It’s five long days between now and the proposed time for signing a deal between the United States and Iran which, from what we know at the moment, falls somewhere between a ceasefire and a peace deal.
That’s a long time in the universe of this conflict — and in the sleep cycle of US President Donald Trump. It illustrates just how much can go wrong in the meantime.
And Israel proved the point when, some hours after the deal was announced, it flatly stated it would not be withdrawing from Lebanon, something Iran has made it clear is non-negotiable.
The fact that there has been an acknowledgement that there is a deal (of some sort), and a specific time and occasion for it to be signed, are about the only firm changes to the state of play here.
Within minutes of the initial announcements from Pakistan, the US and Iran, almost every aspect of what has been agreed to as a starting point was being hotly contested.
This means that one element of the war that has certainly already escalated, though, is the spin wars: the battle to frame the story about who has won and lost the most.
The spin wars begin
Donald Trump’s fantastical assertion that he is now “authorising” the opening of the Strait of Hormuz — when of course the whole problem for the US and the global economy is that the war has confirmed Iran’s control of the strait — set the standard for all the claims and counter-claims being made about just what has been agreed to.
For now, it has only been the Iranian side that has outlined what the agreement may contain. And as has so often been the case, some of this is hotly contested by “unnamed” US officials.
But it is notable that the terms now being spoken of broadly do reflect those outlined late last week.
A ceasefire has been reached between the US and Iran, with both sides confirming plans to end fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Those terms included an immediate halt to fighting on all fronts, including in Lebanon; the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz; the lifting of sanctions on Iran; the unfreezing of Iranian funds; and a massive compensation scheme being set up for Iran.
Then there is the issue of Iran’s nuclear capacity — another feature of the deal outlined late last week.
If we consider chronologically what could bring the deal undone, where it falls short, and what it has revealed about the changing dynamics of Gulf diplomacy, all roads lead first to Lebanon.
Israel is not a party to this deal
Lebanon remains the most immediate threat to the deal going ahead, for the simple reason that Israel is not a party to this deal.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a personal 30-year commitment to the downfall of the Iranian regime.
When he came under US pressure to cease hostilities against Iran as part of the April ceasefire, he simply shifted his targets to Lebanon and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah that operates there.
The time differences around the world meant that the announcement of a deal on Monday morning (Australian time) came in the middle of the night, Jerusalem time, so the impact and response of Israel was not immediate.
Early reporting was of absolute outrage from Netanyahu’s right wing coalition partners, who described the deal as a “strategic defeat” for the Israeli prime minister.
Then late on Monday afternoon (Australian time) came a defiant message from Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I are leading a clear policy that states that the IDF will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza — indefinitely — in order to protect the border and Israeli communities from there against jihadist elements.”
It’s hard to overstate the defiance of this declaration. It’s not just that Israel is saying it won’t be leaving Lebanon for the time being. It’s a declaration that it is effectively extending its borders in three directions permanently.
It would appear to not just be a deal breaker, but a new challenge for the region and the international community.
Katz said Israel opposes the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon “despite all the existing and future pressures”.
Elections are due in Israel in September and October and Israeli public opinion is firmly behind continued assaults on Lebanon.
There is a sense in Israel that Netanyahu has escalated his attacks on Lebanon — which has included razing whole swathes of villages in the country’s south in a manner very similar to what has happened in Gaza — while he felt he had a window to do so before any US-Iran deal was struck.
Credible reports suggested that one of the ways Trump kept this deal progressing, after an escalation of Israeli strikes on the Lebanese capital of Beirut on Sunday, was to guarantee to the Iranians that Lebanon’s borders would be recognised, and that Israeli troops would withdraw to that border.
There is a sense in Israel that Benjamin Netanyahu has escalated his attacks on Lebanon while he felt he had a window to do so before any US-Iran deal was struck.
‘Israel must withdraw from Lebanon’
The head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Majid Moosavi, posted on social media after the deal was announced that “Iran will never leave Lebanon alone”.
“We will never abandon Hezbollah, and ending the war will include Lebanon and all the fronts,” he wrote.
“Israel must withdraw from Lebanon; ending the war through understanding means Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied areas in southern Lebanon as well, and we have made that clear to the other side with complete clarity.”
This has got to be the first big stumbling block to the deal proceeding.
The fact that there is such a large question mark over whether this can happen shows the US can no longer work on the presumption that it can control the actions of its Israeli ally.
Just as Trump doesn’t control Israel, he will also not be controlling what happens in the Strait of Hormuz under what we know of this deal.
The suggestion is that it could be open from Friday, though the Iranians seem to suggest this relies on the US removing its blockade and committing to other parts of the deal.
Trump says that won’t involve tolls but it also seems clear that the strait will open under terms set by Iran.
