Nixon, anxious to maintain the global demand for dollars, persuaded the Saudi government to finance America’s debt with its petroleum wealth.  He convinced them to price their oil exclusively in U.S. dollars and to invest their surplus oil profits in U.S. Treasury bonds.  In exchange, Washington agreed to provide the Saudis with weapons and protection.  By 1975, all Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries were pricing their oil in dollars.

The Saudi policy of pricing crude exclusively in U.S. dollars compelled all purchasing nations to convert their native currencies before making purchases.  Increased international demand for the dollar made it the world’s singular reserve currency and preferred medium of exchange.  To meet the increased need, Washington simply fired up the printing presses.

Over the years, Washington’s staunch support of the repressive Saudi regime has been driven by a strategic imperative: to ensure that its client state remains committed to the 1974 bargain.

This favorable pricing and trading arrangement has allowed Washington to entail massive deficits, to borrow and spend with abandon without triggering financial collapse. It has financed America’s numerous military adventures and provided the tools to wield economic sanctions and enforce its foreign policy.

Although a web of motives have fueled Washington’s interventions in West Asia, punishing currency dissenters was prominent in its past wars in Iraq and Libya.

Keep reading

Israeli foreign agent took over The Charlie Kirk Show days after his killing

The Charlie Kirk Show is now distributed by a federally registered agent of Israel tasked with seeding American media with Zionist propaganda. It is part of a whopping $46 million dollar annual contract between the Israeli government and Brad Parscale, the former chief of staff for Donald Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign. This may be the largest lobbying contract in the history of foreign influence operations in the US.

On September 10, 2025, Kirk was assassinated during the first stop on his American Comeback Tour at Utah Valley State University. Eight days later, Parscale registered as a foreign agent of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assuming responsibility for a propaganda blitz “tailored to Gen Z audiences across platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, podcasts, and other relevant digital and broadcast outlets.”

The deal meant that the Charlie Kirk Show, which had been distributed by the Salem Media Network since 2020, was placed under the control of a foreign agent for Israel, with Parscale assuming a role as Salem’s Chief Strategy Officer. According to the terms of the contract, Parscale’s Clock Tower would “integrate its pro-Israel messaging into Salem Media Network properties.”

According to a December 2025 report by Radio Ink, The Charlie Kirk Show “will continue as a podcast on the Salem Podcast Network, as Salem Media ‘will maintain its close professional and personal relationship with Turning Point USA.’”

“Salem has been so gracious through this process and even encouraged us to continue broadcasting the show on the Salem Radio Network,” said Andrew Kolvet, the TPUSA spokesman and host of The Charlie Kirk Show.

Since Kirk’s killing, his successors have done their best to bury his vehement opposition to war on Iran, as well as his public fits of disgust with Netanyahu and his army of lobbyists in the US. Kirk’s widow and replacement as TPUSA CEO, Erika Kirk, now insists that she and her husband never wavered in their support for Israel. She has also been unwilling to state what her late husband would have thought about the war the US and Israel waged on Iran this year.

“My husband isn’t here to say whether or not we should be at war with Iran,” Erika Kirk said in response to a question at a May 2026 TPUSA event. “I would love for him to be here right now and tell us if we should or should not.”

Keep reading

Sanders Says ‘We Must’ Strip Section on US-Israeli Military Integration From Pentagon Budget

US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged congressional lawmakers to strike a highly controversial provision from next year’s military spending authorization bill that is aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli armed forces under the guise of reducing aid.

A provision of the proposed $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027 originally titled Section 224 but now renumbered Section 219 would establish a formal “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” requiring the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology collaboration.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza – has called the section his personal plan.

“Only 16% of Americans support arming Israel without restrictions. So what is Congress doing? Burying a provision in the defense bill that would give Israel more military integration than any NATO ally,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media. “We must strip Section 224 from the Pentagon budget.”

Earlier this month, members of the House Armed Services Committee from both parties rejected an amendment introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to remove the integration provision from the 2027 NDAA. The committee then advanced the broader defense package. The Senate Armed Services Committee subsequently voted to advance the proposed NDAA.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) – an anti-interventionist libertarian who recently lost his reelection primary to a challenger backed by President Donald Trump – said Sunday that he and Khanna have submitted an amendment to strip Section 219 from the proposed NDAA. Massie’s measure requires the assent of seven of the House Rules Committee’s 13 members to get a vote.

Keep reading

UK’s Renewed Ban on Palestine Action Confirms Legal Overreach in the Designation of Terrorism

In a dispiriting ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeal in London overturned a ruling in February, by the High Court, that the government’s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, which was passed by Parliament last July, was unlawful.

The High Court’s ruling, in response to a judicial review submitted by Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action’s two co-founders, repudiated the two counts on which the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful.

Garden Court Chambers, whose barristers represented Huda Ammori at the judicial review in February, explained that these two counts were, firstly, that the Court “upheld the Claimant’s challenge that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action”, and, secondly, that “proscription breached the rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly as protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Court of Appeal shamefully reinstates the terrorism proscription

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned both. The repudiation of the first was a long and detailed analysis of the home secretary’s powers regarding proscription, in which it was noticeable that, in dismissing it, the Court of Appeal not only poured scorn on the High Court, declaring that they had “adopted an excessively analytical approach to the interpretation of the Proscription Policy”, but also showed repeated and obsequious deference to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary at the time of the proscription, and her “expert” advisers from the police and the intelligence services.

At one point, for instance, the judges described how they were “required to attach special weight to the judgments and assessments of a primary decision-maker with special institutional competence” — yes, that really is a fawning description of Yvette Cooper! — and elsewhere, in deference to the executive branch of government, they noted that “The Proscription Decision lies in the area of national security which, before the Human Rights Act 1998, would have been regarded as unsuitable for judicial scrutiny at all.”

On the ECHR issues, described by the Court of Appeal as “questions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others)”, the Court acknowledged difficulties involving “the rights of the many law-abiding citizens wishing peacefully to protest, hold placards and otherwise support Palestine Action”, over 3,500 of whom have now been arrested — although they did also note that all of them ought to have been aware that doing so had become a “criminal act.” They also acknowledged “the ‘chilling effect’ that proscription may have upon those wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but who may be dissuaded from doing so by fear of committing offenses under the 2000 Act.”

Keep reading

The Fragile US-Iran MOU and the Limits of the Trump-Netanyahu Partnership

As the fragile ceasefire hangs over the Middle East, two longtime allies who once seemed inseparable are now locked in a tense standoff. Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, launched this war with what looked like perfect coordination. But roughly a hundred days later, it has become a messy arena of personal friction, clashing strategies, and a very public tug-of-war over how – and when – it should end. Trump wants a quick victory and a deal he can sell as a historic win back home. Netanyahu sees the conflict as a once-in-a-generation chance to crush Iran’s threats for good and is in no mood to back down easily.

It all began in late February 2026. Joint U.S.-Israeli strikes hammered Iranian targets with waves of missiles and airstrikes. In his first statements, Trump spoke of the “death of Iran’s Supreme Leader” and urged Iranians to rise up against the regime. Netanyahu set even more ambitious goals: destroying Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, weakening its proxy forces across the region, and perhaps even regime change. In those early days, the two leaders appeared completely aligned. Trump pictured the operation as something short and decisive, reminiscent of his past “maximum pressure” campaigns. He hoped it would drive down oil prices, boost the American economy, and deliver him a major political trophy.

The battlefield, however, refused to cooperate with the script. Iran proved far more resilient than expected. Fighting spilled into Lebanon, Hezbollah got involved, and Trump’s diplomatic back-channel talks with Tehran suddenly looked shaky. Almost overnight, the early harmony gave way to visible strain. Trump quickly began looking for an honorable off-ramp. For him, war was always a tool for negotiation – a means to an end. Netanyahu, however, faced intense domestic pressure in Israel. With critics nipping at his heels and a fragile right-wing coalition to maintain, he viewed the conflict as a historic opportunity to deliver decisive blows against Iran’s infrastructure and cut off support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Reports from Israeli security cabinet meetings suggest Netanyahu even warned that Israel might continue alone if necessary, without full American backing.

The rift turned sharply personal in recent days. After Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets in Beirut, Iran fired ballistic missiles toward northern Israel. Israel responded by hitting Iranian defensive sites and missile fuel facilities. Trump was openly furious about the escalation. In an interview with the Financial Times, he declared, “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.” He claimed to have warned Netanyahu that if the fighting continued unchecked, Israel could soon find itself standing alone.

Accounts of a heated phone call between the two leaders have since leaked. Sources describe Trump using strong language, reportedly calling Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” and accusing him of undermining American diplomacy. People close to the White House say Trump shouted that he was saving Netanyahu, that without him Israel would be isolated and hated internationally. Netanyahu apparently postponed a planned new round of strikes on Tehran following that conversation. Back in Israel, his critics accused him of caving to Washington. Former army chief Gadi Eisenkot even released a campaign-style video featuring Trump’s voice, implying that Netanyahu does whatever the American president wants.

Trump later tried to soften the story in interviews with the BBC and various podcasts. He admitted he had been “a little upset” about the continued fighting in Lebanon because it was disrupting his negotiations with Iran. Yet multiple American and Israeli sources confirm the pressure from Washington was real and effective. Using America’s leverage – military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic cover – Trump has leaned hard on his counterpart.

The motivations driving each man run deep and differ sharply. Trump, mindful of war fatigue among American voters, is hunting for an agreement that curbs Iran’s nuclear program, frees hostages, and brings down gas prices at American pumps. He approaches foreign policy like a businessman: apply maximum pressure, strike a deal, and exit with something to show for it. This culminated in the recent U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which extends the ceasefire for 60 days, includes provisions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, provides for sanctions relief and release of frozen assets tied to compliance, and sets the stage for further nuclear negotiations. Netanyahu operates in a different reality. For him, anything short of severely degrading Iran’s capabilities would leave the job half-done. Any agreement reached too quickly, he believes, would be temporary and dangerous. In private sessions, he has stressed that Israel must be prepared to act in its own defense even without complete U.S. support.

The disagreement is particularly clear in Lebanon. Israeli operations in the south have complicated Trump’s diplomatic track with Tehran. Netanyahu insists that without a heavy blow to Iran’s proxies, the Islamic Republic will simply regroup and threaten Israel again. Trump, on the other hand, sees every extra week of fighting as an obstacle to the deal he wants to close. The MOU has further highlighted these tensions, with Israel expressing reservations and continuing certain operations while the U.S. pushes the broader framework forward.

Their once-warm personal relationship has also grown complicated. For years, Trump called Netanyahu a “friend” and “great partner.” Now his tone carries a sharper, almost condescending edge. Netanyahu, who has always emphasized Israel’s independent decision-making, finds himself walking a tightrope between domestic political survival and the vital lifeline of American support. Analysts describe the dynamic as much psychological as political. Trump pushes with his trademark blunt force and threats. Netanyahu resists with iron will and careful calculations about his own political future.

The consequences of this split reach well beyond the two men. If Trump brokers a relatively soft deal with Iran via the MOU, Netanyahu might view it as betrayal and launch unilateral operations anyway. Conversely, if Netanyahu drags the war out, Trump could restrict logistical and intelligence support, leaving Israel in a difficult spot. Iran is already trying to exploit the visible daylight between Washington and Jerusalem to deepen the divide. Inside Israel, the public is tired of war but many still back Netanyahu’s hard line. In the United States, the conflict remains deeply unpopular, and Trump faces growing pressure to bring it to an end.

For now, a shaky ceasefire holds under the new U.S.-Iran MOU framework, but tensions simmer just beneath the surface. Trump insists he remains in control and that Netanyahu will ultimately do what he asks. Netanyahu, in public statements, continues to stress Israel’s readiness to defend its interests with or without full dependence on Washington. The history of the Middle East is littered with wars that were easy to start but agonizingly hard to finish. The relationship between Trump and Netanyahu – once a symbol of ironclad solidarity – has become a mirror reflecting conflicting national interests and differing priorities.

What is decided in the Oval Office and in the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem will shape not only the outcome of this war but potentially the future pattern of U.S.-Israel relations for years to come. The region waits, watching closely.

Keep reading

The Mladenov Distraction: Behind the Screen, Netanyahu Is Annexing Gaza ‘Step-by-Step’

Gaza requires urgent international attention.

What is happening in the besieged and devastated Strip at the moment by far exceeds an unfolding humanitarian disaster; it is a calculated geopolitical reshaping. Israel is actively executing a plan to permanently occupy the vast majority of Gaza, with consequences that require little elaboration considering what we already know about the ongoing genocide.

Currently, much of the international debate centers on a single official: Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov. The former United Nations Special Coordinator has been designated by the United States as the Executive Director of the Trump administration’s newly established ‘Board of Peace’ – an international council founded to oversee the implementation of Washington’s 20-point Gaza roadmap.

The issue, however, is much bigger than a single Washington-backed bureaucrat. A growing number of Palestinians and political analysts accuse Mladenov of manufacturing the very conditions that continue to obstruct progress on the agreement’s transition to its second phase.

Under the framework, the official transition to this second phase – which Trump and the Board of Peace declared to have begun in January 2026 – demands sweeping, one-sided Palestinian concessions, most notably the total disarmament of armed factions.

This demand is a recipe for the failure of the entire project, especially given that Israel has completely failed to implement the most basic requirements of the agreement’s first phase. It has refused to halt its routine military incursions, has failed to withdraw its forces to the originally mandated ‘Yellow Line‘ demarcation, and continues to deny entry permits to the technocratic committee slated to assume civil governance of the Strip.

Mladenov’s insistence on Palestinian disarmament before the agreement can advance – without a single guarantee of Israeli compliance – conveniently flips the narrative. It cynically reframes systematic starvation and the blockade of medical and construction supplies as a Palestinian failure to honor commitments.

In reality, Mladenov holds no real cards; he is merely a cog in a larger machinery controlled by Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister has made it explicitly clear that he has no intention of following any peace roadmap, planning instead for the permanent, incremental takeover of Gaza.

Speaking at a conference in an occupied West Bank settlement on May 28, Netanyahu explained his strategy with total clarity, abandoning all diplomatic doublespeak: “We are currently squeezing Hamas; we now control 60% of the territory of the Strip – you know this. We were at 50, we moved to 60. My directive is to move to…” he said, pausing as an audience member shouted “100!”

Netanyahu smiled and responded: “Let’s go step by step. First of all, 70. Let’s start with that. We’re pressing them from all sides, we’ll deal with the remnants.”

This is the actual blueprint of the Israeli government, declared openly to domestic audiences. The admission was so brazen that even US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed frustration at Netanyahu’s candor. Testifying before Congress on June 2, Rubio remarked, “We have a plan – it doesn’t call for that,” referring to further Israeli territorial expansion.

Yet, Rubio quickly reverted to Washington’s standard line: “And at the end of the day, we understand that what we want, and I think what the Israelis would ultimately want, is a Gaza that is governed by a non-Hamas entity.”

Keep reading

Deal Doubts Arise As Lebanese, Iranian Officials Say US Must Rein In Israel To Secure Regional Peace

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, held a call earlier, urging the U.S. to compel Israel to end its bloody war on Lebanon, stop home demolitions, and withdraw from occupied Lebanese territory, according to Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency.

Iranian officials earlier said that any agreement with the US aimed at peace requires Israel to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon. 

AA continued:

The call came during a phone call between Berri and Qalibaf in which they discussed the latest regional developments following a US-Iran agreement to end their war all on fronts, including Lebanon, according to the Lebanese state news agency NNA.

The two officials also reviewed “the military and political developments related to the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, particularly the clause concerning ending the Israeli war on Lebanon,” the agency said.

They stressed “the need for the United States, the guarantors of the memorandum of understanding and the international community to assume their responsibilities by compelling Israel to end its war, stop demolishing villages, respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and immediately withdraw from the territories it has occupied.”

Meanwhile, I24NEWS Hebrew reporter Guy Azriel wrote on X, “I can now confirm that Israel formally requested access to the Iran MoU and was denied. A remarkable and highly unusual development between close allies on an issue of such critical national security importance.”

Keep reading