Written By:
- Date published:
12:48 pm, June 20th, 2026 - 17 comments
Categories: uncategorized -
Tags:
When Britain tried (and failed) to re-take control of the Suez Canal in 1956, it marked the moment when a formerly Great Power was forced to accept that the jig was up, the goose was cooked, and that no one was ever again going to take Britain’s imperial delusions seriously.
The US is now having its Suez moment. We still await crucial details on what exactly Iran and the US have negotiated, with the help of Pakistan and Qatar. Even without the full details, this “memo of understanding” is mainly just an interim agreement on a framework for further talks. It is a truce, and little more. The “toll free” re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of the American blockade are only two of the truce’s temporary, conditional aspects.
Basically, Iran and the US have agreed to extend their current two month ceasefire for another 60 days. Over the next two months, the main excuse that the Americans have offered for this war – Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme, supposedly “obliterated” by US bombers a year ago – will be further discussed. So will the terms under which the Strait will remain open beyond the timeframe of the truce.
During that time, it will soon become clear whether the US has the will – or the ability – to rein in Benjamin Netanyahu and get Israel (a) to stop attacking Lebanon and (b) withdraw not only from the circa 570 square kilometre buffer zone that has been created within Lebanon adjacent to the border with Israel, but also (c) from the additional 2,000 square kilometres that the IDF has turned into displacement zones during its current invasion.
In effect, the IDF has turned one fifth of Lebanon into a free fire region, while bombing its villages and residential suburbs with a criminal disregard for human life. Yet as Iran keeps on saying, if Lebanon’s sovereignty isn’t restored via an Israeli cessation of bombing and a troop withdrawal, this will count as a deal-breaker.
Fat chance of that ever happening though, given the current state of Israeli domestic politics. If Netanyahu gave any sign of complying with a withdrawal from Lebanon, he would certainly lose the Israeli election that’s due by October at the latest. If anything, the main Israeli opposition bloc is even more militant on Lebanon.
Typically, Donald Trump is trying to spin a Great Victory out of a national humiliation. So far, he has talked only about Iran’s concessions, and nothing about what the US has given up to to achieve this truce. Ultimately, the deal seems to resolve only the problems that his own foolhardy actions had created.
At a wider level…there will be no regime change in Teheran. If anything the country is even more under the control of the Revolutionary Guards than it was before. Reportedly, Iran’s ballistic missile programme and its support for its regional allies (Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen) will not be part of the deal. Iran may – or may not – see $24 billion of its frozen assets released under the deal, although that seems more likely to be a long and complex process, rife with conditions.
A toll-free Strait of Hormuz? Big deal. Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz had been freely open to global commercial shipping. There is no clarity yet on how and when this crucial sea lane will re-open for business, and whether it has been mined, or not. Nor is there any clarity on how long it would stay open if the US breaks its promises. Thanks to the US and Israeli aggression, Iran has come to realise that it now has a potent weapon that can shut off the lifeblood of global commerce.
It has also been an annus horribilis for America’s regional allies. Formerly the US had seemed to be the all-powerful guarantor of the security of the Gulf states. In the wake of the Iran war, the Gulf states have lost the illusion of stability on which much of their prosperity has been based. More formidable enemies of the US will also have noted the inability of the US to defeat a third-rate military power, and to convert its vast military superiority into any significant strategic gains on the ground.
Beyond undermining the regional perceptions of US omnipotence and reliability, there is the material cost.. The war has cost the US hundreds of billions, has exposed dire shortages in some key munitions within America’s arsenal, has inflicted ruinous physical damage on Iran and Lebanon, and has cost the lives of thousands of people: including the 128 school children killed in their classrooms in Minab by a US bombing raid. Nothing positive has been achieved by the US /Israeli military actions: only destruction, and lasting grief.
Diplomacy is said to be war by other means. With respect to Iran though, diplomacy has a proven track record of being far more effective than military action. Over ten years ago and in the wake of 18 months of talks, Iran agreed to forego the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. It also agreed to submit itself to regular UN inspections of its sites, and those rigorous UN inspections found Iran to be in full compliance. In return, the West had promised to lift its extensive trade sanctions, thereby enabling Iran to become peacefully integrated within the global economy.
Instead, Trump tore up that deal and imposed harsher sanctions. Not surprisingly, Iran then began enriching uranium in earnest. It had come to realise the hard way that – just like North Korea – having a nuclear weapon was its only way of deterring military aggression from the US and Israel.
For all the martial strutting by Trump and Pete Hegseth, the US is currently struggling to re-gain what Obama and the mullahs had achieved by patient diplomacy over a decade ago. As mentioned, much remains unresolved. Over the next 60 days, will Iran cease nuclear enrichment entirely? Or will it reserve its absolute right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to pursue the low level 3.6% nuclear enrichment earmarked to meet the country’s civilian energy needs? The fate – and the whereabouts – of Iran’s stash of 60% enriched fuel is unknown.
Saving the world from Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is the reason Trump continues to cite as being the main rationale – and victory! – of his war. Yet back in 2016, Iran had made that concession, only for Trump to trash it, and deride it as “the worst deal ever.” A year ago, he also claimed to have “obliterated” Iran’s capacity to build a nuclear weapon, even if it had wanted to.
Then in late February, he tried and failed to subdue Iran by military force, to stop it from acquiring a weapon it had formerly renounced, and that he had previously claimed to have destroyed. Now, its back to the future at the bargaining table, to try and recreate the same old “no nuclear weapon” deal. No wonder people feel exhausted by having to deal with the US, in its current state of senile decline.
Footnote One: Israel has just launched fresh attacks on Lebanon, and to Iran has vowed to respond. In criticising Israel’s ongoing attacks on Lebanon, Trump made this interesting comment yesterday:
‘Israel’s fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. And you don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you are looking for somebody, because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses and they are not all Hezbollah, that I can tell you.’
What exactly, does Trump think Israel has been doing to residential apartment buildings in Gaza for the past two and a half years? Not all the 70,000 + people killed by the IDF in Gaza were Hamas, either. Tens of thousands of them were women and children. And what about the US bombers? Who does Trump think killed those schoolchildren in Minab?
All of that aside, it is striking that Trump has finally said what New Zealand has been too afraid to say about Israel’s bombing of residential areas in Lebanon, and in Gaza.
Footnote Two: In the same breath yesterday, Trump came up with another truly terrible idea. He has suggested that the new government of Syria might do a better job than the IDF of eliminating Hezbollah in Lebanon. That’s a horrendous prospect. Since taking power, the new Syrian government has brutally attacked its minorities ( the Alawites, the Druze) and is increasingly threatening Syria’s Christian communities.
Only a decade ago the same group that now governs Syria (it was then called the Al-Nusra Front) was on the UN list of terrorist organisations, alongside Islamic State. Letting them loose in Lebanon would be a humanitarian disaster. In all likelihood, it would set Lebanon ablaze, and quite possibly re-start the civil war in Syria. God save us all from Donald Trump’s bright ideas.
Gordon Campbell is Political Editor at www.scoop.co.nz and also writes at werewolf.co.nz
It's not a peace agreement it's an Outlook appointment.
I concur with Gordon's own-goal thesis, but when the situation is so murky I'm more inclined to wait & see awhile yet. Local library had a new book by the Director of Mossad at the time the evidence was taken from the heart of Iran's establishment.
Satisfied me that Iran had deliberately set out to betray the global community. God 1, Allah 0. Deities FC. Gordon evades that. Scepticism on the point is ok – we can't personally see the proof. I didn't like the author's ideological acceptance that Israel has a divine right to rule the region, but I thought his account of recent history rang true in toto so I'm inclined to believe that his team did go in and extract the evidence,
As for the geopolitics of telling one pack of dogs to go hunt another, I agree it makes darwinian logic. From a bystander perspective, the more predators eliminate each other, the better for prey. No surprise that Green morality has long been favouring victims. When sociopathic regimes interact, triangulation can be used to tip the balance between them on a judicious basis. I'm not convinced Trump grasps this – perhaps he has subliminal gnosis sufficing to do the pivotal alchemy without being aware that he is.
I share Gordon's view on collateral damage (civilians). Taking out opponents is the essence of war: if they are hiding in a family, tough. Such is the Israeli govt stance. Hippie ideal vs realpolitik, yet morality doesn't determine the outcome. Power does.
TS should publish more of Gordon Campbell's work. His analysis is always spot on.
In a nutshell he is saying we are witnessing the demise of the world's super power and it has its genesis in one deluded lunatic who, together with another deluded lunatic, destroyed the peace agreement which had maintained peace in the Middle East for two decades with more to come. And it was all because of jealousy and malice towards the former US president who had negotiated that agreement. The lunatic wants the honour and glory for himself and if he can't have it, then he is going to take the rest of us down with him.
I like Gordon Campbell too and read him on Scoop along with a number of regular informative minds who reverberate with truth, reason and good ideas most of the time. I like the image of the ghost train for elections coming round every three years in NZAO in one of Gordon's recent posts.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2606/S00029/on-being-spooked-into-settling-for-less.htm Monday, 15 June 2026, 12:49 pm
Article: Gordon Campbell
Partway through on 'The Politics of Frustration' he shows the Nat coalition's legerdemain:
…In short…the ghosts of unaffordability only become real if you treat them as such. As Bernard Hickey eloquently pointed out earlier this month, New Zealand’s assets actually exceed its liabilities by a sizeable margin. My apologies for quoting Hickey so extensively… but the points he made are so rarely a part of the limited “debate” on our socio-economic options. For starters:
New Zealand’s Gross Debt to GDP is barely 40% of GDP and, most importantly, it has total assets of $611 billion, as well as total liabilities of $426 billion. That means the Government has a current net worth of $185 billion and it is forecast to rise to $207 billion by the middle of 2030… '
Sorry got sidetracked off topic onto Gordon C. but wanted to affirm Anne’s comment.
This is satire, but right on the button
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/ayatollahs-art-of-the-deal-becomes
As always, Campbell leaves readers uninformed as to why Israel might engage in something as expensive and destructive as attacking Lebanon, because informing them would ruin his propaganda narrative.
For the Americans, this is a conflict that can be just dropped if it's causing high petrol prices ahead of an election. For the Israelis, this is an existential conflict against an enemy that publicly and demonstrably intends its complete destruction. There is no conceivable US will or ability to require Israelis to accept Iran building up a suicidally determined proxy army on Israel's border, because duh-uh. Campbell must know this, despite pretending otherwise.
If Campbell or anyone else knows of a plausible mechanism for returning southern Lebanon to the control of the Lebanese government without destroying Hizb'allah militarily, I'm sure the governments of Lebanon and Israel would love to hear it. Until then, maybe sit this one out.
The far right loony faction that is in charge of the IDF can make up any shit they like. And they will get their defenders – even so called liberals. I mean why can't people see that this mob of hate lords are engaging in: Bombing civilians, (even the orange nut agrees this is wrong) Killing UN troops and issuing orders for people to leave their homes, because they want that land themselves.
The deal for Hezbollah to hand arms over to the Lebanese army was working, up until the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Gaza. Mind you, you deny that what the IDF has done that in Gaza ah Psycho Milt??!? So we have no common ground which to even discuss the issue. So I'll that leave it there.
Are we going to be honest about the continued manipulation of Lebanon by Israel. The failure of the Lebanese state to recover from the civil war, and the role Israel has played into destabilize the country?
Don't bother responding – I've seen the talking points you'll drag up. Know this that propaganda you keep pushing, the majority have stopped buying it. When you kill civilians, steal land, rape and murder on a industrial scale – you are nothing more than a fascist thug. Seems the holocaust was nothing more than a training manual for those with hate in their hearts.
You accuse me of various things and say "Don't bother responding?" Bollocks to that.
Well, one of us certainly isn't, judging by that comment. Israel is actively harmed and put at risk by instability in Lebanon and has a strong interest in having neighbours with stable governments that aren't constantly attacking it – hence the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Lebanon's woes are due to foreigners alright, just not Jewish ones. The foreigners in question came from Jordan (ie the PLO) and more recently Iran (Hizb'allah).
The fact that Hizb'allah was very well armed when it started its latest war with Israel demonstrates the untruth of that claim. And you seem to have a type there – it should read "up until the wholesale slaughter of civilians in Israel."
Hezbollah is made of of local Shia in Lebanon. It is the only armed group in Lebanon that refused to disarm in 1990 at the end of a civil war. Syria had over-rule at the time and allowed Hezbollah to retain its arsenal to act as a resistance force against the Israeli occupation in southern Lebanon.
Michel Aoun begs to differ. The Phalangists didn't exactly emerge from the civil war with a spotless record either.
But you're right: Hezbollah is certainly Lebanese. At the same time, it is difficult to separate its modern history from Syrian and later Iranian patronage. Damascus and Tehran both had very obvious strategic reasons for supporting an armed actor operating outside the full control of the Lebanese state.
"Hezbollah is made of of local Shia in Lebanon."
And is under the control of Iranians sent from Iran along with all the weaponry. Without the Iranians (and earlier the Syrians), Hizb'allah would be a trivial issue for the Lebanese government.
Propaganda, like I said you should not bother. You 'ant got a original thought about this issue, just rise and repeat what ever your far right IDF/Mossad handler tells you is the current talking point.
I'm fortunate to have such an authority as yourself here to advise me, I guess.
I think it's important to separate out a couple of things here.
Yes, the IDF's conduct in Gaza and Lebanon has been appalling, and in many cases very likely criminal. But from an Israeli strategic perspective, this is framed not simply as aggression, but as national security and survival.
That matters because it changes what external pressure can realistically achieve. Convincing Israel to change course is much harder in a context where, partly because of Israel's own decisions, there is a well-armed, ideologically implacable organisation operating just over its border.
Sure, the international community could put more pressure on Israel. The US could also cut or condition military aid and arms sales. But even then, I suspect the IDF would keep trying to hunt Hezbollah with sticks and stones once the smart bombs and drones ran out.
That doesn't justify what Israel is doing. But it does help explain why simply saying "Israel should stop" does not get us very far unless there is also a plausible (for the Israelis) answer to the security problem on the Lebanese border.
The issue isn't whether a deal can be signed. The issue is whether Israel believes it will be honoured, and whether Hezbollah is sufficiently unified and controllable to guarantee compliance.
One of the enduring problems in Lebanon is that there is often a significant gap between what is agreed politically and what armed groups on the ground are willing or able to do.
*The 2006 agreement in Lebanon as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701
The Lebanese government never realised control over the south. Hezbollah rejected a state monopoly on arms.
*2024-2025 rinse and repeat
Hezbollah cited wholesale slaughter of civilians in Gaza as reason for the group to justify retaining its arsenal and halt the handover process.
The current issue is the Bekaa Valley supply line to Nabatiyeh – which is to the north of the Litani River.
The government action was premised on defeating Hezbollah and or having it disarmed.
Apart from the war crimes of Israel in Gaza and Lebanon, the policy has been a spectacular diplomatic failure – internationally and locally.
Israel could make peace with Egypt and Jordan because it did not commit war crimes in their countries.
Weakening the Lebanese governments position (the disarming of Hezbollah) locally and internationally might be one of the last mistakes Netanyahu makes before he is removed from office.
I think the tragedy here is that the one country with sufficient leverage to force a settlement has spent the last decade undermining its own ability to act as a trusted broker.
The US survived Iraq and Afghanistan. The JCPOA demonstrated that Washington could still play a constructive diplomatic role, even after those disasters.
But tearing up the JCPOA taught Iran, and much of the wider region, that even if you negotiate in good faith, comply with inspections, and make significant concessions, there is no guarantee that a future US administration will honour the agreement.
That leaves the US in an awkward position. It still has enormous leverage over Israel and significant influence throughout the region. What it increasingly lacks is credibility.
The result is a situation where the one country with the power to put meaningful pressure on the parties involved has helped create the conditions in which it can no longer plausibly act as an honest broker.
If there were an obvious solution, or a trusted guarantor, this conflict probably would have been resolved long ago. The problem is not a lack of peace proposals. The problem is that nobody trusts the people who would have to enforce them.