They announced it directly after the MoU was signed (obviously they were prepared) and they kept their word for a month, while Israel was bombing Beirut every single day.
Ah yes, so what you really meant to say was that they agreed to temporarily stop attacking Israel
Why would you leave that out?
Anyway, the US did strongarm Israel into making a deal to freeze the situation in Lebanon. But of course not the way Iran and Hezbollah wanted it to. They wanted to give Hezbollah an opportunity to regroup and rearm for the next attack on Israel
Here’s a pretty objective article on the matter (which includes an important second angle besides the matter in Lebanon that caused the division in the Iranian regime)
No, they agreed to stop attacking Israel. There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Not sure what insight you think the linked article is bringing. We were discussing why the Iran-US MoU collapsed, and your claim was that Iran broke the ceasefire. Do you think that the Guardian article supports your claim? I don’t think it does.
That article is exactly about why the MoU collapsed, as it touched on the matter that both sides had different interpretations of the vague stipulations. For the US, forcing Israel to come to an agreement with Lebanon was enough, while for Iran it wasn’t. For Iran, it said that they would get control over shipping in the Strait immediately, while for the US it didn’t.
As to “who broke the ceasefire”: I was replying to the statement that “the US broke it’s own ceasefire”, which implied that was about the situation in the Strait between the US and Iran and not about Hezbollah and Israel on the other side of the Middle East.
There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Yeah you’d have to be childishly naive to believe or at least act the part to claim that that is up for interpretation
Here’s a pretty subjective article boasting how Hezbollah used the last ceasefire to rebuild for their next attack
I’ve put off replying to this for a bit (11 days says the counter) because I have trouble figuring out how to engage with this respectfully. I think there are factual details here that it could be interesting to discuss, for example that neither the US nor Iran appear to have clear leadership in how they approach this war.
The MoU was clearly not popular in much of the US administration, and yet Trump signed it, and I think he did so as earnestly as he is capable of. As for Iran, the messaging from Mojtaba Khamenei’s office were also critical of the MoU, saying that they approved it because it was the will of the parliament and apparently the public at large, but that they disagreed.
These circumstances of course make a deal like this fragile and it may have motivated people in charge of various aspects of upholding it, to instead provoke the other side in order to make it fall apart. I do not blame the USA alone for that.
Anyway, that’s not the problem I’m having with this exchange. What gives me pause is this:
Yeah you’d have to be childishly naive to believe or at least act the part to claim that that is up for interpretation
regarding the idea that Hezbollah was not honoring the ceasefire, and this whether the use of preemptive strikes by Israel against Hezbollah were justified. I find that difficult to engage with, because I don’t want to play along with the narrative that one side needs to be completely annihilated for the other to know peace.
Israel has a long history of this exact behavior. They have a decades-old pattern of “preemptive” strikes, where they claim to have intelligence or knowledge that they were going to be attacked, and just destroy a place with impunity. I think the naïve interpretation is that those claims are always accurate. It requires us to never question Israel’s narrative, which is that they’re the victim even when they strike first - they’re just a “smart” victim because they didn’t wait to be victimized. I don’t think that disposition helps us understand the world we live in and it prevents any kind of peace from forming.
The facts are simple: there was a ceasefire agreement, and one side honored it while the other didn’t. You can’t claim to be justified in that, because you had a hunch the side that was honoring it was only doing so as some kind of trick. It doesn’t work that way. We as outsiders can’t play along with accepting that.
If there’s no active military conflict between two countries and one strikes the other, we’d need overwhelming evidence to accept that the country that carried out the strike was justified in their actions. You can’t just bomb infrastructure, bridges or even barracks/hangars out of nowhere and say “well they were looking at me shifty, I’m the victim, they started it.” No. I’m not playing along with that narrative anymore.
They announced it directly after the MoU was signed (obviously they were prepared) and they kept their word for a month, while Israel was bombing Beirut every single day.
Ah yes, so what you really meant to say was that they agreed to temporarily stop attacking Israel
Why would you leave that out?
Anyway, the US did strongarm Israel into making a deal to freeze the situation in Lebanon. But of course not the way Iran and Hezbollah wanted it to. They wanted to give Hezbollah an opportunity to regroup and rearm for the next attack on Israel
Here’s a pretty objective article on the matter (which includes an important second angle besides the matter in Lebanon that caused the division in the Iranian regime)
No, they agreed to stop attacking Israel. There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Not sure what insight you think the linked article is bringing. We were discussing why the Iran-US MoU collapsed, and your claim was that Iran broke the ceasefire. Do you think that the Guardian article supports your claim? I don’t think it does.
That article is exactly about why the MoU collapsed, as it touched on the matter that both sides had different interpretations of the vague stipulations. For the US, forcing Israel to come to an agreement with Lebanon was enough, while for Iran it wasn’t. For Iran, it said that they would get control over shipping in the Strait immediately, while for the US it didn’t.
As to “who broke the ceasefire”: I was replying to the statement that “the US broke it’s own ceasefire”, which implied that was about the situation in the Strait between the US and Iran and not about Hezbollah and Israel on the other side of the Middle East.
Yeah you’d have to be childishly naive to believe or at least act the part to claim that that is up for interpretation
Here’s a pretty subjective article boasting how Hezbollah used the last ceasefire to rebuild for their next attack
I’ve put off replying to this for a bit (11 days says the counter) because I have trouble figuring out how to engage with this respectfully. I think there are factual details here that it could be interesting to discuss, for example that neither the US nor Iran appear to have clear leadership in how they approach this war.
The MoU was clearly not popular in much of the US administration, and yet Trump signed it, and I think he did so as earnestly as he is capable of. As for Iran, the messaging from Mojtaba Khamenei’s office were also critical of the MoU, saying that they approved it because it was the will of the parliament and apparently the public at large, but that they disagreed.
These circumstances of course make a deal like this fragile and it may have motivated people in charge of various aspects of upholding it, to instead provoke the other side in order to make it fall apart. I do not blame the USA alone for that.
Anyway, that’s not the problem I’m having with this exchange. What gives me pause is this:
regarding the idea that Hezbollah was not honoring the ceasefire, and this whether the use of preemptive strikes by Israel against Hezbollah were justified. I find that difficult to engage with, because I don’t want to play along with the narrative that one side needs to be completely annihilated for the other to know peace.
Israel has a long history of this exact behavior. They have a decades-old pattern of “preemptive” strikes, where they claim to have intelligence or knowledge that they were going to be attacked, and just destroy a place with impunity. I think the naïve interpretation is that those claims are always accurate. It requires us to never question Israel’s narrative, which is that they’re the victim even when they strike first - they’re just a “smart” victim because they didn’t wait to be victimized. I don’t think that disposition helps us understand the world we live in and it prevents any kind of peace from forming.
The facts are simple: there was a ceasefire agreement, and one side honored it while the other didn’t. You can’t claim to be justified in that, because you had a hunch the side that was honoring it was only doing so as some kind of trick. It doesn’t work that way. We as outsiders can’t play along with accepting that.
If there’s no active military conflict between two countries and one strikes the other, we’d need overwhelming evidence to accept that the country that carried out the strike was justified in their actions. You can’t just bomb infrastructure, bridges or even barracks/hangars out of nowhere and say “well they were looking at me shifty, I’m the victim, they started it.” No. I’m not playing along with that narrative anymore.