BREAKING

Al Mayadeen’s correspondent: Israeli warplanes carried out an airstrike targeting the town of Kfarjouz in the Nabatieh district

Iranian state TV, citing TankerTrackers: The vessel crossed without carrying out complex operations, but simply by switching off its Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponder

Iranian state TV, citing TankerTrackers: A giant oil tanker has broke the US naval blockade imposed on Iran

Al Mayadeen’s correspondent: Heavy confrontations reported between Resistance fighters and Israeli occupation soldiers on the outskirts of Majdal Zoun

Palestinian factions: The issue of weapons is linked to the political horizon and the Palestinian people’s right to establish their state and self-determination, within the framework of Trump’s plan and international resolutions

Palestinian factions: No weapons will be handed over to the Israeli occupation or to any non-Palestinian party

Palestinian factions: Implementation will be carried out through the Palestinian national committee in cooperation with Palestinian factions and organizations

Palestinian factions: The requirements of the first phase also include the entry of the national committee, the deployment of an international stabilization force, and the dismantling of armed militias

Palestinian factions: The requirements of the first phase also include full implementation of the humanitarian protocol, cessation of targeting, and adherence to the withdrawal lines

Palestinian factions: The weapons exclusivity process will take place after the completion of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement with all its required obligations

•  Robert Inlakesh
• Source: Al Mayadeen English
• 12 Jun 2026 

If Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam truly believed in Lebanese sovereignty, then they would also expel the US ambassador who represents a government that quite literally greenlights Israeli airstrikes against Lebanon.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has claimed that Iran is “using Lebanon as its bargaining chip.” Not only is this blatantly false, but it also implies that Tehran has something material to gain from including Lebanon in its ceasefire agreement.

Several inflammatory statements have recently been issued by the Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, blaming Iran for “Israel’s” mass murder of Lebanese civilians and its illegal invasion of southern Lebanese lands.

These allegations against Iran are not new. For decades, they have been fabricated by Israeli politicians and Zionist think-tanks such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP).  There is, however, a significant difference when such claims are echoed by a Lebanese president whose government has been instructed to engage in direct talks with an enemy that, within a matter of months, has killed around 3,600 of his country’s citizens and continues to occupy Lebanese territory.

The mere concept of Lebanon’s “bargaining chip” is factually incorrect in Iran’s case. A “bargaining chip” means that Tehran would use Lebanon to its own benefit, which is patently false. If anything, Iran’s demands that “Israel” withdraw from Lebanese territory and cease its bombing campaign are making the prospect of reaching any deal more difficult.

If we focus solely on what would materially benefit Iran, the other demands it has listed – namely guarantees against future aggression, the withdrawal of US forces from the region, the lifting of sanctions, recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz, the unfreezing of assets, and compensation – are tangible gains. By contrast, the demand that any ceasefire apply across all fronts, especially the stipulation of a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, offers Iran no direct material benefit. This is a matter of principle rather than self-interest.

One could argue that by insisting on Lebanon’s inclusion in the ceasefire agreement, Iran was seeking to strengthen its standing while demonstrating loyalty to its allies. Yet if this were primarily a strategic or symbolic demand, Tehran could simply have accepted a return to the status quo that “Israel” had imposed on southern Lebanon prior to March 2.