IDF Prepares Lebanon Options as Possible U.S.-Iran Deal Raises Questions Over Hezbollah War

IDF Prepares Lebanon Options as Possible U.S.-Iran Deal Raises Questions Over Hezbollah War

Emmitt Barry,

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is preparing for the possibility that an emerging U.S.-Iran agreement could pressure Jerusalem to limit its military campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, even as Israeli leaders insist the country must retain freedom of action against threats along its northern border.

Hebrew media reported Sunday that Israeli officials are weighing several operational options in southern Lebanon in case a broader diplomatic arrangement requires Israel to halt or scale back its offensive against the Iran-backed terror group. 

The issue remains unresolved, with reports indicating that Lebanon and Hezbollah have been handled in separate negotiations in Washington, even as the proposed U.S.-Iran framework may include language affecting the Israel-Hezbollah front.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that President Donald Trump had assured him Israel would retain the right to defend itself “on every front, including Lebanon.” Reuters, citing an Israeli source, also reported that Netanyahu told Trump Israel must preserve freedom of action against military threats, particularly in Lebanon. 

Israel Rejects Return to Old Border Reality

According to Israeli reports, officials have told Washington that Jerusalem will not accept a return to the prewar status quo in southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah had entrenched itself near Israeli communities despite repeated international efforts to keep the terror group away from the border.

Walla reported that Israeli sources said Jerusalem wants to maintain freedom of operation in areas of southern Lebanon captured since fighting resumed in March. Those sources said Israel has indicated it may seek to keep control over a strip roughly seven to eight kilometers inside Lebanese territory.

Ynet reported that the IDF is considering several options, including permanent military outposts inside some southern Lebanese villages or more frequent targeted raids designed to prevent Hezbollah operatives from reestablishing positions near the Israeli border.

The concern in Jerusalem is straightforward: if Hezbollah is allowed to return to the border, Israeli communities in the north could once again face rocket fire, drone attacks, anti-tank missiles, and cross-border infiltration threats.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said Saturday he hoped any agreement would include Lebanon, but he again rejected calls for Hezbollah to disarm. He also urged Lebanese authorities to abandon direct talks with Israel, accusing Washington of not being “an honest broker.”

That refusal remains at the heart of the crisis. Israel has demanded that the Lebanese government disarm Hezbollah, while Beirut has demanded that Israel withdraw from southern Lebanon.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir approved plans Sunday for the continuation of fighting against Hezbollah after holding a situational assessment with Northern Command. During a visit to the command and later to the headquarters of the 401st Armored Brigade, Zamir said the IDF was “determined to deepen the blow against Hezbollah,” according to the military.

U.S.-Iran Talks Could Complicate Israel’s Northern Campaign

The diplomatic uncertainty comes as the White House says a deal with Iran could take several more days, with Tehran’s leadership still weighing approval. Axios reported that the emerging framework includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the U.S. lifting its naval blockade, alongside gradual sanctions relief tied to limits on Iran’s nuclear enrichment. 

The Associated Press reported that officials familiar with the draft said it could also include an end to the war between Israel and Hezbollah. 

That prospect has alarmed some Israeli officials, who fear that a diplomatic deal aimed at de-escalating the wider regional war could leave Hezbollah’s infrastructure intact in Lebanon.

Axios has reported that under the terms being discussed, Israel may only be permitted to strike Hezbollah if the terror group instigates or carries out attacks. Israeli officials, however, are pressing for broader operational freedom, arguing that Hezbollah’s military presence itself represents an active threat to Israeli civilians.

More...

Globalism Seeks to Kill the Nation-State

Globalism Seeks to Kill the Nation-State

J.B. Shurk

People are beginning to understand that those who rule in their name have long been working to eliminate the nation-state.

The United Nations is not neutral ground for national governments to discuss their differences; it is a governmental construct meant to replace national governments.  

The World Health Organization is not an international body meant to coordinate complex responses to global health emergencies; it is an institution vested with vast power and authority to track and regulate every human on the planet.  

The Bank for International Settlements, the World Bank Group, and the International Monetary Fund don’t exist to expand free trade, open markets, and assist developing nations; they exist to centralize control over all economic transactions in the world.

The onslaught of “green new deal” laws in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand have nothing to do with preserving the environment or “saving the planet”; they are part of a broader U.N. initiative to track every person’s so-called “carbon footprint” in order to monitor, tax, and regulate all human activity.  The U.N.’s “climate reparations” policy has nothing to do with “justice” or “science”; it exists to justify the redistribution of wealth from Western nations to non-Western nations under the guise of “international law.”

The message we have heard all our lives is loud and clear: Nations do bad things.  International organizations do good things.

The rhetorical war on “nationalism” didn’t begin because people who are proud of their nations magically became Nazis; people who are proud of their nations are called “Nazis” so that those who rule over us can demonize the nation-state.  If you go back through newspapers and scholarly essays before WWII, “nationalism” and “patriotism” are used interchangeably.

After WWII, there is an obvious linguistic break.  “Patriotism,” for the most part, survives as an acceptable civic virtue (How else can governments send men into battle if there are no patriots?).  “Nationalism,” however, becomes increasingly used through the decades as a derogatory term linked to fascism — as if the very organizing concept of a nation-state is inherently authoritarian and anti-democratic.

The U.N. has 193 member state ambassadors representing roughly 8.3 billion people.  Why should such a minuscule parliamentary assembly be considered “democratic” or “representative” at all?  At best, it uses the veneer of “democracy” to justify imposing its authoritarian will upon all of humanity.  Whether one dictator or 193 dictators working in concert — when humanity is forced to obey the edicts of rulers, it doesn’t matter if those edicts come from a national or international body.

Natural rights and freedoms do not become more natural because 193 people in New York City say so.  God-given liberties exist despite the existence of government, not because of government.  The more people over whom a government claims jurisdiction, the less likely that any one person’s natural rights will be respected and protected.  When a citizen cannot look his “representative” in the face, his “representative” is much less concerned about infringing that citizen’s natural liberties.

Big lies expose internationalism’s true intent: Internationalists are building a global empire.  This empire is authoritarian (because it demands global compliance at the expense of personal freedom) and totalitarian (because it requires complete subservience to a centralized and dictatorial global government).  There is nothing “democratic” or “representative” about this international system of governance.

It has no interest in protecting an individual’s rights and freedoms.  It has no interest in respecting a nation’s sovereignty.  It will permit both individuals and nations to be raped in the name of “global peace.”

Therefore, it makes perfect sense why the United Nations encourages mass illegal immigration into the United States and Europe.  When you are in the business of destroying nations, you do not care if murderers and rapists destroy local families.  You do not care if Islamic terrorists burn down Christian churches.  You do not care if the “newcomers” to Europe and America have pledged to conquer the West.

For globalism to win, it must first kill the nation-state.

Terry James: Climate-Change Charlatans

Climate-Change Charlatans

Terry James

It started out as global warming, eventually with Al Gore’s infamously spawned picture of a polar bear floating atop a small area of ice somewhere near the Arctic, I think it was. The picture and all that flowed from that heart-tugging graphic caused much panic within the progressive enclaves of America and the world. Children in the classrooms were particularly dismayed seeing the photo and receiving the teaching that we were all doomed.

The polar bear’s supposed dilemma was to illustrate the swiftly developing ecological condition that would soon have us all, symbolically at the very least, floating on an ever-decreasing area of existence upon the planet.

We were informed–assured—by supposed top scientists that soon the Atlantic would be up to the first floor of the Empire State Building as the oceanic waters took over America’s geography as well as the rest of the world’s inhabitable areas.

But as the years and decades came and receded, the opposite was shown to be happening. The Arctic and other icy regions actually grew in their frozen expansion.

The whole lie was concocted to control the populations of America and the world. The same type of control has been attempted, and was even considerably successful, with the COVID hoax that was foisted upon us a couple of years ago.

America and the world were going to have to bow to those who knew the “science,” which the rest of us, according to those authorities, did not understand.

The results of the changes made under the lies of global warming and the COVID hoax were to make billions of dollars for those perpetrating the lies and, more egregiously, to prepare the way for forcing acceptance of demands upon those who will live under the terror regime of Antichrist at some future prophetic point.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16–17) 

The successful indoctrination in the global warming and COVID matters proved beyond any doubt that people are susceptible to the constant, fear-mongering warnings and threats of those who have the means to control–those with information dominance. Satan, as “prince of the power of the air,” is at the helm of all such lies. His “son of perdition”–Antichrist—will use all available platforms of satanic inculcation to bring about adherence to the devil’s control demands during Daniel’s seventieth week–the Tribulation era. 

The minions, both demonic and human, are hard at work at this moment, continuing to try to bring about submission to the control techniques of the one who stalks about seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5: 8).

I think we see the furtherance of this effort with the most recent warnings issued breathlessly by most all mainstream news sources regarding the Hantavirus health scare. It is prudent to ask how long it might be before we are again asked to change everything in our lives because of this most recent or a future threat made up by the minions.

Actual facts about the global warming lie—changed because of its failure to produce the terrors predicted from global warming to climate change—recently made their way to the surface of truth-telling. 

The IPCC has published a new generation of climate scenarios—and buried in the fine print is a remarkable concession: the extreme warming pathways that dominated climate research, policy, and media coverage for decades were never actually plausible. It took a while to notice because almost no one in mainstream media bothered to report it.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios,” Science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr. wrote, calling it “big news” that “eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades.” 

The conclusion was unambiguous. “The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.”

Those “impossible futures” formed the backbone of a decade-plus of apocalyptic climate messaging – melting ice caps, submerged coastlines, mass extinctions, widespread crop failures, and global hunger, always around the corner, always demanding immediate, economy-reshaping action to avert a catastrophe that, it now turns out, the underlying science community had assigned to a category closer to science fiction than projection. (“UN Climate Panel Quietly Admits Its Doomsday Climate Scenarios Were ‘Implausible’,” Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge, Thursday, May 07, 2026)

More...

Diverse Places: Denmark Struck By 2nd Largest Recorded Earthquake

Denmark was Just Struck by its 2nd Largest Recorded Earthquake; Geologist Analysis

(Video)

On Wednesday, the 2nd largest earthquake to have ever occurred in Denmark struck, occurring south of the capital city of Copenhagen. This caused the ground to shake for several seconds, surprising the millions of people who felt it. Yet, while some scientists are claiming that this earthquake was caused by a weak zone in the crust known as the "Sorgenfrei-Tornquist zone", I must disagree as in my interpretation as a geologist I think an even older weak zone was to blame. This earthquake occurred on May 20th, 2026.

Israel, GOP hawks deeply worried as Trump says Iran deal ‘largely negotiated’

Israel, GOP hawks deeply worried as Trump says Iran deal ‘largely negotiated’

World Israel News Staff

Reports of a nearing US-Iran agreement have triggered concern in Israel and among Republican lawmakers who fear Trump may accept a deal that does not fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

As US President Donald Trump signaled that the United States may be on the verge of a major agreement with Iran, alarm bells immediately began ringing in Jerusalem — and among many Republicans in Washington who fear the deal could leave Israel facing an even more dangerous Iranian regim

Trump said that an agreement with Iran had been “largely negotiated” and claimed details would be announced “shortly” following talks involving regional leaders and a phone call with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The president described the conversation with Netanyahu as having gone “very well,” but reports from Israeli and American media suggested the reality behind the scenes was far more tense.

According to reports, Netanyahu convened an urgent meeting with coalition leaders and top security officials after details of the emerging framework began circulating.

Israeli officials view the proposed arrangement as potentially “very bad” for Israel, especially if it allows Iran to preserve elements of its nuclear infrastructure while easing pressure on the regime.

Trump’s public statements focused heavily on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the current confrontation but notably avoided specifics about dismantling Iran’s nuclear program or removing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium — issues Israel considers non-negotiable.

That omission immediately fueled concern among pro-Israel Republicans and longtime Iran hawks.

Several conservatives warned that any agreement resembling the Obama-era nuclear deal would be viewed as a dangerous concession to Tehran.

Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the strongest Republican supporters of Israel, reportedly expressed concern that Iran could emerge from the arrangement appearing stronger and more influential across the region.

Others inside the Republican Party have been openly uneasy about Trump appearing willing to settle for a temporary diplomatic arrangement instead of fully eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

The skepticism reflects deep scars left by the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under President Barack Obama, which Republicans overwhelmingly opposed at the time as a threat to both Israel and American security.

Many conservatives argued then that sanctions relief would only strengthen Tehran financially while allowing it to continue advancing toward nuclear weapons capability.

Israeli officials now fear history could repeat itself.

According to reports in Israel, officials believe some American negotiators are pushing Trump toward “a deal at almost any price” to avoid renewed military escalation.

Trump himself appeared conflicted in recent days, at one point saying he was “50-50” on whether diplomacy would succeed or whether military action would ultimately be necessary.

The rapid swings between threats of strikes and announcements of near-peace have added to growing uncertainty in both Washington and Jerusalem.

Iran, meanwhile, has publicly projected confidence.

Iranian officials confirmed negotiations are advancing but reportedly continue demanding sanctions relief and an end to American pressure measures before agreeing to broader understandings.

For Israel, the central question remains unchanged: whether any agreement truly prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state — or merely delays the problem while giving Tehran room to recover economically and militarily.

That concern has long united Republicans and Israeli leaders across party lines.

Netanyahu has spent years warning that partial agreements and temporary arrangements only strengthen the Iranian regime.