• mirshafie@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        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.

        • couldhavebeenyou@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          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)

          • mirshafie@europe.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            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.