FLASH
Shkruar nga Adam Parsons
The latest escalation in Lebanon is challenging the ceasefire and raising questions about the sustainability of the US-Iran deal.
It was naive to think that the agreement reached between the United States and Iran would bring immediate peace to Lebanon. However, the violence we are now seeing is serious. Israel claims to have killed “dozens” of people, whom it says were Hezbollah fighters.
Lebanese officials and local reports say women and children are among the dead. Sky News cannot independently verify the Israeli claim that all those killed were Hezbollah members.
The events began after an Israeli tank, stationed in southern Lebanon, was hit by a Hezbollah drone during clashes, killing four soldiers, including a battalion commander.
The Israeli military responded with airstrikes in several areas of southern Lebanon and then in the Bekaa Valley in the east of the country. According to Israel, the targets of the attacks were “more than 80 command centers, terrorists, launch sites and terrorist infrastructure.”
This situation poses a major challenge to the US-Iran agreement, an agreement in the drafting of which Israel had no role, but which envisaged an end to the fighting in Lebanon.
Hezbollah has declared that it has the “legitimate right to resist the occupation and liberate the territory.” Its supporters insist that Israel is trying to seize more land and obstruct the path to peace. Like Israel, Hezbollah claims to be responding to ceasefire violations.
This time is different.
On the one hand, the conflict is returning to the logic of mutual counter-responses. However, there are some important differences compared to previous episodes.
First, the Israeli losses
Five Israeli soldiers have been killed in the past two days. The experience of this conflict shows that when faced with losses in its own ranks, Israel usually responds with deadly force. Even by that standard, the current attack is considered major. The deaths of the soldiers are expected to strengthen Israel's resolve, not weaken it.
Second, US-Israeli relations
The events are unfolding at a time when relations between the United States and Israel have deteriorated.
Vice President JD Vance, like the US president, may have used harsher rhetoric to push Israel to act according to Washington's wishes. However, no Israeli politician can strengthen his position if he is perceived to be taking orders, even from Washington.
Third, Iran's position
Iran appears to have been encouraged by its diplomatic success. Hezbollah, considered a close ally of Tehran, may feel the same, although its fighters appear exhausted after more than 100 days of facing a significantly stronger military force.
Will Iran abandon the deal?
The main question now is to what extent Iran is willing to abandon an agreement that, by many estimates, offers it favorable terms to support Hezbollah and, indirectly, the large Shiite population in Lebanon.
Meanwhile, Lebanese citizens continue to demand peace and express anger at the ongoing conflict.
Even if many of them oppose Hezbollah, the reality they face today is the presence of the Israeli army in large parts of southern Lebanon, as well as the serious consequences that this situation has brought in the form of massive displacements, material damage, and disruptions to daily life.
Another night of airstrikes will hardly calm this discontent./ Adapted from "Pamphlet" by "Sky News".
Lini një Përgjigje