Trita Parsi

2010 Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order recipient. Executive VP @quincyinst. Wrote Losing an Enemy & Treacherous Alliance.

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

If there ever was any smoking gun evidence that the Israeli-Lebanese agreement is nothing but a cover for Israel to sabotage the US-Iran MOU and subjugate Lebanon under Israeli dominion, it is von der Leyen's endorsement of the agreement.

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

If there ever was any smoking gun evidence that the Israeli-Lebanese agreement is nothing but a cover for Israel to sabotage the US-Iran MOU and subjugate Lebanon under Israeli dominion, it is von der Leyen's endorsement of the agreement.

[Ursula von der Leyen @vonderleyen]

I welcome the agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

This is a critical step away from escalation. Because there can be no peace in the Middle East with Lebanon in flames.

My thanks to the US for the mediation.

Key next steps are the disarmament of non-state groups and preserving Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The EU stands ready to support this path to lasting regional stability, also with the continued delivery of much needed humanitarian aid with € 100 million mobilised for the displaced.

[Mohammad Ali Shabani @mashabani]

Even states that have suffered total and humiliating military defeat rarely agree to relinquish their legal rights. This is bad, even by the standards of this Lebanese government.

[Wyatt Reed @wyattreed13]

Impossible to overstate the contrast between the class and dignity exhibited by the Iranian team and the crude, disgusting behavior of the regime change freaks cursing them and spitting on fans

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

The US-Iran MOU and the Israeli-Lebanese agreements are incompatible as I see them.

If both are pursued, neither will be achieved.

It appears the administration is working against itself, and Trump appears too disinterested in the details to recognize this.

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

Told Courtney and @alexjordanATL at the excellent Always at War podcast that my biggest worry is that the Iranians won't go for a BIG deal with the US. They need to do that not only to make it a better and more durable deal, but also to incentivize Trump to take on all the opposition to the deal. Because Trump's psychology is that he wants a big, historic, legacy-worthy deal. The content of the legacy is secondary. It could be regime change in Iran - which failed - or it could be rapprochement with Tehran (which he is trying now).

But to be "worth the cost" for Trump and compel him to take on Netanyahu and the neocons in DC, it must be legacy worthy. If the Iranians go for a small deal, there will likely not be a deal at all.

https://t.co/sXQ67zWfEn

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

Told @MarioNawfal that Israel's sudden focus on Turkey as the next big enemy mirrors how Israel suddenly identified Iran in the early 1990s as the main threat, even though only 5 years earlier, Israel pushed for US-Iran talks
The actual threat is the constant search for an enemy

[Martín Dandach @MartinDandach]

El capitán de la Selección de Irán, Mehdi Taremi, explotó contra la FIFA y la organización de Estados Unidos.

“Esta es una Copa del Mundo desastrosa. Como jugadores profesionales no podemos jugar una competición en estas condiciones, no está bien ni es justo. Si la FIFA piensa que esto es justo, tema de ellos, pero no lo es. ¿Quién debería solucionar este problema por nosotros? ¿La FIFA? ¿EE.UU.? ¡No sé! Díganme un nombre. El presidente de la FIFA, Gianni Infantino, vino a nuestro vestuario después del primer partido contra Nueva Zelanda y dijo que iba a resolver todos los problemas, pero en realidad, la FIFA no hizo nada. Respondiendo la pregunta de: "¿Sienten que los organizadores de la Copa del Mundo, incluidos la FIFA y los funcionarios estadounidenses, prefieren que Irán sea eliminado de la competencia?", digo: Tenemos que luchar contra absolutamente todo. No podemos quedarnos en el país, viajamos y nos sometemos a controles migratorios cada vez que queremos jugar, ahora no podemos quedarnos en Seattle y tenemos que volver a Tijuana. Han hecho todo lo posible para eliminarnos, entonces desde nuestra perspectiva, sí, creo que lo quieren así, nos quieren afuera”.

[Mel @Villgecrazylady]

. @missmayim gets teary eyed at the thought of people saying mean things to her if front of her children.

Meanwhile, Israel uses an AI program called “where’s daddy?” to hunt down Palestinians and literally murder them when they are AT HOME w their kids.

[Nicolas Sawaya @sawaya_nicolas]

I read the Lebanese-Israeli framework agreement carefully (see comments for full text). I break it down, article by article, below (pay special attention to articles 2, 4, 8 and 9).

Overall, just a terrible, shameful agreement, especially when the far better alternative of leaning into the US-Iran MoU was available (and we haven't even seen the "security annex" yet, which I'm sure reflects even more sovereignty-enhancing measures for the Lebanese govt).

Preamble and Article 1:

In essence, Lebanon agrees to recognize Israel, to end the technical state of war between them (ongoing since 1948), and pledges to normalize relations through future agreements. Keep in mind that normalization is only supported by a small minority of the country, with overwhelming opposition to it.

Article 2:

The sequenced process referred to in this article is Hizb disarmament first before Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory (that this is envisioned to happen in stages or via "pilot zones" makes no difference, as the sequence remains the same: first disarmament then withdrawal from a particular territory). This of course won't happen short of civil war.

Instead of leaning into US-Iran MoU that demanded Israeli withdrawal tout cours, the Lebanese govt has essentially legitimized occupation by making Israeli withdrawal contingent on Hizb disarmament (so no disarmament = continued occupation). This is also contrary to international law, which doesn't sequence withdrawal from occupied territory on disarmament of resistance groups. The Lebanese govt is willfully and foolishly throwing away leverage, because "sovereignty" apparently.

Article 3:

This article explicitly conditions reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure and return of civilians to their homes in any area under occupation on disarmament of Hizb and "dismantlement of their infrastructure" (to be executed incrementally via "pilot zones"). It's unclear who is doing the disarming and dismantling and how (the IDF, the LAF, or both in unison), but this should become clearer upon publication of the security annex; but see article 4 below.

Article 4:

Makes clear that the onus is on the Lebanese govt to "achieve the complete and verified disarmament" of Hizb. Again, this won't happen short of civil war, which Israel has been trying to foment in Lebanon since the beginning of the war.

Article 5:

We're supposed to believe that Israel has "no territorial ambitions in Lebanon", when several Israeli ministers and lawmakers have insisted otherwise, and Israel has formally conditioned their withdrawal from Lebanese territory on Hizb disarmament by the Lebanese govt first, which they know cannot happen.

Article 6:

Lebanese govt explicitly calls Hizballah military activities illegal and outside of the Law. This reiterates the govt's previous position, but by virtue of stating it within this broader Lebanese-Israeli framework, reinforces the view that the Lebanese govt is aligned with Israel in eliminating Hizb (as an armed actor).

Article 7:

Iterates the "right to self-defense" for Lebanon and Israel. We all know what the "right to self defense" means for Israel. They invoked their right to "self-defense" to commit genocide in Gaza, and had the temerity to invoke their right to "self defense" when Hizb recently killed 4 Israeli soldiers advancing within occupied Lebanese land to justify bombing dozens of Lebanese towns.

Article 8:

Notice how subtle but dangerous this language is in this article. The Lebanese govt is essentially affirming that Hizb poses a threat to Lebanon or to citizens of Lebanon. They've essentially declared Hizb, not Israel, as the enemy. Where does that leave Hizb supporters, which constitute a large segment of the Lebanese population?

Article 9 and 10:

The Lebanese govt commits to a "performance-based program" to disarm Hizb and accepts that any new US assistance is contingent on achieving milestones. This, apparently, is "sovereignty" according to the Lebanese govt. They're on probation and graduate only according to US (and presumably Israeli) performance reviews, with reconstruction funds and economic aid being dangled as carrots. Utter humiliation.

Article 11:

Intent is to strangle Hizb financially, with the US govt working with the Lebanese govt to ensure that.

Article 12:

Commitment to comprehensive "peace" agreement, which I interpret as a normalization agreement, although not crystal clear from this article. If so, this will be rejected by vast majority of country.

Article 13:

Another example of Lebanese govt volunteering to throw away any leverage by, for e.g., forgoing the option to accept the ICC's jurisdiction to investigate Israeli war crimes or to file formal complaints and letters against Israel with the UNSC.

Article 14:

The obligatory reference to thanking DJT

/END.

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

At least the Israelis do not have much doubt about what the Lebanese-Israeli agreement means. This is what the anchor on Channel 13 said:

"It seems we're leading Lebanon to a civil war. Maybe it's not so bad for us, let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah... That's been the goal from the start."

[Mohammad Ali Shabani @mashabani]

BIG: Hours ago, Iran and the US activated a hotline to manage incidents in the strategic Strait of Hormuz for the first time.

However, informed sources tell @amwajmedia it's not (yet?) military-to-military, there's no Iranian rep in Doha, and it doesn't entail any physical meetings with contact restricted to calls. Also great caution about scope. Having said that, its first mission seems to have been to manage fallout from reported Iranian strike on commercial vessel and subsequent US airstrikes inside Iran.

[Assal Rad @AssalRad]

Some of my oldest friends—the people I grew up with here in the U.S.—traveled to Seattle to watch the Iran–Egypt World Cup match tonight. As they were walking with their families—their parents and their children, three generations of Iranian Americans—they were aggressively harassed by a group of Iranian monarchists, leaving my 10-year-old niece in tears. A child.

My other niece was spat at after attending the LA match on Father’s Day with her dad.

Every day, these people show their true faces. Scaring children and intimidating families has nothing to do with democracy, freedom or human rights, in fact, it is the opposite. It’s clear why they align with Israel so closely, no one else has more expertise in terrorizing children.

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

At least the Israelis do not have much doubt about what the Lebanese-Israeli agreement means. This is what the anchor on Channel 13 said:

"It seems we're leading Lebanon to a civil war. Maybe it's not so bad for us, let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah... That's been the goal from the start."

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

The IRGC argues that the US encouraged a violation of clause 5 of the MOU by pushing ships to transit through the southern part of the Strait without coordinating with Iran, claiming that the clause stipulates that all transits must be coordinated with Iran.

Here's what that clause says. The text does not appear to support the Iranian interpretation conclusively, in my read.

"Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements, using its best efforts, for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the needs for removing the technical and military obstacles, and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz."

[Ramy Abdu| رامي عبده @RamAbdu]

Breaking: Thousands of Lebanese have taken to the streets and public squares to protest the signing of a framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel.

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

After the US struck Iran (after Iran struck a ship in the Strait), Iranian media reports that the IRGC has struck US positions. Details are not available.

As bad as this is, an even greater threat to the MOU is the Israel-Lebanon agreement signed by the Lebanese government, which has caused riots in Beirut amid accusations that the Lebanese government has sold out the country and acquiesced to Israel occupying parts of southern Lebanon.

Netanyahu must be mighty happy.

[Responsible Statecraft @RStatecraft]

On the latest "Always at War:" Beltway hawks are growing increasingly desperate to upend the fragile MoU that represents the best available exit ramp from this reckless war of choice.

https://t.co/gi4xInT5CX

[Mario Nawfal @MarioNawfal]

🇱🇧🇮🇱 Chaos in Beirut right now

Crowds have completely taken over the streets, burning tires and blocking roads in fury over the Lebanese authorities signing an agreement with Israel.

They say it legalizes Israel's occupation of South Lebanon and gives Netanyahu immunity for war crimes.

This could escalate fast.

Writer: Sol

[Trita Parsi @tparsi]

Very important story with key details, particularly mindful of the US strikes on Iran in the last hours...

Inside story: Iran, US activate Hormuz hotline, ‘but not in Doha’

https://t.co/X06w3tlSsE via @amwajmedia