ENGLISH
– American media outlets, considered unofficial mouthpieces, report that Washington is discussing the possibility of a large-scale military operation against Iran. How do you assess these publications?
– Such leaks are usually not accidental. They are typically coordinated with official agencies and serve as a means of informational pressure to strengthen American positions in the negotiation process. However, in this case, it is no longer just about informational influence. The actual disruption of the memorandum of understanding and strikes against Iran's strategically significant facilities indicate that the escalation has entered a new phase.
– At this stage, is the main issue related to the nuclear program or the Strait of Hormuz?
– The facts show that the key issue is the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has repeatedly stated that it does not pursue the militarization of its nuclear program. At the same time, an advisor to Iran's spiritual leader recently emphasized that Hormuz is much more significant for Tehran than the nuclear dossier. This means that the main contradiction pertains not to the nuclear issue but to control over the strait and the conditions of its use.
– Why is Hormuz so important for the United States?
– Because it is one of the key hubs of global energy transportation. A significant portion of energy resources is transported through this route to China. Therefore, control over Hormuz has long ceased to be just an issue of Iranian-American relations; it is also an important component of the geopolitical competition between the US and China. In this context, Washington's statements regarding the rules of using the strait and possible payment mechanisms should also be considered.
– What impact could these developments have towards Lebanon?
– Although tensions are rising in other directions in the region, certain deterrent mechanisms are still functioning on the Lebanese front. There are violations, but Israel has not yet returned to the previous scale of military operations. At the same time, negotiations between Washington and Rome continue.
– What is Israel aiming for in these negotiations?
– At this moment, the continuity of the negotiations is more important than their outcome. The timelines for trial phases, deployments, and security mechanisms are being discussed, but no final decisions have been made yet. Israel seeks to prolong this transitional period as much as possible while maintaining its control and presence in certain areas of Lebanon.
– What is the main danger if this process continues?
– If the trial phase is extended or turns into a stable status quo, then the issue of Lebanon's territorial integrity may gradually become a purely political statement. In that case, Israel's long-standing goal of establishing a security zone in southern Lebanon could be effectively consolidated. That is why today not only the content of the negotiations is important, but also their duration and strategic purpose.
* This text was automatically translated by Artificial Intelligence (AI).
