WANA (Jun 15) – Hours ago, the Israeli army once again attacked Dahiyeh in southern Beirut. Reports indicate that the targeted assassination of a high-ranking Hezbollah official in this area was the focus of this crime; however, further data regarding this matter has not yet been published.

 

Despite Trump’s expression of anger and his pretense of being unaware of Israel’s attacks on southern Beirut, some American media outlets have announced that prior to the attack, the Israeli regime’s army had informed the Central Command officials of the CENTCOM forces about the progress of this operation.

 

The fundamental issue is that the continuation of the Israeli regime’s attacks on southern Lebanon, and now the targeting of Dahiyeh, must by no means be interpreted as actions outside the framework of the memorandum of understanding under discussion between the United States and Iran, or in opposition to it.

 

These attacks by the Israeli regime are neither meant to destroy and disrupt the process leading to an agreement between Iran and the United States, nor are they intended to prevent the signing of the memorandum; rather, coincidentally, this series of crimes is a planned component of this very process.

 

Through its relentless attacks on Lebanon (and in the future on other points in the region), the Israeli regime pursues both its individual and specific goals in line with the “Greater Israel” project, as well as its shared goals with America toward establishing a new security order in the region. Experience has also shown that the Israeli regime does not retreat even a single step from its strategic goals and its policy of occupation in the region.

 

Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, carried out with the knowledge and coordination of the United States and alongside the framing of the Iran-U.S. memorandum, are aligned with the goal of stabilizing the regional equations desired by Tel Aviv–Washington, which is specifically envisioned in Clause 1 of this prospective memorandum as the cornerstone of a “regional JCPOA.”

A woman holds a Hezbollah flag during a rally in support of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, in Tehran, Iran June 4, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)

Israel pursues several individual and shared goals in parallel through these attacks:

 

1. Suppressing and de-structuring the Lebanese resistance, as well as rendering Hezbollah’s combat organization non-operational for a non-short period of time.

 

2. Reducing public resilience in Lebanon due to the prolonged state of war and its arduous consequences, and subsequently increasing internal and external pressures for the formal disarmament of Hezbollah.

 

3. De-Shiitization of southern Lebanon as the logical outcome of creating a wide buffer zone, the complete destruction of Shia-populated villages and towns within this perimeter, and expanding the occupation of Lebanese territory (over 20 percent), which has been carried out under the pretext of creating a secure zone and preventing the presence and activity of Hezbollah resistance forces, and is explicitly in violation of international treaties and laws.

 

4. Testing Iran’s will to defend its most important regional ally (Hezbollah) and its resolve to rebuild its regional deterrence on the eve of signing the memorandum with America, for two purposes:

 

A. Assessing the manageability of Iran’s responsiveness within the framework of the current memorandum and subsequent agreements. It is highly crucial for the Israeli regime to see to what extent Iran remains committed to the new equation it claims to have created in the region.

 

B. In the event that Iran does not respond to these attacks, Israel will use this lack of reaction as an assist to the Lebanese government and anti-resistance political forces in Lebanon and throughout the region.

 

By reinforcing the margins and the anti-Iran propaganda claiming that “Hezbollah is merely a bargaining chip in Iran’s hands,” it will depict that for Iran, the understanding with America is more important than the existence of the resistance arms, thereby pressuring Hezbollah from within Lebanon more than ever before.

 

5. Instilling a false duality in the single image of an “unruly Netanyahu on the field and an angry Trump in the media” and attempting to impose it on Iran—even if it is accepted by Tehran as a “tactical assumption” to secure interests so that it remains silent in the face of the violation of one of the main provisions of the memorandum.

 

This is an important step for Tel Aviv–Washington to determine the rules of the game, signal Iran’s lower-hand position, and solidify the out-of-framework role of the Israeli regime as America’s long shadow in the region.

 

6. Drawing a horizon for the next steps toward realizing a mega-project that can implicitly be called a “regional JCPOA,” under which the case of the resistance front will be determined and closed step-by-step.

 

7. Testing the feasibility of breaking the taboo of Iran’s cessation of hostilities with the Israeli regime after 47 years—even if on a de facto basis—will be a sign of the potential for transformation of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s system with its characteristics up to this point, and a victory for the Western–Hebrew–Arab axis.

 

Now the ball is in Iran’s court; it will either stabilize the equation it has defined itself, or leave the field wide open for the realization of the goals of its sworn enemies.

 

Changing the Equation: Iran’s Messages of Decisive Support for Lebanon

WANA (Jun 08) – Only a few hours after the Israeli attack on the Southern Dahiyeh of Beirut (under the pretext of coordination with the United States), residents of various regions in Lebanon, including Beirut, Khaldeh, and Sidon, broadcast videos of Iranian missiles crossing the Lebanese skies toward the occupied territories.   About an hour […]

Read More...