US and Iranian media reported that Russia would retaliate if Israel sent defensive weapons to Ukraine.
Bloomberg reported that Russia would respond if Israel sent air defence systems directly or indirectly to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, the international Iranian channel run by the Iranian opposition disclosed that Russia would retaliate against any Israeli attempt to pass defence missiles to Ukraine.
Last month, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned Israel against sending weapons to Ukraine, saying it would “destroy all diplomatic relations” between the two sides.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky announced on Tuesday that Israel recently agreed to provide his country with radio systems it had requested in February.
Last week, Zelensky said that the two sides were engaged in intelligence cooperation relating to the Iranian-made Shahed-136 suicide drones used by Russia in the war.
“We are fighting against [a] new big union, Russia and Iran, and now I hope that Israel will help us, and will strong[ly] react to this,” he said, adding that, according to intelligence from Ukraine and other countries, Russia has acquired some 1,500 Iranian attack drones.
The Times of Israel reported that Ukraine’s Ambassador to Israel Yevgen Korniychuk shared on Sunday that there had been progress “on some technical issues related to defence,” particularly regarding Israel’s offer to provide missile alert technology.
The U.S. support of Saudi Arabia comes at a time of heightened tensions between the two nations.
By World Israel News Staff
The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) scrambled fighter jets from a base in the Persian Gulf and directed them towards Iran, after Saudi Arabia learned that the Islamic Republic was planning on launching an imminent attack on the Gulf kingdom.
According to a Wall Street Journal report from November 1, which was confirmed by CENTCOM, Riyadh informed Washington that there was a looming Iranian UAV or ballistic missile attack which would be carried out against Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
In response, CENTCOM launched warplanes towards Iran, which appeared to stop Tehran from following through on the attack.
Although CENTCOM confirmed that the scrambling occurred, an official would not reveal from which base the jets were launched, nor other pertinent information about the high-level incident.
“CENTCOM is committed to our long-standing strategic military partnership with Saudi Arabia,” spokesperson Joe Buccio told the Washington Post on Saturday. “We will not discuss operation details.”
Notably, the U.S. support of Saudi Arabia comes at a time of heightened tensions between the two nations. After U.S. president Joe Biden pledged to make the Gulf kingdom a “global pariah” due to its human rights record, specifically mentioning the slaying of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, relations soured.
WATCH: IRANIAN CITY ‘UNDER THE CONTROL OF PROTESTERS’
The Biden administration’s decision to remove the Yemen-based Houthi rebel group from its list of officially designated terror groups also irked Saudi Arabia, as the organization has launched repeated deadly attacks on the Gulf kingdom’s oil refineries and ports.
But as sanctions on Russia have led to skyrocketing energy prices in the U.S., Biden appeared to change his approach towards Saudi Arabia, visiting the country in person and reportedly asking its crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, to ramp up oil production.
Some commentators have said that as Democrats face a likely Republican victory in the upcoming midterm elections, Biden hoped that lowering gas prices could help his party’s prospects.
However, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company declined to step up production, leading to Biden to say that the Gulf kingdom would face “consequences” for refusing to obey his economic directive.
Biden’s threat was not received warmly by the Saudis. Prince Saud al-Shaalan, a cousin of the kingdom’s ruler, issued a warning to “anybody that challenges the existence of this country and this kingdom – all of us, we are products of jihad, and martyrdom. That’s my message to anybody that thinks that it can threaten us.”
Israel agreed to a deal on the eve of the election, and it also appeared to back down from its earlier claims, agreeing to a line off the coast that gives in to most of Lebanon’s demands. Although the deal has been praised by the US, it leaves questions about whether it will bring stability or whether Hezbollah can use it as a pretext to create tensions in the future and lay claim to areas off the coast.
Hezbollah, which appeared to be closely consulted by the Lebanese side about the deal, has claimed that it is some kind of a victory. At the same time, the terrorist group has also reserved for itself the right to “defend” Lebanon’s maritime claims, meaning that it dictated the deal without being a signatory.
This puts Israel in a complex position because Hezbollah can claim at any point in the future a need to start a war over the deal, while Lebanon can never be held to account for Hezbollah’s actions.
The privilege Hezbollah always enjoys is unprecedented in the world. It controls Lebanon and basically controls who will be appointed the country’s president; it controls a swath of southern Lebanon through militia checkpoints; it stockpiles a massive, illegal arsenal of missiles that threaten the region. Yet it is never held to account for any of these actions.
For instance, Lebanon can fire rockets at Israel or launch drones at gas platforms off the coast, and it can pretend that it isn’t responsible, so any Israeli actions against Hezbollah are a “violation” of Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Israel-Lebanon talks show dangers of negotiating with a state that doesn’t control its own territory
Throughout its recent history, the goal of the Iranian regime has been to create numerous Hezbollah-like organizations around the Middle East – cutting up countries, hollowing them out and then filling them with extrajudicial militias. It has done this in Yemen, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
The recent maritime negotiations between Israel and Lebanon show the pitfalls of negotiating with a state that doesn’t control most of its own territory.
Outgoing Lebanese President Michel Aoun has said the maritime deal was partly driven by Hezbollah, which launched drones targeting Israel’s offshore gas rigs. This was a “deterrent,” he claimed.
“It wasn’t coordinated [with the government]. It was an initiative taken by Hezbollah and it was useful,” Aoun said, adding that the Lebanese army “had no role,” Reuters reported.
This means Hezbollah basically runs Lebanon’s foreign and military policy.
“Hezbollah’s military power, including its drone power, caused Israel to fear a war with Lebanon, and this led to the agreement to draw maritime border,” retired Lebanese Army general Hashem Jaber was quoted by Iranian regime media as saying.
This means Lebanon credits Hezbollah with helping create the maritime deal.
That Hezbollah claimed it was on “alert” for a possible conflict with Israel in the days leading up to the deal means an illegal terrorist group was able to influence the deal. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah could then claim a victory when the deal was signed.
It’s unclear why a country would sign a maritime deal under the shadow of a threat of war if the deal wasn’t signed. Israel, nevertheless, went forward and signed. Hezbollah then took credit for having “deterred” the Jewish state and having forced the deal to go through.
ON THE one hand, this rhetoric by Hezbollah could be seen as propaganda. Some voices have portrayed the deal as recognition of Israel by Lebanon, as if it needs recognition by its chaotic and almost bankrupt neighbor, which doesn’t even control most of its own territory.
Nevertheless, these voices argue that the deal makes it seem that Hezbollah recognized Israel because the terrorist group had to agree to the Lebanese government agreeing to the deal. These voices make it seem Israel needs recognition from Hezbollah, as if they are not only on equal terms, but that Hezbollah is actually the stronger party, and Israel needs to beg both Lebanon and Hezbollah for recognition.
According to these voices, any mention of “Israel” in Lebanese media, as opposed to “Zionist entity,” is a major accomplishment. It’s unclear whether this will mean that Hezbollah will feel it needs to work toward more peace on the northern border or whether it will feel empowered by this deal to import more weapons and continue to act as an independent army within Lebanon, dictating its foreign and military policy.
That leads to more questions, including whether Lebanon has outsourced all its foreign and military policy to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and whether Hezbollah will use the deal as a pretext to raise tensions in the future.
While Hezbollah may be celebrating the deal merely to save face and make it seem like a victory, it may also believe that it is actually victorious and can now dictate policies to Israel. For instance, Nasrallah claimed that Hezbollah’s threats prevented Israel from extracting gas from the Karish field until the deal was signed. Nasrallah also said Lebanon got almost everything it wanted in the deal.
Is it possible that Hezbollah will create some new pretext for tensions along the maritime border in the future, some kind of maritime version of the Mount Dov (Shaba Farms) dispute along the northern border? The terrorist group could decide that there are still new areas that Lebanon claims, such as close to the shoreline, and then claim that it needs to “resist” along the maritime border.
Hezbollah thrives on this fake need to “resist.” After 2000, when Israel withdrew from Lebanon, many people believed there would be peace in the North. But Hezbollah created new reasons to claim it needed to “resist” and immediately began increasing its threats to Israel. Hezbollah profits from these threats, so it’s entirely plausible that the maritime deal could lead to new threats.
The group could also use the deal as a way to hide behind gas exploration off the coast to threaten Israel. This means that if large companies are brought in by Lebanon to explore for gas, such as firms linked to Qatar or France or other countries, Hezbollah could use them as cover to build up threats to Israel. Then, if Hezbollah provokes the Jewish state through attacks, any Israeli response would be portrayed as violating the maritime deal and harming Lebanon’s sovereignty.
This is how Hezbollah manages Lebanon’s military and foreign policy while not being held to account.
Hezbollah claims to have driven the details behind the maritime agreement while not being a party to it, not being bound by it and not recognizing Israel. This could set Jerusalem up for difficult policy choices in the future. If a different government after the election wants to change any parts of the deal, then Israel will be seen as violating it, which would give Hezbollah a pretext for war against the Jewish state.
This means that although Israel is bound by the deal, Hezbollah, which dictated it, has carved out a “right” to decide if the deal is being followed and a “right” to go to war with Israel, which has no similar right and flexibility on its side.
![Flag of Russian Federation [Getty Images]](https://i0.wp.com/www.middleeastmonitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/GettyImages-WFL_046.jpg?resize=1200%2C800&quality=85&strip=all&zoom=1&ssl=1)
