Connect with us

Middle East

Israel’s ‘erosion’ concern over relations with the U.S.

Published

on

According to the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Israel should adjust its future policies to the “emerging reality”, considering “anti-Israel trends in the US”. According to an analysis published by the institute, the new reality has the potential to lead to significant erosion in United States-Israel relations.

In Tel Aviv, which failed to please the U.S. and Russia at the same time in the Ukrainian crisis, negative prospects for the future are increasing in relations with the United States. Tel Aviv’s relations with Russia, China and the non-Western world are handled within the frame of “rapprochement with the illiberal world” from the perspective of the U.S. established order. Developments in U.S. public opinion also reinforce skeptical approaches towards Washington in Israel.

‘Neutrality’ in Ukraine dismay Washington

Israel’s future government, which decided not to provide high-tech weapons to Kiev, is already facing pressure to “sell weapons.” Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky called Former Prime Minister Netanyahu, who won the elections, and reiterated his request for weapons from Israel. Zelensky, who claims that Iranian drones were used by Russia, urges Israel to stand up against Iran on the Ukrainian issue. To date, Tel Aviv has not given the green light to this call, citing the challenge of its own security equation. Israel, which freely strikes the regions it declared as “Iran’s target” in Syria, won’t want to encounter Russia on this field.

Iran and Syria directly support organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, their military actions and fight against Israel. Acting with the great support of Iran, this broad block defines itself as the “axis of resistance”.

Although the “axis of resistance” is disempowered by the Arab Spring, it is still standing. Syrian-Hamas relations, which deteriorated with the Syrian war, also recovered in October. A senior Hamas official visited Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Regional states have stopped stirring the sectarian cauldron where they poured gasoline over the past decade. Considering all this, forcing Russia to oppose the Middle East does not serve the security interests of Israel.

Subtle message via Golan

The fact that Russian and Syrian fighter jets conducted a joint aerial patrol over the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights gives insight into Tel Aviv’s relatively neutral policy to date. Moscow told Tel Aviv, “If you supply weapons to Ukraine regime, we may take steps that will put you in difficulty with Syria about Golan that you are occupying and that is considered part of Syria according to the UN.”

The Golan occupation is the main reason why the war between Israel and Syria is not officially over. A step to disrupt the actual situation here may be the final stage of tension, that is, a state of war. The message sent with fighter jets is just a reminder to Israel for now.

Israeli press frequently featured Hezbollah making use of Russian military experience with the Syrian war. On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that there are 1 and a half million Russian-speaking population in Israel. Moscow suspended its decision to close the Jewish Agency, which was founded nearly 100 years ago. Israel is concerned that in response to its possible military support for Ukraine, Moscow will openly and vigorously support its enemies.

The essence of the recent Israeli debate in the U.S. is generated by this stance of “relative neutrality”. Providing support to Ukraine, regardless of Moscow, which has changed the military and political course in Syria since 2015, will force Israel’s fragile defenses. The war might spread to the Middle East if the advanced air defense systems requested by Kiev are given to Ukraine.

Israel occupied the Golan Heights in the 1967 War and there is still no peace agreement between Israel and Syria. Invited by Syria, Iran’s effective actions in the region is also self-explanatory. Tel Aviv won’t want to see Russia on the “axis of resistance” with all its gravity in this environment. For this reason, if “relative neutrality” is disrupted in Ukraine, it will pave the way for the developments that will challenge Israel’s security paradigm in the Middle East.

A ‘tectonic shift’ in U.S.-Israel relations

An analysis at Israel’s leading Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, which reflects the views of military bureaucracy, examines the crack in Tel Aviv-Washington relations that emerged because of the Ukrainian war. The analysis finds that the special relationship between Israel and the United States has recently turned into an “Israeli debate” and points out that Tel Aviv remains “relatively neutral” in Ukraine for security reasons.

Reporting that support for Israel is still high in the United States, INSS analysis shows that criticism towards Israel has increased, especially among younger people, apart from Democrats. As a matter of fact, the results of public opinion polls in the United States, which are consistent with this finding, are quite striking. According to U.S. pollster John Zogby, this anti-Israeli rise in the United States is a “tectonic shift”, the BBC noted.

The findings of the Pew Research Centre, cited by INSS, confirm this finding. Accordingly, for the 50+ age group among Americans, the average support is 65 percent. In younger age groups, this rate falls to an average of 45 percent. Moreover, public opinion polls conducted by the Brookings Research Institute show that among supporters of the Democrat party and young people, there are reservations about the positive attitude of U.S. administration towards Israel. Many Democrats view U.S. support for Israel as “more than necessary.”

INSS analysis summarizes future trends that will cause erosion in U.S.-Israel relations under five headings. In short, Tel Aviv-based organization puts emphasis on the following:

Demographic changes: The growth of non-white population in the U.S. makes the dialogue on fascism an important component of the political discourse. In addition, generational changes are another important factor. The generation of President Biden, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who grew up in the shadow of World War II and see war as a “necessary evil”, is being replaced by a generation who view the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as “unnecessary.” The analysis also notes that “Israel’s claims of self-defense and wars of no choice appear hollow to them.”

Political polarization: According to INSS, multi-layered polarization in U.S. society gradually narrows the field of social consensus in U.S. society. In this context, the policy of support for Israel, which receives cross-party approval, is also on a downward trend.

The pro-Israel lobby: In this heading, the focus is on the “erosion” among American Jews. While most American Jews continue to support Israel, growing criticism of Israel by some left-wing Jewish organizations is noted.

The global order of priorities: The impact of the competition between the United States and China, and the Ukrainian crisis on U.S.-Israel relations are discussed under this heading. Noting that U.S. pays less attention to Middle East, INSS emphasizes the desire of the U.S. to reduce its military involvement and to have a more limited role in the region in the long term.

Taking account of the potential risks for the future of U.S. relations in Israel, the parties do not expect a break in the short term. Even though the emerging reality is not at the level of disrupting the unity of both states in the region strategically, the risks posed by it are being carefully studied by Tel Aviv.

Middle East

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.

According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.

The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.

The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.

In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.

At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.

The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.

Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion

The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.

Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.

At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.

The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.

In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.

In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.

In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.

The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.

The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.

As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.

For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.

In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.

The report listed several additional limitations:

Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.

Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.

No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.

Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.

Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.

No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.

Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.

Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.

Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.

The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.

US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.

According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.

US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal

According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.

US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.

The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.

Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.

Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement

An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.

During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.

Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.

In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”

Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.

In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.

Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.

Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.

Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.

The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.

The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.

After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.

In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.

Negotiations to continue in Switzerland

According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.

A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.

According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.

The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.

In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey