Israel has begun coordinating with the
Lebanese army... to withdraw troops
from the south of the country
July 20th, 8:02pm
(RT.ru)
The Israeli army has begun coordinating with the Lebanese
Armed Forces in pilot zones in the south of the country.
This was reported by the Israeli army's press service.
According to data of the military, the "Safe Zone" program.... is
implemented at the direction of the Israeli political leadership
with the participation of the Central Command of the Armed
Forces of the United States (CENTCOM) and the
Lebanese army.
"As part of this pilot program, teams from the Israel Defense
Forces, the U.S. Army, and the Lebanese Armed Forces are
coordinating and planning for the further implementation
of the agreement," the statement said.
This refers to an agreement that calls for the
withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.
At the same time, the Israel Defense Forces have warned
that they will respond harshly to any attempts to disrupt
this process.
"The Israel Defense Forces will respond harshly to any
violation of the agreement," the military emphasized.
Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that
the framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon...
provides for the transfer of ''part of the territories'' in
the south of the country under the control of the
Lebanese army.
_________________________________________________
The Houthis have announced - a
naval blockade of Saudi Arabia
July 20th, 12:37pm
(RT.ru)
The Yemeni Ansar Allah movement, whose members are
known as the Houthis, has announced a naval blockade
of Saudi Arabia.
This was announced by Yahya Saria, a military spokesman
for the Houthis, on the Al Masirah TV channel.
The decision was made in response
to the blockade of Sana'a Airport.
"We are announcing a ban on maritime shipping for the Saudi
enemy --- in accordance with the principle of 'blockade in
response to blockade.' The ban on maritime shipping
for the Saudi enemy takes effect immediately,"
he said.
Earlier, the Ansar Allah rebel movement announced
a complete ban on Israeli shipping in the Red Sea.
___________________________________________________
Strait of Hormuz as strategic fulcrum:
Iran’s deterrence, leverage, and
the limits of US' coercion
July 20th, 11:18am
(Press TV Strategic Analysis Desk)
The fresh escalation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and
the US represents not an isolated incident of bilateral friction,
but the latest chapter in a protracted saga of US duplicity,
military adventurism and strategic overreach.
It was sparked by Washington's continued violations of the war-
ending memorandum of understanding (MoU), manifesting most
egregiously in its complete disregard for Iran's sovereign rights
over the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway whose strategic
significance transcends mere geography, to embody
the essence of Iranian national security calculus.
The unprovoked and illegal attacks on Iranian territory over recent
weeks, concentrated primarily in the southern provinces, did not
emerge from a vacuum of mutual hostility, but rather from a
calculated abuse of the MoU by Washington that it
had initially agreed to uphold.
At its core, the crisis centres on Clause 5 of the understanding
signed between the presidents of the two countries, which
explicitly stipulated that the Strait of Hormuz - would be
reopened within 30 days under Iranian arrangements,
with vessel transits returning to pre-war levels.
The US attempt to establish an alternative maritime route along
Oman's coast.... represents more than a tactical maneuver. It
constitutes a fundamental challenge ------ to Iran's sovereign
authority over one of the world's most critical chokepoints.
As Iran insisted on full compliance with the MoU – which
came months after the US-Israeli war machine launched
an unprovoked and illegal war of aggression against the
Islamic Republic & subsequently declared a unilateral
ceasefire after failing to achieve its war objectives –
the US resorted to another wave of aggression...
to extract concessions.
Confronted with US intransigence, Iran’s response - was swift,
decisive and strategically calibrated, decimating US military
bases and assets across the region, and - once again -
reminding the external hostile forces, that the era
of their hegemony... is over.
The old rules of engagement no longer apply - in a transformed
strategic environment where Iran possesses both the will and
the capability to impose unacceptable costs on aggressors.
Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei
says Iran and the resistance front ---- will teach the US
"unforgettable lessons" following the new US
aggression against the country.
The sovereignty question:
Beyond economic utility
To appreciate the swiftness and gravity of Iran's response, one
must first understand that - for the Islamic Republic - the Strait
of Hormuz transcends any narrow calculus of economic utility.
While approximately 20 percent of global petroleum transits
through this narrow waterway, for Iran, its strategic value
operates on an entirely different register. The strait
represents a tangible manifestation of Iranian
national sovereignty, a geographical feature
over which Iran can exercise meaningful
control, in ways that diplomacy alone
cannot guarantee.
When Iran insists on the phrase "under Iranian arrangements," it is
asserting a principle that extends far beyond traffic management.
The strait becomes, in this context, a physical embodiment of
Iranian agency ....in a region where the great powers have
historically dictated terms.
The US attempt to establish an Omani coastal route was not a
practical alternative to congestion or safety concerns, but a
deliberate attempt to hollow out the understanding's most
significant provision – to render Iranian sovereignty
purely nominal while preserving the substance
of US' strategic mobility.
This interpretation is not born of paranoid conjecture but rather
flows logically from the historical pattern of great power
behaviour in the Persian Gulf region.
The MoU represented a clear acknowledgment that Iran's security
concerns warranted ---- special consideration. By seeking to
circumvent this acknowledgment - and tear apart the MoU
itself, the US effectively signaled that its commitment to
the understanding ---- was conditional upon its own
strategic convenience.
Logic of closure: Compellence and credibility
Iran's decision to close the strait in response to continued US'
violations of the MoU and a fresh wave of aggression against
Iranian territory reveals a sophisticated strategic calculus -
that merits careful examination.
The closure is not......... as some Western analysts have wrongly
characterized it, an act of reckless provocation ---- or economic
warfare. Rather, it represents a calibrated compellent strategy
designed to make the costs of US non-compliance with the
understanding, outweigh the benefits of compliance with
it .....and acknowledging the sovereign rights of Iran.
The strategic logic underpinning this approach is that when legal
instruments and understandings prove manifestly inadequate to
deter transgressions, the party exercising physical dominion
over the waterway must demonstrate ----- that such control
carries tangible operational significance. The closure ----
sends a clear message: Iran possesses capabilities
that no amount of diplomatic maneuvering can
replicate, which is --- the ability to impose
tangible costs on the global economy
and.... by extension, on US'
strategic interests.
What makes this approach particularly compelling is its self-
reinforcing nature. Each day the strait remains closed
increases the pressure on the US to return to the
original terms of the understanding --- and thus
potentially.... give more concessions to Iran
beyond those previously negotiated.
The economic disruption --- cascades through global supply chains,
affecting not only US interests but those of its allies and partners
in the region and beyond - who may pressure Washington to de-
escalate. Iran ------- has transformed a defensive action into a
proactive strategy of cost imposition on the aggressor.
The historical precedent:
Lessons from the
12-day war
Iran's current approach cannot be understood without reference
to the historical experience of the 12-day imposed war and the
40-day imposed war – both amidst nuclear diplomacy.
These wars of aggression against the Islamic Republic established
patterns of behaviour --- that continue to inform Iranian strategic
calculations. In both instances, Iran faced a militarily superior
adversary ---- that sought to impose its will through
indiscriminate force. In both instances, Iran's
resilience, and willingness to fight back in
asymmetric ways, eventually compelled
the enemy to accept outcomes.....
that were not in its favour.
The current situation represents a conscious effort to apply these
historical lessons to the diplomatic realm. The US, having failed
to achieve any of its objectives through two wars, now seeks
through diplomatic pressure....... what it could not obtain
through military means.
Iran's firmness in the face of renewed US attacks is designed to
demonstrate that the fundamental dynamic has not changed,
that the enemy cannot eliminate Iran's military strength
via coercive diplomacy..... or destroy Iran's diplomatic
strength through aggression. This is a sophisticated
strategic doctrine ------- that recognizes the inter-
connectedness, of military and diplomatic
instruments of power.
The Ramadan War ..looms particularly large in this context. Iran's
performance in that war - demonstrated that the rules governing
US behaviour in the region --- have fundamentally changed.
Where previously the US -- could violate commitments
with impunity, secure in the knowledge that Iranian
retaliation would be limited, the new reality ----
imposes heavy costs.
The current crisis extends this logic, showing that breaching
commitments will produce consequences that may exceed
what the enemy anticipated.
Credibility and the value
of an Iranian signature
Perhaps the most profound dimension of Iran's position concerns
the relationship between national credibility, and the integrity of
understandings or agreements. Iran's insistence on maintaining
the closure until the enemy returns to its commitments reflects
a conviction that an Iranian signature carries the same weight
as Iranian blood, honour, and soil. This --- is not nationalist
hyperbole, but a strategic calculation about the nature
of international relations.
In the anarchic environment of international politics, credibility
functions as a form of currency. Nations that demonstrate a
willingness to enforce their commitments, even at high
cost, gain reputational advantages that can deter
future violations.
Conversely -- nations that accept violations
without a meaningful response: signal that
their commitments are negotiable.. under
pressure, inviting further encroachments.
Iran's experience with the US, has been characterized by a pattern
of US' exploitation of Iranian flexibility. Each concession, however
minor, has been interpreted as a sign of weakness and has led to
increased demands. The current crisis represents a conscious
effort to break this pattern – to establish a new equilibrium in
which violations of Iranian rights ----- carry immediate and
significant consequences.
This approach carries risks, of course. The economic costs
of maintaining the closure of the strategic waterway are
substantial, and the potential... for military escalation
remains. But from the Iranian perspective, the costs
of accepting the US-imposed route would be even
greater. It would establish a precedent ---- that
could be invoked in the future.
The current escalation triggered by US adventurism has revealed
important changes in the US' approach to Iran, though perhaps..
not in the direction Washington intended.
The US had historically operated from a position of presumed
superiority, confident that its military and economic power
could compensate for diplomatic setbacks. The Iranian
response to the fresh violation of the understanding
has challenged this assumption.
US attempts to establish the Omani route reflect a characteristic
approach: seeking alternatives that maintain freedom of action
while ''technically'' complying with understandings. This
approach works --- when dealing with weaker powers
that cannot effectively resist. With Iran, however, it
has proven --- counterproductive. Iran's legitimate
physical control over the strait gives it leverage
that no amount of diplomatic creativity can
entirely circumvent.
The attacks on Iranian territory over recent weeks, represent
an escalation that will prove counterproductive. Rather than
compelling Iran to accept the US route, they have
demonstrated the limits of US military power
in achieving political objectives.
Iran has shown it can withstand attacks while maintaining its
strategic position -- forcing the enemy to confront the reality
that military pressure cannot achieve the desired outcome.