Reportedly, one of the results of Monday’s U.S.-Iran talks in Geneva will be a “deconfliction cell” for Lebanon. Its members are supposed to be the U.S., Iran, the Lebanese government, Qatar, and Pakistan. Notably missing from the roster is Israel.
Now — even though Israeli forces in Lebanon have been fending off an ongoing, Iran-directed Hezbollah assault on Israel since March 2 — it’s not even included in “deconfliction.”
Israel Hayom, one of Israel’s two leading dailies, reports that “the State Department strongly opposed the creation of the ‘cell…’ The State Department’s position, as expressed in position papers and closed-door discussions, was that Iran’s goal was to sabotage direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon by creating a bypass route.”
In those negotiations, Israel and Lebanon have been talking, in Washington, about a solution where the Lebanese state would disarm Hezbollah, regain control of the country, and sign a peace agreement with Israel.
It unfortunately appears aspirational, since the Lebanese state, at this time, probably lacks both the military power and the cohesion to disarm Hezbollah. But at least it’s a decent aspiration. Too decent, though, for Iran and Hezbollah, which—of course—want Iran’s terror proxy to maintain its grip on Lebanon as a springboard for attacking and eventually helping destroy Israel.
In Geneva, the Israel Hayom report says, “Qatar came to the aid of its Iranian allies and secured the agreement of Vance and his team to establish the new body.” The “cell” is supposed to work out “a full ceasefire alongside the preservation of Lebanon’s territorial borders, meaning an Israel Defense Forces withdrawal.”
For Israel, a withdrawal from Lebanon at this point would mean turning Israel into a more vulnerable country, with the Galilee becoming, at most, a military encampment devoid of its evacuated residents.
At present, Israeli forces in Lebanon — which have been valiantly fighting the forces of anti-Western barbarism at a high cost in soldiers’ lives — are in a state of limbo and confusion about what sort of military measures are permitted or forbidden to them:
Soldiers can [still] fire at anyone approaching them in a threatening manner, especially if the person is armed… But many questions still surround these rules of engagement… One key issue is what qualifies as a real threat. If the IDF identifies an armed Hezbollah terrorist riding a motorcycle between villages near a point where Israeli troops are stationed, is it permitted to fire or not?
The last time the IDF struck a Hezbollah command center in Beirut was on June 14. The IDF and the political echelon in Jerusalem are mindful of the fact that on that occasion, President Donald Trump erupted in rage and leveled expletives at the Israeli prime minister for putting the MOU and future peace talks with Iran at risk. Of course, Hezbollah’s patron, Iran, sets no limits on the Israeli targets it can hit.
On Tuesday, Iran’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva said that Iran’s “red line” is “any further [Israeli] attacks on Lebanon, including the capital, Beirut, and southern Lebanon.” The translation of “red line” is “renewed missile attacks on Israel” — or, at least, breaking off the MOU process.
It’s still not too late for the U.S. to return to better supporting its ally Israel and reminding Iran who’s really in charge.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
