Pages

▼

Thursday, June 18, 2026

06/17 Links Pt1: Israel won the war, but the peace is being signed without it; Iran's deal must weaken, not strengthen, Hezbollah in Lebanon; IDF soldier killed, seven others wounded, by IED explosion in southern Lebanon

From Ian:

Did Iran Just Get the Better of Us?
Much of the language in this document is vague, so it is difficult to pin down what each country has actually agreed to, but the plainest meaning of the text indicates a lopsided deal. The United States has committed to immediately easing its economic pressure on Iran, and Iran has only promised to set in motion a process that should eventually open the Strait. The Islamic Republic—which is still attacking shipping in the Strait—can drag its feet, but the United States must leap to comply. Tehran can continue its campaign of international terrorism, rebuild its war machine, and perhaps even extort protection money from Gulf shipping while Washington stands pat.

The rest of the document is unlikely to come to fruition unless Trump also caves on Iran's enriched uranium. The MOU's "minimum methodology" would permit the mullahs to keep a slightly lower-grade blend, which might actually ease their path to a bomb if it enables them to excavate their material that was buried by American B-2s last summer. Iran would receive over $300 billion if it came to an arrangement about its nuclear program that satisfies Trump, but with the pressure off, there is little reason to believe that it will make any further concessions. And CIA director John Ratcliffe reportedly told Trump that his agency collected intelligence indicating Iran's leaders intend to play a double game with these negotiations.

Some commentators have noted, correctly, that there are few yardsticks by which to measure compliance, to say nothing of mechanisms to enforce deviations from the agreement. That is beside the point. Trump signed this document because he escalated the conflict as far as he was willing to go, did not get the results he wanted, and is now trying to put the conflict in the rearview mirror. There will be little enthusiasm in the White House to hold Iran to its obligations and risk provoking it further.

If Trump does not find a way to recover quickly, this MOU could mark the effective end of his presidency. The air campaign inflicted significant damage on Iran's military capabilities and nuclear program, which will buy some time. But the Gulf Arabs, who have been in the crosshairs for months, are unlikely to wait until Tehran has fully rearmed to cut a deal. And since Trump has agreed to restrain Israel, which reportedly was not even allowed to see the text, he cannot use his most capable ally to curb Iran. The ripple effects could extend far beyond the Middle East. The midterms are looking grim, the Iran campaign has split the president's party, congressional Republicans are openly expressing their impatience, and Trump is now in danger of presiding over a regional collapse.

Second-term presidents often run into similar challenges, and many turn to foreign policy, where they have the fewest domestic constraints on action. Trump has a flair for improvisation and is eager to build a lasting legacy, so he is likely to make the same pivot. But to turn the tide against America's fanatical enemies, he also needs to exhibit steadfastness and resolve.
JPost Editorial: Diplomacy is not enough: Iran's deal must weaken, not strengthen, Hezbollah in Lebanon
The new US-Iran framework risks doing the opposite. By placing Lebanon inside the Iran track, it effectively ties Hezbollah’s fate to Tehran’s leverage. Iranian officials and Hezbollah’s political allies are already treating Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as part of the next stage of US-Iran negotiations.

That is precisely the danger: Israel’s northern border becomes another bargaining chip in a deal whose central parties are not the people who live under Hezbollah’s rockets.

This does not mean Israel should reject every diplomatic initiative. Israel needs the United States, needs working ties with neighboring countries, and should support any serious effort to turn Lebanon into a sovereign state capable of enforcing its own territory. If the Lebanese Armed Forces can genuinely replace Hezbollah south of the Litani, that is an Israeli interest.

But hope is not a security mechanism. A ceasefire that leaves Hezbollah armed, politically emboldened, and protected by Iranian patronage is not a solution; it is quietly purchased on credit, and the bill will come due in the North.

Northern residents have paid too much for temporary quiet. Since October 7, they have endured evacuations, rocket and drone fire, destroyed homes, collapsing local economies, and the humiliation of not knowing when their own state can safely tell them to return. This is not just a military problem – it is a civic failure.

For years, the state underinvested in the North, neglected emergency preparedness, and allowed border communities to live with insecurity that would be intolerable in the center of the country. The result is a slow hollowing-out of the Galilee.

People leave because they cannot build a future on a warning siren, businesses close because uncertainty is not a business model, and communities meant to embody national resilience become evidence of national neglect.

Israel cannot accept less than dismantling Hezbollah
This is not new, but today it receives a different kind of validation. When an international framework appears to prioritize regional calm over dismantling Hezbollah’s threat, residents hear the same old message: wait longer, trust more, accept less.

Israel cannot accept that.

A responsible Israeli position should be firm, not reckless. Any arrangement must include enforceable benchmarks for Hezbollah’s withdrawal and disarmament, a credible Lebanese or international mechanism on the ground, and explicit recognition that Israel retains the right to act against imminent threats. It must not allow Iran to trade Lebanon’s stability for nuclear concessions, or ask Israeli citizens to return home based on diplomatic language that Hezbollah has not implemented.

Israel should welcome diplomacy that makes the North safer – and resist diplomacy that merely makes that danger quieter.

The people of the North do not need another declaration; they need protection, reconstruction, accountability, and a border secure enough to come home to.
Phase Two Never Comes By Abe Greenwald
Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
What’s wrong with the MOU is pretty much everything. It seeks to protect Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon from Israel. The U.S. will withdraw military forces, lift its naval blockade, end sanctions on the regime, and unfreeze the regime’s frozen assets. The U.S. also pledges that Iran will get $300 billion “for reconstruction” “as part of a final deal within 60 days.” Iran is supposed to let vessels pass freely through the Strait of Hormuz once again and vows not to pursue a nuclear weapon. But any further discussion of Iranian nukes has been pushed off for another 60 days, and that’s the phase-two dead end.

If the regime refused to conduct detailed and credible negotiations about ending its nuclear program today, it’s certainly not going to feel more pressured to do so 60 days into its second life as the country that beat America.

Donald Trump didn’t need a war or an MOU to get the Iranians to pledge that they wouldn’t go nuclear. The regime has been saying for decades that it has no interest in pursuing nuclear weapons, with mullahs citing fatwas that supposedly proscribe nukes on Islamic grounds. The whole time, however, they’ve been enriching uranium to levels that are useful in achieving only one thing: making a nuclear explosive.

The regime will never abandon its nuclear quest and never stop lying about it. So once again, the Trump administration is expecting people to do things that they will never do. Hamas was happy to put off talk of disarming to a later date, and Iran is even happier to kick the nuclear can down the road. Both parties know they will never comply.

But the Iranian regime now enjoys an extra sense of security. Its leaders know that the U.S. is making a mad dash for the exits and plans never to look back. Trump says that he’ll bomb Iran again if it doesn’t comply with the agreement as outlined. The problem is that he’s taught Tehran to read such threats as signs of surrender. And Iran’s leaders are additionally aware that the U.S. has stood idly by and done nothing while the regime dug missiles out of cratered tunnels during the “cease-fire.” All parties’ intentions are now as clear as can be. The U.S. is heading out, and Iran is moving forward.

Trump also claims that if the deal goes bad, he’ll blame Vice President JD Vance, who’s taken the lead on it. But that’s not true. When the deal goes bad, Trump just won’t acknowledge it. It will be another, scarier open-ended phase one.
Jonathan Tobin: Who will stand with Israel against a new Iran deal?
There will be those who will blame this predicament on Netanyahu. His domestic opponents will claim that he depended too heavily on Trump’s friendship for Israel and that of the Republicans. And they will say he alienated Democrats.

This is both untrue and deeply unfair. Whatever one might say about Netanyahu when it comes to navigating the political landscape of his country’s sole superpower ally, the current alignment has little or nothing to do with his unpopularity in the United States or his judgment.

The drift by Democrats away from Israel is the result of the growing influence of toxic left-wing ideologies that falsely label it as a “white” oppressor state. Their willingness to accept and spread blood libels about Israel committing “genocide” in Gaza is not the product of Israeli behavior, but of the hijacking of the Democratic Party by antisemitic progressives. The prime minister had no chance of preserving a pro-Israel Democratic Party; the same would have been true of any Israeli leader.

That means that Israel and its friends are in a position where they have no choice but to rely on pro-Israel Republicans to preserve the alliance. That worked wonderfully so long as Trump was behaving—as he has done during the first five-and-a-half years of his two terms—as the most pro-Israel president since the founding of the modern Jewish state. But with Trump adopting a more equivocal stand in which he may be waving the white flag on Iran and bristling with resentment at Netanyahu’s refusal to stop defending his people, that leaves supporters of Israel isolated in the United States on this issue.

We must hope that it doesn’t come to that—and that Trump isn’t willing to go on deceiving himself and the American people about the dubious prospects for a policy that will preserve the despotic regime in Tehran and ensure that there will be more Middle East wars and bloodshed in the coming years.

But if he is determined to stand by his own Iran deal, it won’t just signal that the aggressive presidency of the past 17 months is about to become a lame-duck administration, even before the outcome of the midterm elections is known. It will also mean that Israel and its friends will largely stand alone when it comes to the debate about this latest appeasement of the Islamist regime of Iran that Trump has given a new lease on life.


Mark Dubowitz: Iran deal tosses a tremendous cash lifeline to terrorist regime
Surrendering the financial architecture that keeps these funds frozen before the hard bargaining begins is not a confidence-building measure.

It is squandering your best card.

President Trump well remembers President Obama’s nuclear deal more than a decade ago because he withdrew from it in 2018.

That deal similarly normalized Iran’s oil exports, reopened the revenue pipeline, and enabled the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp’s military budget to jump some 90% in the first year.

The same windfall turned the Houthi paramilitary in Yemen into a strategic missile force threatening shipping in the Red Sea and funded Hezbollah and Hamas’s deadly capabilities.

It took Trump four full years of a grinding maximum-pressure campaign just to mute the effect of the sanctions waivers issued by the Obama administration — proof of how long it takes to rebuild leverage once it is bargained away.

To avoid a Groundhog Day scenario, relief must be sequenced and conditional, tied to verifiable Iranian performance not goodwill gestures.

Tehran is already selling the MOU to its own people as proof that the punishing strikes executed by the US and Israel this year meant nothing.

Every upfront concession validates that narrative, strengthening the IRGC terrorists who insist that closing waterways and issuing threats pays.

Yet Trump still holds the most powerful non-military lever ever assembled against this regime: The mullahs cannot spend money they cannot repatriate.

Let them work for that privilege.

And if they decline to reach an agreement that guarantees the security of the US and its regional allies — as their revolutionary ideology and hatred of the US and Israel dictates that they must — then the mask will have truly fallen.
Israel won the war, but the peace is being signed without it
There is one critique of all this I want to raise before anyone raises it for me because it is the one with teeth.

Dominance is not the same thing as peace. We named the framework Pax Israeliana—consciously, after Pax Romana—but Rome’s peace is a warning as much as a model. It endured because it rested on far more than legions: on law, on roads, on citizenship extended to the defeated, on an order that the conquered could rationally choose to live inside. My own Carthage Doctrine holds that a threat must be answered rather than indefinitely managed, and I stand by it: Rome did not negotiate the end of the Punic Wars; it closed them. But the lesson of Carthage is not that a nation can stand alone against a region forever. It is that a true victory opens a window, and the window is wasted if nothing durable is built in the space it clears.

That is why “left alone” cuts both ways, and why I want my own side to hold both edges at once. Israel did not sign, which means Israel is not bound, and it is acting on precisely that freedom, still striking Karun and Beirut while the ink dries. For a state with Israel’s capabilities, solitude is also a license, and that is part of the doctrine, not merely a grievance. But a doctrine of pure self-reliance, romanticized, becomes its own kind of overextension. Israel is formidable; it is also small.

Being written out of Geneva should drive us toward a coalition of the willing (the partners who build shared capacity rather than rent a guarantee, the logic that made the Abraham Accords work where it has been allowed to), not toward the comfortable fiction that we need no one. The answer to one unreliable ally is more allies, chosen better, not none.

What we do about it
Israel did not choose to be left off the page in Switzerland. But it can choose what to make of it.

The task of the summit (the reason it is worth gathering at all in a week like this one) is to convert an abandonment into a doctrine. Victory first, unapologetically, because the war was won by force when force was the only language Tehran understood. And then the harder, less glamorous work of building an order Israel can sustain—alongside the Iranian people the regime fears more than it fears us, alongside the regional partners who share our interests and with a clear-eyed understanding that Washington has just shown it will not always be one of them.

Pax Israeliana will not be judged by what it breaks or by how alone we are willing to stand. It will be judged by what it builds, and by whether, the next time a deal is signed over our heads, Israel has made itself indispensable enough that it cannot be left off the page.
Full text: Senior US official’s readout of Iran MOU



Kassy Akiva: How Does Trump’s Iran Deal Compare To Obama’s? Here’s What We Know.
When Donald Trump launched his first presidential campaign, he pledged to withdraw the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran.

Trump issued a statement condemning the JCPOA as “very dangerous” shortly after it was finalized on July 14, 2015. The president never dropped his opposition, pulling out of the deal in 2018.

Now, the president is preparing to unveil his own “Memorandum of Understanding” with Iran — the text of which has not been released, but which the White House says Trump has virtually signed. Officials say the memorandum is just the first step in a broader process. Following its signing, negotiators are expected to enter a roughly 60-day period of “technical talks” aimed at finalizing implementation details relating to the nuclear issues, suggesting that some of the most consequential questions are still not resolved.

Still, the question remains: how does the deal Trump spent years attacking compare with the agreement his own administration now appears to be pursuing?

Let’s dive in.
Iranians ‘have to have some’ ballistic missiles, Trump says, retreating from previous war aim
President Donald Trump on Wednesday said that the U.S. would not forbid Iran from possessing ballistic missiles, downplaying the threat despite it being a key war aim in the onset of the conflict. Speaking at the G7 summit in France, the president asserted that the majority of Iran’s missile capabilities have been destroyed and that he could not enforce the provision since other countries also “have some.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted in March that a key U.S. aim in the war would be “the destruction of Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities and their ability to manufacture them.”

“I mean, they have to have some, because other people have some … It doesn’t work that way. And missiles aren’t the problem,” Trump explained. “Missiles are, they hurt a little location, but they don’t blow up the planet.”

When asked whether it would be acceptable for the administration to allow Iran to keep its ballistic missiles, Trump argued that Tehran’s capacity has been significantly depleted over the course of the conflict.

“What are they keeping?” Trump responded. “We knocked out probably 84%-85% of their missiles. The rest are underground, they can’t even get them out. On the first night we knocked out hundreds of their missiles.”

Trump also asserted that Iran does not “want to be firing missiles right now,” noting that instead Tehran is likely focused on rebuilding what has been damaged during the war.

The president also praised Israel as a “good partner” in the conflict and argued that the nuclear restrictions laid out in the U.S.’ agreement with Tehran are the ultimate victory for Jerusalem. According to Trump, if Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, “Israel would have been blown away.”

“Look, think of what Israel’s getting, they’re not going to be nuked, very simple,” Trump said. “I told [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu], ‘Your biggest risk was that they [Iran] drop a nuclear weapon into the middle of Israel. They’d only need one, and there would be no more Israel. Think of it, Bibi, you got the best, the most important thing that you were asking for is that. So, I think they’re happy.”

Regarding the technical specifics of the deal, Trump stated that Iran has agreed to work with the U.S. to “turn over” its enriched material. He noted that while the material is secured “deep in the bowels of the earth” and monitored by cameras, technical discussions to remove the stockpiles would begin immediately. He insisted that, unlike the Obama administration’s implementation of the JCPOA, any relief Iran receives under this framework would be strictly “based on merit.”
Why on Earth would Trump endorse Iran's ballistic missile program
There is an ongoing heated debate about the positives and negatives of US President Donald Trump's new deal with Iran - a debate that will likely be resolved by whether a few major nuclear issues are properly resolved in the next several months.

But on Wednesday, Trump thrust himself into a major and unnecessary unforced error, actually proactively endorsing Iran keeping its ballistic missile program.

To understand why this statement was so much worse than anything else which has happened to date related to the deal, one needs to understand that the main reason Israel went to war in February of this year was not because of regime change (which was long shot), and not even because of the nuclear threat (which was already hammered in June 2025), but to get Tehran to back off an existential ballistic missile threat.

To clarify further, if the problem were just Iran having one or two missiles, as Trump seemed to be implying, there would be no problem.

Iran had 2,500-3,000 missiles for decades, and Israel was ready and able to defend against such an arsenal.

But in late 2024/early 2025, Iran learned how to hyper-speed up its ballistic missile production pace to 200-300 per month, something which could have gotten it to 4,000-6,000 missiles in 2026 and 8,000-10,000 missiles in 2027-2028.

Long before 2027, it appears that Iran would have hit a volume of missiles that Israel could not have defended sufficiently.

When Trump said that missiles can hit one target, but cannot destroy the world, he is either showing shocking ignorance or is trying to aggressively pull the curtain down over the public's eyes.


Republicans doubt Iran will follow through on nuclear commitments
Republican senators said on Tuesday that they’re skeptical that Iran will hold to any commitments it has made or may make in negotiations with the U.S., and urged the administration to release the terms of the memorandum of understanding announced on Sunday.

The administration has not yet communicated any specific plans to brief Congress on the deal.

“Rather than an end to the activities in Iran, I think it’s more of an intermission,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told reporters. “We still haven’t seen what the documents look like, and regardless of what they look like, I don’t think you can trust the Iranian regime.”

Cornyn added, “I need to see the writing — I need to see the print. But I don’t believe that the regime will abide by it.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) emphasized that the U.S. has been in similar positions with Iran before, and that they have not resulted in a viable long-term agreement. He told Jewish Insider that he thinks it’s “generous to call it a deal, it sounds like it’s a deal in progress … and if we’re making progress, that’s good.”

But he said that it’s hard for him to assess an agreement “that we only get described in broad strokes.”

He said he would also be uncomfortable with any arrangement that provided Iran with a financial windfall. Multiple outlets reported Tuesday afternoon that the MOU includes financial incentives for Iran, including lifting various sanctions.

“I’m worried only because at least some of our decisions seem to be affected by the short-term economic impact [of the war], and that’s not a good decision,” Tillis said. “Talking about some of the money that Iran’s going to start receiving. … If all of the sudden we’re pulling back some of the things that were in place even before the operation, I’ve got a real concern because they’re a totalitarian regime.”
Ben Shapiro criticizes JD Vance over ‘disaster’ Iran MOU
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro criticized Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday, arguing that Vance’s support for the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran suggested that he was not serving President Donald Trump well.

Shapiro made the comments, which mark his most direct criticism to date of Vance’s approach to Iran, to Fox News’ “The Story with Martha MacCallum”while offering a harsh assessment of the MOU in the hours after the Trump administration released the text of the agreement. He described the deal as “a disaster” and called out the vice president for his role in leading this particular diplomatic effort.

“The president deciding to go into Iran and to hit nuclear facilities in Operation Midnight Hammer and then to go after Iran’s ballistic missile facilities and nuclear facilities, army, navy and air force in this current operation was the signal act of political bravery perhaps of my lifetime,” Shapiro said.

“With that said, this MOU appears to be, just from the text, a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning,” he continued. “In my opinion, the vice president of the United States, the chief negotiator on this particular project, has not well served the president.”

Shapiro went on to detail his objections to the MOU itself, arguing that the text of the deal did not address several major sticking points that led to the U.S. launching the war in the first place.

“There were effectively five goals that were set by the administration at the beginning. One was ending the nuclear program, not just nuclear weapons, no nuclear enrichment, zero enrichment. That is not in the deal. Ballistic missiles ended, that is not in the deal,” Shapiro said. “Then you have the support of terrorism, that is not part of the deal, anything that looks like an attempt to end terrorism.”

“A permanent opening of the Strait of Hormuz toll free, not only is that not in the deal, the deal appears to have a provision allowing Iran and Oman to attempt to toll the Straits after 60 days,” he added. “Then finally, the idea that Iran would receive some sort of sanctions relief after all of those things happened. We are already seeing, from day one, relief in their ability to ship oil out of Iran.”


Trump: MOU with Iran ‘not final,’ we’ll go ‘back to dropping bombs’ if talks fail
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday said that the memorandum of understanding digitally signed this week with Iran is “not final,” warning that Washington would resume military strikes against Iran if “they don’t behave” and adding that a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz was unavoidable.

Referring to the preliminary agreement with Tehran expected to be physically signed in Switzerland on Friday, Trump reiterated that “it’s not final – it’s a memorandum of understanding,” and that Washington’s military threat remains in place.

“It’s a memorandum of understanding. If I don’t like it, if they don’t behave, we’ll go right back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head, okay? Because they’ve misbehaved for 47 years,” he warned, speaking alongside Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi at the G7 summit in France.

The agreement is “a great deal for a lot of reasons,” he said, “but number one by far — 99.9 percent of it — is that they will never have a nuclear weapon.”

“It’s a very strong deal. Nobody knows what it is, but it’s very strong, and most people seem to be very happy,” he added, without specifying which people he was referring to.

“The Strait [of Hormuz] is going to be opening. It’s already partially opened. It’s going to be opening up soon in full over the next day or two,” Trump said. Tankers and cargo vessels are seen in the Gulf of Oman, along shipping routes linking the Strait of Hormuz and the Arabian Sea, June 16, 2026. (AP Photo)

Despite Washington’s blockade of Iranian ports and earlier threats to use force to reopen the vital shipping lane, Trump suggested a negotiated arrangement on Hormuz was unavoidable: “The alternative would be a worldwide depression.”

“You know, the stupid people want to have a worldwide depression, and they’re stupid people. So you can only go so far,” he said. “You drive somebody into the ground, and a lot of bad things happen… the Strait would never open, because they don’t like floating billion-dollar ships up and down a strait when there are rockets flying over them and mines all over the place… It wouldn’t be open for a long time.”


Iran targeted Arabs and Jews alike — antisemitism does Tehran's work
When Iranian missiles and drones streaked across the skies of the Gulf this spring, they did not pause to ask who below was Arab and who was Jewish. They struck Abu Dhabi, Manama, Amman and they struck Tel Aviv. They killed civilians in the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait who were simply going about their lives, just as they killed Israelis sheltering with their children.

The regime in Tehran has never made a distinction between us. It is long past time the rest of the world stopped making one.

Yet I have watched in disbelief as the response to this war, in too many Western cities and on too many Western campuses, has been a surge of hatred directed not at the regime that started it but at Jews.

Monitoring groups recorded a spike in antisemitic incidents worldwide within days of the war's outbreak. Synagogues, Jewish schools and Jewish charities have been attacked from London to North America, with several plots traced back to fronts of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Think about what that means. The ayatollahs fire missiles at Jews in the Middle East, and their sympathizers answer by terrorizing Jews in the West.

This is not only immoral. It is strategically illiterate. Blaming Jewish communities for Iranian aggression is precisely the outcome Tehran has spent four decades engineering. Antisemitism is the regime’s favorite export, cheaper than oil and far more corrosive. Every torched synagogue in Europe is a victory the IRGC did not have to pay for.

If you want to see the alternative, come to my region. Walk through Dubai or Abu Dhabi today, and you will see rabbis moving openly through hotel lobbies and souks. You will find kosher restaurants, Jewish day schools and the Moses Ben Maimon Synagogue standing beside a mosque and a church at the Abrahamic Family House.

You will meet Jewish entrepreneurs and investors building companies with Emirati and even Iranian partners who live in the UAE, signing deals in Hebrew, Arabic, and English in the same afternoon.

This is not a public relations exercise. It is daily life in the United Arab Emirates, and it is the most powerful rebuttal to antisemitism anywhere on earth: a Muslim-majority nation where Jewish life, like the lives of all communities in the UAE, is not merely tolerated but welcomed, protected and celebrated.

That is exactly why Iran targets us. The UAE is home to more than 200 nationalities, including over 300,000 Iranians and 50,000 Americans who live and thrive in this land of peace, prosperity, and coexistence. It is also a country leading the AI industry as if it were the oil of the future and helping Arabs reach Mars.
Hezbollah chief: Iran deal a ‘great victory,’ can be used to expel Israel from Lebanon
Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem on Wednesday hailed an understanding reached between Tehran and Washington to end the regional war as a “great victory,” calling it a “pivotal point” for Lebanon.

Although the US-Iran deal to end the Middle East war has not been officially released, American and Iranian officials, as well as mediator Pakistan, have said it includes Lebanon.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, meanwhile, insisted his country’s negotiations with Israel in Washington were independent of the regional deal.

In a televised address, Qassem hailed the deal as a “great victory” for Iran, thanking his terror group’s backer for “linking the Lebanese arena” to the accord and “forcing Israel to stop its aggression” on the country.

Qassem urged Lebanon to take advantage of “this pivotal point following the agreement… to achieve the expulsion of Israel” from Lebanese territory.

After Hezbollah drew Lebanon into the Middle East war with rocket fire at Israel in support of Tehran, Israel responded with massive airstrikes and a ground invasion, with troops still occupying southern Lebanese territory.


IDF soldier killed, seven others wounded, by IED explosion in southern Lebanon
IDF Chief Sergeant First Class (res.) Alexander Filin, aged 29, from Haifa, was killed in combat in southern Lebanon, the military announced on Thursday.

Filin was a combat soldier in the 36th Division command post.

He was killed when a team of soldiers from the 36th Division and the Givati Brigade was walking on foot near the Litani River when an IED exploded near them.

During the incident, at least seven other soldiers were wounded, the military noted.

This included an IDF officer, a reserve officer, and an additional reserve soldier who were moderately wounded, the military said.

The officer was identified as the 36th Division's deputy commander, a Colonel rank, and the reserve officer as the 556th Battalion commander, a Lieutenant-Colonel rank.

Additionally, a combat NCO and three reserve soldiers, one of whom was a woman, were lightly wounded in the incident, the military added.

The IDF is investigating the incident.

Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav issued a statement, expressing deep sorrow at the news of Filin's death and expressing condolences to the family.


Israel confirms elimination of two Hamas commanders involved in Oct. 7
The Israel Defense Forces on Wednesday confirmed that two Hamas terrorists were killed in airstrikes in the Gaza Strip over the weekend.

Muhammad Saeed Ahmed Nimruti, who was killed in southern Gaza, was a Hamas platoon commander who participated in the Oct. 7 massacre and helped hold Israeli hostages in tunnels, according to the military.

Mu’awiya Suleiman Thaqar Aidi, who was killed in central Gaza, participated in the Oct. 7 attack on Kibbutz Be’eri.

The IDF said both men had recently advanced plans targeting Israeli forces and civilians.


Ask Haviv Anything: 124: Vance, Iran and the fight inside Trumpworld, with Matt Continetti
Donald Trump has gone further against Iran than any American president before him -- and then, almost overnight, pivoted toward a ceasefire, negotiations, and open frustration with Israel. What's happening? What does it all mean for Iran's nuclear ambitions, American power, the US–Israel alliance, and the future of war?

In this episode, we sit down with Matthew Continetti of the American Enterprise Institute to unpack the emerging Iran deal, the politics inside the Trump administration, JD Vance’s rising influence, the strategic meaning of the Strait of Hormuz crisis, and why missiles, drones, and interceptors may define the next generation of warfare.

Matthew Continetti is the director of domestic policy studies and the inaugural Patrick and Charlene Neal Chair in American Prosperity at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as well as a columnist for the Wall Street Journal's "Free Expression" newsletter. He has been published in The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, The Free Press, National Review among other outlets. Mr. Continetti is the author of three books, including, most recently, The Right: The Hundred-Year War for American Conservatism (Basic Books, 2022).

Chapters
00:00 Introduction to the Iran Deal Discussion
03:14 Trump's Ceasefire and Its Implications
06:03 The Nature of the Current Deal
08:58 Iran's Narrative and American Response
11:36 The Broader Geopolitical Context
14:46 Military Gains vs. Political Strategy
17:37 Domestic Politics and the Administration's Approach
20:24 The Role of Key Figures in the Administration
23:41 Negotiation Dynamics with Iran
26:25 Trump's Unconventional Approach to War
29:38 The Future of U.S.-Iran Relations
32:26 Conclusion and Reflections on American Power
36:55 The Fraying Coalition: Trump and Vance's Political Landscape
39:40 Navigating Diplomatic Challenges: Vance's Role in Foreign Policy
43:34 Understanding Ideology: The Complexity of Negotiations with Iran
49:44 The Future of Warfare: Lessons from Recent Conflicts
57:28 The Shifting Dynamics of US-Israel Relations


Commentary Podcast: What's In The MOU?
Today we discuss the media blitz to sell the Iran MOU despite refusing to release its contents, as well as the contents of the agreement that were published in the media. Plus, Trump torpedoes Jay Clayton's nomination for DNI, JD Vance's appearance on Megyn Kelly, and the elections in Georgia and DC, a new FBI investigation of Gavin Newsom, and John recommends The Furious.


Is He Serious?! After Crushing Iran's Defenses, Trump Announces THIS
Has President Trump just stunned Israel with a dramatic Iran reversal?
Ruthie Blum and Mark Regev—both former advisers in the Prime Minister’s Office—unpack the explosive details surrounding a secretive U.S.-Iran memorandum and what it could mean for the future of the Middle East. Viewers will learn how the debate over diplomacy versus military pressure is dividing Trump's own camp, why critics believe Iran is being handed a lifeline after suffering major setbacks and how the outcome could reshape Israel's security, Lebanon's future and even American midterm politics. Whether you agree or disagree, this episode offers a fascinating look into the high-stakes calculations behind one of the most controversial geopolitical developments of the year.


Hugh Hewitt: The MOU: Thumbs up or down? Noah joined Hugh to discuss

Hugh Hewitt: Does the negotiating team for the U.S. understand the GOP’s deep loathing of the Islamic Republic?






Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

Reclaiming the Covenant on America's 250th (May 2026)

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

    

 

 

at