Israel's 'kill first' strategy is now aimed at Turkey. Will the region respond?

AI Summary

Israel’s 'kill first' strategy targets Turkey while engaging in complex deals involving Lebanon and the US, weakening Lebanese sovereignty and risking civil war. The agreements include Israeli military immunity and disarmament obligations on Lebanon, exacerbating regional tensions and humanitarian crises.

Israel's 'kill first' strategy is now aimed at Turkey. Will the region respond? David Hearst on Tue, 06/30/2026 - 18:10 Hard power is needed to halt Tel Aviv's reckless quest to redraw the borders of the Middle East A protester holds a placard outside the Israeli embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, during a demonstration against a previous Israeli war on Gaza in July 2014 (Nicolas Asfouri/AFP) Off The US administration has signed two mutually contradictory deals to end its war on Iran. The power Israel lost to dictate the terms of peace on Iran, it has sought to regain in Lebanon. It was helped, enormously, by the Lebanese government, which signed away both sovereignty over its land and its duty to seek legal redress for the war crimes Israel has committed. Under the deal that US President Donald Trump signed with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Washington accepted an explicit link between Iran and Lebanon by agreeing to an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon”. That commitment, if implemented, makes the second deal signed in Washington on Friday between representatives of the Lebanese, Israeli and US governments obsolete. This “framework” gives Israeli forces, occupying large swathes of southern Lebanon, indefinite leave to remain. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); In the first deal, the US promised to respect Iranian sovereignty, including over the Strait of Hormuz. In the second, its ally, Israel, has no obligation to respect Lebanese sovereignty, which is further weakened by the creation of a “military coordination group” run in Washington.  The agreement obliges the Lebanese army, kept deliberately weak by the veto Washington and Israel exercise on the weapons it can deploy, to disarm a battle-hardened armed group, seen by many in Lebanon as the only credible deterrent against Israeli attack and settlement.   The framework deal further obliges the government of Lebanon to grant immunity to Israeli troops and generals over the war crimes they have committed in the invasion. Article 13 signs away the right of the Lebanese government to pursue legal complaints against Israel in international courts, according to legal experts. Threat of Lebanese civil war More than one million people have been forcibly displaced in Lebanon since October 2023, and at least 8,000 have been killed. Many of Israel’s strikes have targeted civilians, including journalists and healthcare workers. According to Halima Kaakour, a Lebanese MP and international law expert, “the clause reflects a political decision by the Lebanese authorities not to pursue action before international forums in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal - which is itself a right and should not have to be traded for anything else”. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); There was fury on the streets of Beirut, so much so that Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was reportedly obliged to thank Nabih Berri, the speaker of parliament, for calming things down, as Berri vowed to block the deal’s passage to avert a potential civil war. Considering Lebanon’s history, this warning should not be taken lightly. The morning after the Lebanon 'agreement' Read More » “Those who prepared this agreement want to ignite a fitna [civil strife], but I don’t want it, and I am pressing to prevent the explosion,” Berri said. “Even Hezbollah is working on internal calming, but they persist in pushing forward with an agreement that is worse than the May 17 Agreement … they want a fitna.”  Berri said the region could pay the price for what he called a “tug of war” inside the US administration. As Lebanon’s chief predator, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was delighted by the Washington deal, dismissing the two areas around the Litani River from which Israeli forces promised to withdraw as insignificant. Netanyahu also called the deal a “major blow” to Iran, saying: “Iran is trying to force us into a withdrawal from southern Lebanon by force. In effect, Israel, Lebanon and the United States are telling them: this is none of your business.” The two deals are so different because they have two competing authors in the US administration engaged in the “tug of war” to which Berri alluded. Trump’s deal with Iran reflects the thinking of Vice President JD Vance, who must have felt vindicated by the total failure of US-Israeli air strikes to achieve regime change. Vance made little secret of his opposition to the joint strikes, and he was conspicuous by his absence from the situation room in February, when Trump made the decision to launch the war on Iran after being briefed by Netanyahu and David Barnea, then the Mossad director. 'Sunni axis' rhetoric The Washington framework deal for Israel and Lebanon was the work of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He continues to be signed up to the goal of regime change in Iran, as he was in Venezuela and