They announced it directly after the MoU was signed (obviously they were prepared) and they kept their word for a month, while Israel was bombing Beirut every single day.
Ah yes, so what you really meant to say was that they agreed to temporarily stop attacking Israel
Why would you leave that out?
Anyway, the US did strongarm Israel into making a deal to freeze the situation in Lebanon. But of course not the way Iran and Hezbollah wanted it to. They wanted to give Hezbollah an opportunity to regroup and rearm for the next attack on Israel
Here’s a pretty objective article on the matter (which includes an important second angle besides the matter in Lebanon that caused the division in the Iranian regime)
No, they agreed to stop attacking Israel. There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Not sure what insight you think the linked article is bringing. We were discussing why the Iran-US MoU collapsed, and your claim was that Iran broke the ceasefire. Do you think that the Guardian article supports your claim? I don’t think it does.
That article is exactly about why the MoU collapsed, as it touched on the matter that both sides had different interpretations of the vague stipulations. For the US, forcing Israel to come to an agreement with Lebanon was enough, while for Iran it wasn’t. For Iran, it said that they would get control over shipping in the Strait immediately, while for the US it didn’t.
As to “who broke the ceasefire”: I was replying to the statement that “the US broke it’s own ceasefire”, which implied that was about the situation in the Strait between the US and Iran and not about Hezbollah and Israel on the other side of the Middle East.
There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Yeah you’d have to be childishly naive to believe or at least act the part to claim that that is up for interpretation
Here’s a pretty subjective article boasting how Hezbollah used the last ceasefire to rebuild for their next attack
They announced it directly after the MoU was signed (obviously they were prepared) and they kept their word for a month, while Israel was bombing Beirut every single day.
Ah yes, so what you really meant to say was that they agreed to temporarily stop attacking Israel
Why would you leave that out?
Anyway, the US did strongarm Israel into making a deal to freeze the situation in Lebanon. But of course not the way Iran and Hezbollah wanted it to. They wanted to give Hezbollah an opportunity to regroup and rearm for the next attack on Israel
Here’s a pretty objective article on the matter (which includes an important second angle besides the matter in Lebanon that caused the division in the Iranian regime)
No, they agreed to stop attacking Israel. There was no implication that they’d start again based on time passed. It is your interpretation that this was only tactical to allow them to regroup/rearm, and you’re entitled to interpret the facts in whichever way you like.
Not sure what insight you think the linked article is bringing. We were discussing why the Iran-US MoU collapsed, and your claim was that Iran broke the ceasefire. Do you think that the Guardian article supports your claim? I don’t think it does.
That article is exactly about why the MoU collapsed, as it touched on the matter that both sides had different interpretations of the vague stipulations. For the US, forcing Israel to come to an agreement with Lebanon was enough, while for Iran it wasn’t. For Iran, it said that they would get control over shipping in the Strait immediately, while for the US it didn’t.
As to “who broke the ceasefire”: I was replying to the statement that “the US broke it’s own ceasefire”, which implied that was about the situation in the Strait between the US and Iran and not about Hezbollah and Israel on the other side of the Middle East.
Yeah you’d have to be childishly naive to believe or at least act the part to claim that that is up for interpretation
Here’s a pretty subjective article boasting how Hezbollah used the last ceasefire to rebuild for their next attack