Lebanon the sticking point in US-Iran talks
While the US and Iran are engaged in negotiations for a peaceful solution, the confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah continues to escalate. On Monday the Iranian regime threatened to suspend negotiations with Washington if Israel continues its military operations in Lebanon. In response, US President Donald Trump spoke to both sides and then announced that there would be no further fighting.
Separate peace deal not enough for Tehran
Lebanon is becoming the region's main problem, according to La Stampa:
“For months, the standoff between Washington and Tehran was at the centre of the crisis. Today, the problem is no longer reaching an agreement but whether Lebanon will allow one to survive. ... And it's not just Israel and Hezbollah that are pitted against each other here, but two irreconcilable visions of regional order. Washington wants to separate the crises. Tehran wants to unite them. For Tehran, a separate peace between the US and Iran is impossible as long as the war against Hezbollah continues. Iran's goal is not to end a conflict. It is to redefine the very meaning of a ceasefire.”
The best publicity for Hezbollah
The consequences of the advance into Lebanon may not be what Israel envisages, warns tagesschau.de:
“The images of Beaufort Castle and the advancing Israeli soldiers are undermining the Lebanese government, with which Israel is negotiating, and strengthening Hezbollah. The fight against Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil during the Israeli occupation from 1982 to 2000 made Hezbollah popular in Lebanon. When the Israeli troops subsequently withdrew in frustration, the Shia militia was celebrated throughout the Arab world. The recent advance of Israeli ground troops is therefore the best publicity for Hezbollah.”
Israel wants to gain ground ahead of deal
Israel is operating according to a familiar pattern, says NRC:
“This is in line with the Israeli government's doctrine that the military conquest of territories belonging to hostile neighbouring countries is necessary to protect its own citizens. ... Israeli leaders have recently been openly expressing fears that Iran and the United States might reach an agreement that would also bring an end to the war in Lebanon. The aim is therefore to capture as much territory as possible because occupied territories often form the starting point for peace negotiations. When the state was founded in 1948, this is also how Israel succeeded in taking control of a far larger area than had been envisaged by the United Nations.”
Illusions instead of diplomacy
The negotiating parties don't believe in a lasting ceasefire anyway, writes political analyst Manuel Serrano in Expresso:
“Trump has no allies, only his own interests. The Middle East no longer functions solely on the basis of alliances. Increasingly, it operates through temporary mechanisms of economic survival. No one really believes in an agreement, but everyone is desperately dependent on it working for a certain period of time. That is the most apt definition of diplomacy today. It is no longer about resolving conflicts. It's about delaying the moment when illusions inevitably collide with reality.”
Uncertainty persists
Phileleftheros takes a look at the big picture in the Middle East:
“The region is not entering a period of calm, but rather a phase of realignment. On the one hand, there are the Abraham Accords [between Israel and several Arab states] and the efforts to integrate Israel into the new regional normality. On the other there is an axis comprising Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan reminding us that no one intends to hand over regional leadership to others without a fight. This is the central conflict that is emerging. Not just between states, but between two different visions for the Middle East of tomorrow. And they are not the only contenders.”