MEF Dispatch: Inside Israel’s Buffer Zone in Lebanon

среда, 22 апреля 2026 г.

Drawing on his recent tip to the Israel Defense Forces’ buffer zone in south Lebanon, Jonathan Spyer ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

View on web  |  Read what you missed Inside Israel’s Buffer Zone in Lebanon By Winfield Myers ● Apr 22, 2026 Smart Brevity® count: 7 mins...1892 words Drawing on his recent tip to the Israel Defense Forces’ buffer zone in south Lebanon, Jonathan Spyer reports that, whatever the optimism regarding the direct talks between representatives of the Israeli and Lebanese governments, from the ground it is clear that the real power lies with the leaders of Iran’s proxy Hezbollah. In Lebanon, in Gaza, and on the border with Syria, Israel’s response to the Iranian regime’s survival is to seek to establish physical barriers between its own population and potential threats emerging from the poorly or non-governed areas where Iran’s proxies hold sway. Michael Rubin argues that, if President Trump’s critics are correct that the Iranian regime today is more radical than two months ago (not a given), then the conclusion is that everyone who remains in it should be a target. Saeid Golkar and Kasra Aarabi write that, with Tehran increasing its targeting of the diaspora, the West should respond by closing Iran’s embassies, which are important centers for transnational repression. We also feature the work of Mardo Soghom, Marilyn Stern, Dalga Khatinoglu, and Sirwan Kajjo. Inside Israel’s Buffer Zone in Lebanon Shielding Border Communities from Hezbollah By: Jonathan Spyer The meeting between Ambassadors Yechiel Leiter and Nada Hamadeh Moawad of Israel and Lebanon respectively in Washington a week ago has been hailed as potentially representing a diplomatic breakthrough between the two countries. On the ground in Lebanon, however, things look different, as real power resides not with the government but with Hezbollah, heavily backed by Iran. Why it matters: Hezbollah’s dominance casts a shadow over diplomatic efforts and regional stability. Government influence: Despite holding two ministerial portfolios, Hezbollah’s true power stems from its military might, surpassing Lebanon’s official armed forces. Military dynamics: Hezbollah operates independently, launching wars and intervening militarily as seen in Syria from 2013 to 2023. Iranian support: With Iran’s backing, Hezbollah chooses conflict timing, evidenced by its decision to engage in the 2023 war against Israel. IDF’s buffer zone: The Israeli Defense Forces have expanded control north of the border, establishing a buffer zone in response to Hezbollah’s aggression. Strategic expansion: Despite initial resistance, the IDF’s 162nd Division has secured a 10 km deep zone, aiming to protect Israeli communities from Hezbollah’s missile threat. To read the full article, click here. Secure Your Spot: The 2026 Middle East Forum Policy Conference Join us in Washington, D.C., from May 19-21, 2026, for the Middle East Forum's exclusive Policy Conference as we navigate the turbulent aftermath of the Iran war and its regional shockwaves. This private gathering will tackle today's most pressing geopolitical challenges, featuring in-depth analyses of Turkey's shifting influence and the vital future of the U.S.-Israel relationship. We will also confront the rising threat of domestic Islamists, equipping attendees with the strategic insights needed to counter these interconnected issues. Click here to secure your spot for America the Unpredictable and access our special hotel block before the May 1st RSVP deadline. ICYMI: Israel Insider with Ashley Perry Israel marked its 78th Independence Day following Memorial Day amid heightened national grief after the October 7 attacks, as the country navigates an uneasy pause in active warfare across multiple fronts under U.S.-brokered ceasefires. Uncertainty dominates the regional landscape, with stalled or tentative negotiations involving Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza, internal divisions within Iran’s leadership, and continued tensions over Hezbollah activity and Hamas regrouping despite reduced hostilities. Domestic political pressure is mounting ahead of Israel’s 2026 elections, as the government faces public dissatisfaction over unresolved security threats, limited strategic outcomes, and reliance on U.S. decision-making in both military and diplomatic arenas. Ashley Perry is an advisor to the Middle East Forum’s Israel office. He served as adviser to Israel’s minister of foreign affairs and deputy prime minister in 2009-15, and has also been an advisor to the Negev Forum. Originally from the United Kingdom, he moved to Israel in 2001. He holds a B.A. from University College London and an M.A. from Reichman University (IDC Herzliya). To view the podcast, click here. Has the Iran War Made Its Regime More Radical? Yes, and Easier to Eliminate By: Michael Rubin President Trump claims he achieved regime change in Iran, but his critics go too far in claiming his actions radicalized the regime. Why it matters: Critics who argue the regime has become more radical overlook a key point: the regime was already radical. Leadership shifts: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was the ultimate hardliner, for example. So, too, were Mohammad Pakpour, the commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and others. Misguided criticisms: Analysts who claim Trump’s actions radicalized the regime ignore that the so-called moderates lacked power or desire to change Iran. False promises: Western diplomatic efforts often enabled Iran’s nuclear progress and repression, as analysts like Ali Vaez and the International Crisis Group were naive and engaged in wishful thinking. Strategic focus: True regime change requires fracturing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps‘ power because the reality is this: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has always been the problem. Targeting the Guard: For the U.S., this should mean not waiting for a unified proposal or falling victim to the regime’s usual good cop/bad cop games, but rather, targeting all the remaining hardliners without mercy. To read the full article, click here. Iran Targets Its Diaspora By: Saeid Golkar and Kasra Aarabi The Islamic Republic of Iran is escalating its transnational repression by threatening the Iranian diaspora with asset confiscation and severe penalties. Why it matters: This move aims to instill fear and silence political activism abroad, expanding repression beyond Iran’s borders. Judiciary announcements: Members of the diaspora face potential execution if found to have “cooperated with the enemy,” with broad definitions including support for Israel and the U.S. Diplomatic guise for repression: Iran’s embassies in Europe serve as bases for targeting diaspora members. Covert operations: These embassies facilitate surveillance and intimidation, exploiting international protocols to repress dissent. National and international stakes: The diaspora’s activism has become a political force, threatening the regime’s stability. Call for embassy closures: Shutting down Iran’s embassies could curb its ability to coordinate repression and target opposition globally. To read the full article, click here. Tehran Tests Limits After Ceasefire, Threatens Shipping and Internet Routes By: Mardo Soghom Iran’s leadership took a victory lap after President Trump extended the ceasefire, emphasizing their strategic advantage in the Strait of Hormuz. Why it matters: Tehran’s ability to disrupt the Strait has far-reaching implications for global energy and internet infrastructure. Iran’s leverage: By threatening Gulf states‘ digital connectivity and oil flow, Iran reshapes conflict dynamics and pressures its Arab neighbors. Trump’s ceasefire decision: Critics argue it reflects a stalemate, with both sides leveraging strategic advantages to avoid conflict. Strategic pause: Washington’s naval blockade and Iran’s ability to disrupt transit create a tense impasse, testing patience and pressure limits. Potential escalation risks: Observers warn that miscalculations, like an attack on U.S. assets, could reignite conflict. Delicate balance: As both sides navigate political and economic pressures, the risk of escalation remains high. To read the full article, click here. Iran Aiming for More Concessions Before Returning to Talks By: Mardo Soghom Iran’s refusal to attend talks in Pakistan highlights its claim that it is ready to confront the U.S., as military leaders warn of unleashing “hell” if negotiations fail. Why it matters: Tehran’s stance reflects a strategic gamble to extract better terms while risking renewed conflict. Strategic brinkmanship: Iran’s military posturing and refusal to negotiate under threat signal confidence in leveraging its strategic position. Diplomatic dynamics: Behind-the-scenes negotiations continue, with reports of potential concessions from Washington. Negotiation tactics: Iran’s conditions for ending the naval blockade include strategic concessions, but the U.S. holds leverage through economic pressure. Economic pressures on Iran: The naval blockade strains Iran’s economy, threatening oil production and imports of essential goods. Leverage in talks: Iran’s limited oil storage capacity and the blockade’s impact provide the U.S. with strategic leverage without conceding on key issues. To read the full article, click here. Alexander Grinberg on Iran’s Decentralized ‘Mosaic Defense’ Military Doctrine By: Marilyn Stern In an April 20 MEF Podcast, Alexander Grinberg outlined Iran’s decentralized “mosaic defense,” a doctrine dispersing power via autonomous military units. Why it matters: This strategy reflects Iran’s focus on endurance over victory, revealing vulnerabilities in command communications. Defense limitations: The decentralization applies to naval and missile units, but not the entire armed forces, risking detection when using substantial communication means. Impact on regional stability: Iran’s missile strategy poses more threat to Gulf countries than Israel, with potential for false flag operations. Fragmentation risks: While decentralization offers opportunities for resistance groups, surviving terror groups can still cause disruption. Strategic implications for the West: Economic pressure alone won’t suffice; military action must be flexible and creative. Adapting strategy: Grinberg emphasizes responding in kind to Iran’s tactics, highlighting the need for dynamic and adaptable military strategies. To read the full article, click here. Iran Under Pressure as War Exposes Deep Industrial Damage By: Dalga Khatinoglu With the ceasefire nearing its end, Iran is at a critical juncture, facing decisions on sanctions relief and regional concessions. Why it matters: Prolonged confrontation has led to severe economic instability, with Iran’s GDP projected to shrink by 6.1 percent this year. Economic contraction: Inflation could hit 69 percent, marking one of the most severe crises in decades, compounded by a two-month war. Industrial disruption: Key sectors like petrochemicals and steel have suffered extensive damage, impacting domestic supply and exports. Operational challenges: Major production hubs face long recovery timelines, while the automotive and energy sectors grapple with material shortages and power outages. Strategic implications: The convergence of military pressure and economic decline may push Iran toward concessions. Uncertain relief: The future hinges on whether sanctions easing will provide meaningful economic relief or if Iran will remain under pressure despite strategic shifts. To read the full article, click here. The United States Exiting Kurdish Syria Is a Mistake By: Sirwan Kajjo The U.S. military’s evacuation of its last base in northeast Syria signals the end of a decade-long partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. Why it matters: This withdrawal reflects a pattern of premature disengagement in U.S. counterterrorism strategy, raising concerns about regional stability. Kurdish concerns: The Kurds, who viewed U.S. troops as protection against threats, now face integration into the Syrian military under a new deal. Historical parallels: The situation mirrors the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which preceded the rise of the Islamic State. Fragile transition: Syria’s Islamist-led transition post-Assad faces significant security challenges, with its military lacking cohesion. Future implications: While the U.S. retains some leverage, the dissolution of Kurdish forces complicates ongoing counterterrorism efforts. Strategic presence: A limited U.S. military presence could still shape effective counterterrorism strategies, preventing costly reversals. To read the full article, click here. Further Reading: A Quiet Coup in Iran? By: Potkin Azarmehr The balance between clerical authority and military power may no longer be what it once was. Turkey Has Been Quietly Preparing for a War, With Israel the Primary Target By: Abdullah Bozkurt Centralized power and expanding capabilities point toward a potential regional confrontation. The Andinia Hoax Reflects Antisemitic Myths as Hybrid Weapons in the Struggle for Patagonia By: Jose Lev Alvarez Gomez Conspiracy theorists ignore the facts and blame Jewish tourists rather than drought or funding shortfalls to fight fires. Thank you for reading the MEF Dispatch. The Middle East Forum provides a steady stream of analyses and updates at https://www.meforum.org/. Please share your thoughts on this issue in the comments. Thank you, Winfield Myers Managing Editor, Middle East Forum Director, Campus Watch Was this edition useful? Your email will be recorded and shared with the sender MEF, an activist think tank, deals with the Middle East, Islamism, U.S. foreign policy, and related topics, urging bold measures to protect Americans and their allies. Pursuing its goals via intellectual and operational means, the Forum recurrently has policy ideas adopted by the U.S. government. Copyright © 2025 Middle East Forum, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: Middle East Forum 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Unsubscribe Powered by This email was sent by Middle East Forum via Axios HQ