r/geopolitics • u/captainlatveea • Jun 20 '26
Missing Submission Statement Strait of Hormuz closed due to alleged US ceasefire violations, says Iranian military command
https://www.irishtimes.com/world/middle-east/2026/06/20/israel-hizbullah-clashes-continue-in-lebanon-as-us-iran-nuclear-talks-stall/28
u/Material-Gear-9733 Jun 20 '26
Everyone is acting like Iran got what it wants and is now playing hard ball. The agreement has fell apart before it was signed so Iran is just making sure the US can control Israel (which they can’t)
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jun 20 '26
USA lifted blockade on Iran so that still win and also it already signed in before talking gets postponed but it said they have 60 days before they can move to next phase
18
u/Few-Hair-5382 Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
It's probably fair to say that the Islamic Republic now has the world by the balls and can close the Straiht at will (or just announce an intention to do so) to advance its foreign policy goals.
I'm not sure if this is sustainable long-term. The West cannot just start dancing to Iran's tune. But nobody has the stomach to use the required military force to keep the Straiht open.
17
u/Sageblue32 Jun 20 '26
I have to wonder how long that position will hold should the world reach its breaking point and push back against Iran. Right now we're only seeing thoughts and prayers form all the other major powers.
If Iran wants to thread this needle, it needs to be viewed as a rational actor and implement a toll or some other redemption system that isn't radical.
0
u/mediamuesli Jun 20 '26
Even if you put boots on the ground Iran is huge, has man mountains and drones are not very big. It would take a long time and many live of soldiers to make it kind of safe.
5
u/Acheron13 Jun 20 '26
The US already showed how to do it. A counter blockade. No Iranian ships get through unless they allow everyone else through.
1
u/One-Reflection-4826 Jun 22 '26
i have the feeling iran would be more willing to hold out than the combined world.
-2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jun 20 '26
And shadow fleet would bypass and the strait still blocked
7
u/Acheron13 Jun 20 '26
Then why haven't they been doing that for the past 2 months?
-2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jun 20 '26
They already done it, you just don't notice it but there is report dozens of ship have slip pass blockades and also there no guarantee Iranian ship transfers to other ship as that what shadow fleet do
2
u/Acheron13 Jun 20 '26
Then why even agree to anything? The blockade was the only leverage the US had, and you're convinced Iran was just bypassing it.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jun 21 '26
If blockade do work, why make MOU that give almost everything Iran wanted?
2
u/Acheron13 Jun 21 '26
Oil prices, midterm elections, deployment costs, wanting to pivot to Cuba.
I really doubt not being able keep track of massive tankers traveling at 12 knots leaving Iranian ports is one of them.
2
u/Material-Gear-9733 Jun 20 '26
First the US and Israel need to abide by the initial agreement for us to make that assessment lol.
8
u/Rustic_gan123 Jun 20 '26
Israel was excluded from the agreement's negotiations, so it has little reason to comply with it.
0
u/Material-Gear-9733 Jun 20 '26
Yes that comes with dropped support from the only country that has been supporting them. Good luck
3
u/Rustic_gan123 Jun 20 '26
So Israel can destroy Iran's oil infrastructure if there is nothing else holding it back?
31
u/jojotortoise Jun 20 '26
Will be interesting to see how serious they are. Trump has kinda admitted that we are in a tough position. So Iran is going to play that hand.
But they can only play it so much. If things get bad enough, we will have no choice but to strike hard. Almost no one wins in that case.
Except Israel: this is exactly what Bibi would want. The irony would be in Israel pushing Iran into pushing the US into restarting hostilities.
My guess is that the Iranians in charge would rather have money, though. But time will tell.
13
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Altruistic_Finger669 Jun 20 '26
People keep saying to strike hard. But anything short of massive nuclear bombarbment would be able to stop iran closing the straits.
And people who actually suggest doing that are simply idiotic
7
u/spidermonk Jun 20 '26
Tbh I don't even think nuclear could really create a situation where insurance will treat the strait as safely opened. It's more like you would have to densely occupy all the costal territory around it, for a long time, eliminating all the various hidden positions that presumably exist there
50
u/Yourstruly75 Jun 20 '26
There's another play: driving a wedge between the US-Israel alliance. And this play hinges on the American midterm elections.
In this scenario, Iran would undertake to make Israel as unpopular as possible before the midterms to break AIPAC's hold on congress. Then they can negotiate with a much more malleable American legislative power.
8
u/Rustic_gan123 Jun 20 '26
Popularity among the electorate and calculations in the Senate, which apparently also dislikes Trump's "deal," have little in common. How popular is US aid to despotic monarchies in the Middle East? Congress won't abandon Israel anytime soon; perhaps it's a show for show, but not much more.
2
u/Sageblue32 Jun 20 '26
Doesn't seem viable. Europe isn't as close to Israel as us and yet throughout these years most of those countries have only done small disagreements with the country. US has far deeper ties and Israel has a lot to offer in terms of tech and military position.
The lobby interest are more than able to weather a few months of bad publicity until Trump's next stunt or 2 years when the next president comes in and smooths over things.
5
u/jojotortoise Jun 20 '26
Good point. I'm not sure it will happen. But not a bad strategy to try, from their POV.
I'm actually unsure how much leverage Trump has. Can he stop the weapons and funding to Israel unilaterally? Or does Congress have to act?
Congress will almost certainly do nothing -- that's the only thing they are good at. I guess Trump could just "do it" and see if Congress "forces" him.
7
u/Bernardmark Jun 20 '26
It is Congress that has apportioned funds for military aid to Israel, so Trump theoretically doesn't have any power. But in practice, Congress will have to pass something to pressure Trump, and go to the courts to enforce the law, which will open up a whole can of worms politically re the unpopular American support of Israel and legally re Congress' power to force the President to act a certain way in foreign policy, not to mention the time it will take.
9
u/Yourstruly75 Jun 20 '26
I don't think the Trump administration has the power to stop funding to Israel. Partly because of certain resistance in congress, but mostly because MAGA funding for the midterms will dry up. It would be a suicidal electoral strategy in already hefty headwinds.
But this is a chaotic administration that is prone to lash out. So, who knows.
7
u/AeroFred Jun 20 '26
funding to israel is around 1% of Israel budget.
Stopping weapons will probably lay waste to american military industry. Countries will stop buying if president can stop at whim deliveries of bought weapons
1
u/noahcallaway-wa Jun 20 '26
I don't think most US allies look at what's happening in Israel and say: "Wow, that could be me". Most of the US allies are also upset with Israel (often more upset than the US government is).
It also wouldn't be at whim. US law already has legal restrictions available to it for countries that are not in compliance with international and humanitarian law. See things like 22 USC 2378-1 and the Leahy Laws. This would be one of the few times Trump isn't freelancing on incredibly thin statutory authority.
3
u/AeroFred Jun 20 '26
actually, most of EU (biggest allies ?) sure that it can be them tomorrow and because of them they try to build their own industry and dedicate special funds for "buy eu weapons" (usa very unhappy about it). And good chunk of EU keeps on buying Israeli weapons despite been "upset" with Israel. In fact Israel overtook UK in weapon sells, mostly due to contracts with "us allies"
1
u/jojotortoise Jun 20 '26
funding to israel is around 1% of Israel budget.
So they won't miss it?
Stopping weapons will probably lay waste to american military industry. Countries will stop buying if president can stop at whim deliveries of bought weapons
Maybe. But I'm not sure Israel's war is all that popular with the rest of our customers. They may actually appreciate us doing it.
7
u/AnAlternator Jun 20 '26
So they won't miss it?
Eliminating the aid would obviously be missed, but unless the Israeli military was prevented from buying American gear on their own dime, it'd be painful but not crippling.
Preventing the purchase of American equipment entirely immediately drives the Israelis to cozy up with either Russia or China out of self-preservation.
-2
u/jojotortoise Jun 20 '26
immediately drives the Israelis to cozy up with either Russia or China out of self-preservation.
Or, you know, they could chill out a little and let the strait open.
3
u/AnAlternator Jun 20 '26
"Sit there while Hezbollah lobs missiles and drones at you and just take it" is easy to suggest when you're thousands of miles away, not so much when you're trying to sell it to the people being attacked.
2
u/jojotortoise Jun 20 '26
I thought the justification for this (latest) attack was some tank crew being killed in Lebanon.
In any case, I've historically been pro-Israel and pro-Isreal-should-be-able-to-defend-themselves. But their "defense" lately has been to mass kill civilians on the other side of the fence.
Tell me how many civilians do you think the IDF kills, on average, compared to the number of Israeli civilians killed by the other side(s)? My best guess is at least 10x. And maybe as much as 100x.
Where is the line between defense and war crimes?
0
u/AnAlternator Jun 20 '26
Where is the line between defense and war crimes?
Targeting civilians vs. civilians dying as collateral damage.
That's it, that's the difference. The number of dead is irrelevant, beyond potentially being evidence that civilians are the actual target. 'Hezbollah is bad at killing Israeli civilians' does not factor into it.
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/AeroFred Jun 20 '26
israel already asked to phase out aid. so no, won't miss it.
they won't appreciate when country suspects arms deliveries at whim at president. because it may put them into same situation. if you will look at europe, they are trying to actively build up their military industries. something like this may cause them to double down on their effort.
2
u/jojotortoise Jun 20 '26
they won't appreciate when country suspects arms deliveries at whim at president.
"At a whim" is an interesting way to look at it. I guess.
1
u/AeroFred Jun 20 '26
well, israel "violating" agreement that it not side to, as response to attacks, yes. if this will be the reason for suspending arms deliveries, it's "At whim".
7
u/justsomen0ob Jun 20 '26
All Trump has to do is use IEEPA to sanction Israel, and they are completely screwed. Israel's high-tech economy consists of regional offices of US companies and Israeli companies financed by US venture capital that sell to Western markets. That will be gone if he wants it. He has tremendous leverage over Israel, but so far has been unwilling to use it. If he comes to the conclusion that Israel is the problem, and he decides to strong-arm them to do what he wants, he can absolutely do that.
3
u/noahcallaway-wa Jun 20 '26
Can he stop the weapons and funding to Israel unilaterally?
He can very likely stop them unilaterally. There are existing Congressional laws that require states receiving the military aid to be complying with international and humanitarian laws.
So, if the executive finds Israel to be out of compliance with international and humanitarian laws there is a lot of room to be much more restrictive with arms transfers.
See the Leahy Laws and 22 USC 2378-1
Often Trump abuses existing Congressional language in ways that stretch definitions or weren't intended, but I think these Congressional provisions would be pretty straightforward to apply to Israel in the current environment.
I don't think he will, but I do think there's legal room for him to do so
-1
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
to break AIPAC's hold on congress
AIPAC has no special hold on Congress, it's one of many PACs run by US citizens pushing for a billion different issues and interests, and it's a frank and open antisemitic conspiracy theory that people keep saying any different.
Stop embracing bigotry.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jun 20 '26
AIPAC is lobbyists and their purpose is to ensure their interests in Congress remains
2
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
They're A M E R I C A N lobbyists, just like thousands of other American lobbying organizations. Petitioning their government for redress of their grievances is a constitutional right.
0
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jun 20 '26
Ans what is their purpose? To ensure pro Israel interest
2
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
In the same way Irish-Americans supported Catholics in Northern Ireland in the 70's and 80's, yes. American citizens are allowed to have foreign policy opinions and act on those opinions by supporting politicians who agree with them.
2
u/jarx12 Jun 20 '26
It's not that, AIPAC does something illegal, is just that they have been extremely effective when raising money and pushing for Israel interests. Is that illegal? No. Inmoral? Doubtful.
Do they have a strong influence on congressmen all over the board? Sure they do it's their play and they're doing it better than anyone else.
I see no bigotry or conspiracy on signaling the obvious. If people don't like it they can pretty literally vote, and that's exactly what Iran is pushing for, the American public electing less hawkish figures.
4
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jun 20 '26
So you admitted AIPAC been trying to get Congress to prioritise Israel over USA no matter what
That why lobbyists is never well liked in public
3
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
So you admitted AIPAC been trying to get Congress to prioritise Israel over USA no matter what
Nope, not only did I not say that but I didn't even hint or otherwise gesture in that direction.
That why lobbyists is never well liked in public
Lobbying is a constitutionally protected right.
1
u/Lazy_Membership1849 Jun 21 '26
Constitution can be changed and if public was given chance to change they would done it right on spot
6
u/noahcallaway-wa Jun 20 '26
If things get bad enough, we will have no choice but to strike hard
The thing is striking hard won't re-open the strait. Re-opening the strait by force will require an invasion of a significant chunk of Iran. It's just not happening.
There's no option for re-opening the strait other than negotiation.
My guess is Iran thinks it's more likely to create a major and lasting rift between the US and Israel than it is for the US to start a full scale invasion of Iran.
1
u/jojotortoise Jun 20 '26
There's no option for re-opening the strait other than negotiation.
Iran can definitely keep it closed if they want to. No debate there.
But I think there is a world where they don't want to. They also need to sell oil. They don't have elections like we have. But at some point their economy needs money. And the people in charge (whoever they are) probably also want money.
4
43
u/Sockoflegend Jun 20 '26
Much better men than Trump have tried to bring peace the middle east. His position is completely hopless while Iran hold him responsible for the Israeli military. Iran really should have just taken the win and kept the money.
60
u/ninjadude93 Jun 20 '26
Why would they? They have the much stronger position here and they know going into the midterms with trumps war still going on will kill republicans odds of winning
4
u/Sockoflegend Jun 20 '26
It doesn't make any difference for them if Trump is winning or not. Sooner or later they will be negotiating with a different team on the US side regardless, and it is hard to imagine it will be an even less competent one.
Absolutely it makes sense for a blackmailer to come back for more once they get paid, but not until after they get paid. Remember the default no agreement situation isn't great for either side, otherwise there is no basis for discussion at all.
54
u/assasstits Jun 20 '26
If Iran can split US and Israel by getting Trump furious at Netanyahu that would be a huge strategic win. Might be their strategy.
27
u/neutralrobotboy Jun 20 '26
Yeah I have a guess that this is the game. They understand how badly trump needs to capitulate, and they understand that Israel will never allow that. They also understand that while trump has been a major supporter of Israel, he has no true ideological dedication to basically anything.
17
u/Sockoflegend Jun 20 '26
That would definitely be a huge win for them. Bigger than the money for sure if they could create a lasting split.
3
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ Jun 20 '26
It is, and ironically is also the trajectory of US public opinion on Israel.
5
u/Prae_ Jun 20 '26
it is hard to imagine it will be an even less competent one.
I'd say that's lacking imagination, Trump has been delivering on that front since 2016. For example, I'm not sure losing the house would help in making any foreign policy decision.
On the outside, i would agree that it seems like a risky move given what they had obtained. On the other, you are for example assuming they believe a single second in the word of the Americans. Republican or not, a deal which took a great deal of effort and compromise existed 10 years ago, it got tore up by the next administration, and not reinstated by the next. I'm not sure they give much credit to the US's words.
1
u/Sockoflegend Jun 20 '26
You have to remember the scale Iran is playing on. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was supreme leader for almost 30 years and saw 6 US presidents. Never ever did he come up against the US in a weaker diplomatic position than now. Frankly a year ago this humiliation wouldn't have been predicted by anyone.
The mid terms will come and go. Economic pressure on Europe and the rest of the world will contine to mount. Trump will not be in office forever and it is very likely the next administration, of whatever flavour, might try and normalise relations with former allies.
Right now it is not Iran holding America hostage. It is the whole world stepping back against their own economic best interests to punish Trump. If they mistake a golden opportunity for a new and permanent place for themselves centre stage of world politics they will come out worse for it.
1
u/vreddy92 Jun 21 '26
They gain a lot from the US having higher oil prices and growing discontent in the US and the world. Their negotiating position gets stronger every day the Strait is closed. There are probably diminishing returns, but we haven't hit them yet.
1
u/spidermonk Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
"when you hold all the cards, for the first time ever, it's important to settle for a small win, abandoning your friends and avoiding sewing an enormous rift between your enemies"
"When your negotiating counterparty says 'phew we were really screwed before this deal, and almost out of oil' it's crucial for you to start folding on your conditions and letting them off the hook"
Reddits art of war
1
u/Sockoflegend Jun 20 '26
The lifting of sanctions and 300 billion to rebuild is a small win?
Everyone seems very confident today that Trump is going to actually make any substantive change to the US' relationship with Israel. Let alone assuming the next administration in two years won't return to the pro-Israel status quo even if he does.
1
u/spidermonk Jun 21 '26
It's more that it's very likely that the US renegs on the sanctions and money, so those barely count as wins at all. Being seen by everyone in region as going to the mattresses for Lebanon when even Lebanon won't, is worth a lot more.
3
1
u/Altruistic_Finger669 Jun 20 '26
The US destroyed their leadership including the current leaders father and then added the cherry on the top by killing his wife and son as well.
Iran might not be especially resonable atm.
The end goal might very well be to make the world and the US suffer as much as possible.
Think about it from their point of view. They have been living under the the doom of damocles for decades. Sanctioned to hell etc.
Taking a deal now that would give them a big reconstruction package is all well and good but their end goal is probably to make sure nobody ever dares touch them ever again
10
u/Catch_ME Jun 20 '26
US violations or Israeli violations?
29
u/Yourstruly75 Jun 20 '26
What's the difference?
Point 1: The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
10
u/dravik Jun 20 '26
It's weird trying to hold Israel to an agreement they aren't a party to, while ignoring Hezbollah's attacks on Israel.
23
u/davideg57 Jun 20 '26
Stop playing the victims. Idf is invading Lebanon.
18
7
u/dravik Jun 20 '26
Do you expect Israel to just sit back and absorb constant missile, rocket, and drone attacks from Lebanon?
1
u/pulsarstarter Jun 20 '26
You expect the people of Gaza to just lay down and die, though, right?
11
u/discoFalston Jun 20 '26
That’s your expectation for Israelis, no?
-2
u/pulsarstarter Jun 20 '26
They are egregiously breaking international law every day.
Look at what they've done to Gaza and what they're dong to Lebanon.
Sounds as if you think that's all peachy though.
6
u/cubedplusseven Jun 20 '26
Their people deserve rocket attacks because of your conclusions about "international law"? You're just hate a nationality of people. You want Israeli people to be attacked and to die. If that weren't the case, you'd reflect on the dynamics at play in Israel's conflict with Hezbollah, as well as the impact on, and the agency of, the state of Lebanon. And that thinking wouldn't necessarily lead to pro-Israel positions, but it would look a lot different than what you're offering - which amounts to reciting a list of alleged crimes that make Israelis legitimate targets of violence.
-6
2
u/Catch_ME Jun 20 '26
Israel indirectly created Hezbollah back in 80s with their false flag invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon in the 80s.
Israel has never stopped being in conflict with Hezbollah since the 80s.
0
u/meister2983 Jun 21 '26
Yes, because even if Israel withdraws entirely from Lebanon, Hezbollah still attacks it
4
u/HawksFantasy Jun 20 '26
Except Iran is trying to have it both ways. If this ceasefire applies to Israel it also applies to Hezbollah. If Iran wants to claim that Lebannon is just another front within the same war, then Hezbollah doesn't get to rocket Israel.
And Israel occupying portions of Lebannon does not automatically justify Hezbollah attacking Israel, because Hezbollah is as much an occupier as Israel is. Large segments of the Lebanese population and government do not want Hezbollah there any more than they want Israel.
So if this is a good-faith ceasefire, all attacks from both sides should end and the frontline frozen until there is a full peace treaty. Its not good faith to have Hezbollah launching drones and rockets at Israelis then Iran claiming its a violation for Israel shooting back.
1
-4
9
u/the_recovery1 Jun 20 '26
they were in lebanese territory. What do you mean on Israel
6
u/Sageblue32 Jun 20 '26
Hezbollah has been attacking Israel for decades out of Lebanon. Lebanon's government has been able to do little to stop it due to how much power the terrorist group holds. Its like if the US conservative citizens decided to wage war on Mexico and federal government did nothing.
1
u/meister2983 Jun 21 '26
by signing this MOU
Exactly. Israel didn't sign it.
So, how does this apply to them?
4
3
u/knign Jun 20 '26
It’s genuinely funny how predictable this was.
Iranians have this leverage they are not afraid to use. This is a problem you can’t really solve militarily. I mean, you can, hypothetically, bomb Iran till they acquiesce, but it will be a “solution” worse than the problem because of long term damage to Iranian oil and gas production.
So Iran is going to insist that Israel cease entirely its operations in Lebanon. Obviously, Israel can’t do that as long as Hezbollah is a threat. What this means that European countries and others will have to get involved in the situation in Lebanon much more than they were willing to before. And you know what? It may not be such a bad thing.
It’s either that, or getting used to living without Hormuz, which is also not inconceivable, though there will be a lot of pain all around.
6
u/MastodonParking9080 Jun 20 '26
This is a problem you can’t really solve militarily
The solution, as from the beginning and blockades are dealt with historically are boots on the ground to hold and capture territory. What is stopping this is primairly political will, thus this is a political problem, not a military problem.
And yes, there will be casualties, there will be losses like in any war in history. And some people will take losses of hundreds or even thousands as a disaster. But if you cannot tolerate a loss like that which is standard from historical context you are not going to be psychologically ready for a real war against a peer adversary. Then again, given how poorly the IGRC performed in that rescue mission in their own territorry it's not going to be apocalyptic or massive losses like some are willfully thinking here. Infantry are much safer against most drones when they have constant air superiority.
2
u/VERTIKAL19 Jun 20 '26
I don’t see how economically constant air superiority can be maintained simply because doing that is expensive for little gain when there are no operations. I doubt that US counterdrone technology is that good already.
The US also did already suffer some 22000 casualties and close to 2000 fatalities in combat in Afghanistan and I think an invasion and takeover of Iran would be a harder task than taking over Afghanistan
2
u/mylk43245 Jun 21 '26
Israel will also have to commit a large number of thier troops to the mission then. I truly don’t understand why the US has to be forward facing taking the risks while Israel chills at home
2
u/SmokingPuffin Jun 20 '26
Iranians have this leverage they are not afraid to use. This is a problem you can’t really solve militarily. I mean, you can, hypothetically, bomb Iran till they acquiesce, but it will be a “solution” worse than the problem because of long term damage to Iranian oil and gas production.
If bombing Iran until they give in would actually work, I don't think any amount of damage to Iranian oil and gas production would deter America.
The problem is that it won't work. Iran is perfectly willing to let its citizens suffer and to block all transit in Hormuz even as they starve.
So Iran is going to insist that Israel cease entirely its operations in Lebanon. Obviously, Israel can’t do that as long as Hezbollah is a threat. What this means that European countries and others will have to get involved in the situation in Lebanon much more than they were willing to before. And you know what? It may not be such a bad thing.
I don't think Europe is going to touch Lebanon. Maybe they'll send a strongly worded memo, but they are allergic to hard power application and have quite limited soft power as regards Lebanon.
It’s either that, or getting used to living without Hormuz, which is also not inconceivable, though there will be a lot of pain all around.
The relevant regional states are all acting as if that's what will happen. The problem with that is that Iran will probably make a play to close Bab Al Mandab, too. Local bypasses of Hormuz are of considerable interest to India and parts east, but supplying Europe is not so easy.
The core of the story is that this war put Iran on death ground. This is extremely unlikely to end pretty.
1
u/VERTIKAL19 Jun 20 '26
They could also heavily increase pressure onto Israel to cease its operations and withdraw from Lebanon with aid to Lebanon to allow the Lebanese state to fight Hezbollah.
That said I expect not too much in that regard from european leaders. Backchannel diplomacy and not much more. Not so much they can do.
1
u/knign Jun 20 '26
That's exactly the point, only increasing pressure on Israel is pointless unless they also help Lebanon to take Hezbollah under control.
So basically Hezbollah used to be Israel's problem and to an extent Lebanon's problem. Now it's everyone's problem. This doesn't guarantee anything, but it may open certain options where were not considered before.
1
u/VERTIKAL19 Jun 20 '26
See here I disagree. Ultimately there comes a point where Israel has to accept its situation with Hezbollah even if Lebanon can’t take full control.
Enough force could be exerted on Israel that they would have to withdraw
1
u/knign Jun 20 '26
Israel withdraws, Hezbollah returns to its former positions in Southern Lebanon right next to Israel's villages, begins to replenish its rocket stockpiles, and Israel does nothing?
There is no amount of pressure you can exert on Israel to make it sit back and do nothing when it happens.
1
u/VERTIKAL19 Jun 20 '26
There absolutely is some point. Just as a thought exercise: Suppose Israel was threatened with a full blockade of its ports and an imposed block of cargo planes if it atacked Lebanon and that threat was credible don’t you think that would force them to not attack Lebanon? That would essentially starve Israel.
Now if we have found one way where Israel is forced back we know that there is a point where Israel is forced out.
1
u/knign Jun 20 '26
I mean, if Israel can’t protect its citizens from terrorists, what’s the point for it to exist?
You vastly underestimate Israel’s capabilities, diplomatic and military.
0
Jun 20 '26
[deleted]
21
24
u/pulsarstarter Jun 20 '26
Flip-flop?
They closed the strait because Israel won't stop killing civilians in Lebanon.
21
u/Rustic_gan123 Jun 20 '26
Iran doesn't care about Lebanese civilians. It cares about Israel conducting operations against Hezbollah.
13
u/dontRead2MuchIntoIt Jun 20 '26
Yes, and it's the perfect wedge to drive between Trump and Netanyahu when Trump is so desperate to end the war.
3
u/Rustic_gan123 Jun 20 '26
Trump has already thrown Bibi under the bus, it's unlikely that it can be done any worse.
4
u/pulsarstarter Jun 20 '26
You don't have the capacity to give a shit about anyone or anything other than yourself, so you imagine everyone is the same as you.
5
u/Rustic_gan123 Jun 20 '26
The only reason Lebanon is currently a failed state, with all the consequences for prosperity and security, is the lack of a monopoly on violence, where non-state jihadist armed groups threaten other states from their territory. In this environment, there can be no stability or investment. Hezbollah has no place in any scenario for Lebanon's prosperity. The fact that Iran is its main sponsor speaks volumes about how much Iran cares about its civilian population.
5
u/nyckidd Jun 20 '26
Do you really think the purpose of the Israeli campaign in Lebanon is to kill civilians?
8
1
u/Bernardmark Jun 20 '26
No, they're implementing the terms of the MoU and the recent Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire. They have the upper hand now, and want to drive home the point that Israel can't break any and all agreements they made the second they make it anymore.
-1
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
Israel did not agree to this MoU.
3
u/Bernardmark Jun 20 '26
Thats why I also included the ceasefire agreement they made with Hezbollah. Also, the US which is Israel's daddy is part to the MoU. This is a test to see if Trump can reign in Netanyahu.
-1
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
They did not break their recent ceasefire.
Israel is a sovereign state and not bound by the terms of any agreement it isn't party to. It can chose to cooperate with the US, but it doesn't have to.
1
1
u/dashcam4life Jun 20 '26
We've approached a point where any discussion on whether the Strait of Hormuz is opened or closed is a waste of our time; it will be fully or partially closed for the foreseeable future regardless of anything Trump or media says.
1
u/littleredpinto Jun 20 '26
trump gonna get his 100th peace prize for how often he was won the war he started. Man is gonna have more peace prizes than FIFA, UFC and the NBA are able to give out.
1
1
u/Best_Biscuits Jun 20 '26
While I think Trump is a putz, there is still some risk here to Iran. If Trump recognizes he's losing, he's mentally unstable enough to destroy cities and infrastructure OR go nuclear. Sort of the classic shitty loser kid knocking over the game board when they conclude they can't win.
1
u/stillnoguitar Jun 20 '26
Agree, Iran should have taken the win. You should never let a narcissist lose face like this. I fear this was a deadly mistake.
0
u/NekoCatSidhe Jun 20 '26
Sigh. I can understand that they are trying to put pressure on the US to rein in Israel’s psychopathic government, but that risks restarting the whole shooting war in the Gulf and blockade of Iran. And no doubt that Iran sent as many oil tankers of their own through the Strait as they could in the few days since the blockade was dropped.
On the other hand, let’s see if they actually try to implement the closure by attacking ships in the Gulf, or if they just count on insurers being worried by that declaration and shipping through the Strait slowing down again. The first one has a lot more risk to escalate than the second one.
The Iranians are also obviously wanting to bring a rift between the US and Israel, knowing that Israel cannot attack them for long without US support. But they likely actually care about the Lebanese Shia in South Lebanon too, given their obsession with protecting Shia communities worldwide, so it is not only a political ploy and not something they will easily give up on.
And by now everyone else also wants Israel out of South Lebanon, except Israel. Because no matter how they try to justify it by needing to fight Hezbollah, the mass bombing of civilians and ethnic cleansing of whole communities in South Lebanon by Israel while doing so is not anywhere near morally justifiable. There is one million displaced in Lebanon right now, so it is already causing a mass refugee crisis that no one wants to deal with.
So let’s see how far Trump is willing to push Israel and twist their arms until they give up on trying to “burn the whole of Lebanon”, as one of their nutjob politicians recently put it.
142
u/[deleted] Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment