bargaining

BEIRUT, Lebanon, June 19 (UPI) — The Iran war may be over, but southern Lebanon is likely to remain a battlefield and a bargaining chip in regional negotiations, despite Lebanon’s inclusion in the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States — a provision Israel rejected to preserve its freedom of action against Hezbollah, analysts said.

Violence in southern Lebanon subsided after the United States and Iran announced a 14-point preliminary agreement to end hostilities, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and begin nuclear talks under a 60-day extended ceasefire.

The MOU was signed remotely on Wednesday by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, two days ahead of a formal signing ceremony scheduled to take place in Switzerland.

Rather than a cessation of hostilities, southern Lebanon witnessed a sharp escalation in fighting, with Israel intensifying its airstrikes and Hezbollah targeting Israeli forces seeking to seize the strategic Ali Taher hill in the Nabatiyeh district. Both sides traded accusations of violating the ceasefire established under the MOU.

The overnight exchange left 47 people dead, including women and children, and 97 others wounded in Israeli strikes on several areas of Lebanon, including Nabatiyeh and the eastern Bekaa Valley. Four Israeli soldiers, including a lieutenant colonel, were also killed by Hezbollah fire.

Israeli airstrikes continued beyond a new ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, brokered by the United States and Qatar with Iranian assistance, and set to take effect at 4 p.m. Friday.

It remains to be seen how long this new truce will last, as is the case with the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, given ambiguities in the MOU and differing interpretations of its clauses.

Israel, which rejected Trump’s “betrayal” and the agreement with Iran, is seeking to change the arrangement by force in order to preserve its freedom of action against Hezbollah threats in southern Lebanon. It also seeks to maintain control of a security zone in southern Lebanon and is not willing to withdraw its forces unless its northern region is secured and safe.

Riad Tabbarah, Lebanon’s former ambassador in Washington, said Israel believes it has the right, as it usually does, to modify the agreement on the ground after “accepting it on paper, so as not to annoy Trump.”

“This is exactly what they did last time, and what they do every time,” Tabbarah told UPI. “Today, they are doing the same.”

He was referring to the Nov. 27 ceasefire agreement brokered by the United States and France to halt the war that began when Hezbollah opened a support front for Gaza on Oct. 8, 2023.

Despite the truce, Israel continued to carry out strikes against Hezbollah, which refrained from retaliation for 15 months as it sought to reorganize its ranks before resuming fighting on March 2 in support of Iran.

The March escalation increased the human and material toll in Lebanon after Israel applied what was described as a “scorched earth” policy to empty border areas of residents and render them uninhabitable.

More than 3,980 people have been killed and 12,001 injured in the past 109 days, with 1.2 million displaced under Israeli evacuation orders. Large areas were devastated, including the complete destruction of 70 villages and heavy damage to infrastructure.

It would be “pure imagination and illogical” to think that Israel would easily withdraw and relinquish the security zone it is building in southern Lebanon, intended to prevent anyone from crossing its border and carrying out kidnappings like Hamas did from Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, according to Tabbarah.

What could stop the frustrated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from sabotaging Trump’s efforts to finalize a lasting peace deal with Iran and continuing his military campaign in Lebanon?

The tension between Trump and his administration on one side, and Netanyahu and his government officials on the other, over the Iran deal “is growing, and we need to wait and see how it will develop,” said Lebanese former foreign minister Fares Boueiz.

As for Iran, Boueiz noted that as long as it believes it is benefiting from the deal with Trump, it “won’t do anything to jeopardize the understanding.”

“It is clear that the U.S.-Iran war is over, with no winner and no loser and no complete victory for anyone,” he told UPI. “The next 60 days will determine whether a final agreement is reached and whether Netanyahu will be able to obstruct it.”

The fear that Lebanon remains an open battlefield and a bargaining chip has grown, despite Iran’s pledge to Hezbollah that it will not proceed with the MOU talks if Israel fails to observe a full ceasefire in Lebanon and withdraw from the southern region.

Lebanese retired Maj. Gen. Abdul Rahman Chehaitli argued that the war in south Lebanon was “an Iran-Israel war sponsored by the U.S.”

“Now that Iran has reconciled with the U.S., signed an agreement, and is negotiating, the battle is over for them,” Chehaitli said in an interview with UPI. “This means that Lebanon should work toward a solution with Hezbollah and engage in serious negotiations to secure Israel’s withdrawal and end any illegitimate armed presence.”

Lebanon, which opted for U.S.-mediated direct talks with Israel to end the war despite Hezbollah’s objections, is preparing for another round of diplomatic talks with Israel scheduled to take place in Washington next week.

While Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem has set new terms for the talks, saying they should be limited to “mutual security,” Israel is insisting on disarming the Iran-backed group and keeping it away from its borders.

Hezbollah has also been pushing to drop the Lebanon-Israel direct negotiations in favor of the U.S.-Iran track.

“Hezbollah can say whatever it wants, but Lebanon should negotiate on its own,” Chehaitli said, adding that the militant group “is concerned about the day after, seeking security guarantees or immunity.”

Lebanon has no option but to negotiate its way out of the war, but the process will be long, and southern Lebanon will remain under Israeli fire and a bargaining chip in Iran’s hands until a final deal with Washington is reached, according to some analysts.

Tabbarah argued that Israel did not go through all this war only to back down, while Iran seeks a high price in return for Hezbollah and its other regional armed proxies.

“I don’t think Iran will go to war again. It will find a formula to save face for its armed militias,” he said, adding that the U.S., on its part, will have to restrain Israel and force Netanyahu to accept a full ceasefire in Lebanon.

He explained that a decision by Trump to stop U.S. military assistance to Israel, or “anything of the sort,” would be a serious step.

Tabbarah, however, warned that the solution “is not for tomorrow unless Israel drops its dream of establishing Greater Israel.”

It has been more than four years since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, expanding its occupation of Ukrainian lands, which started in 2014. In the chaos and violence of the first months of the invasion, families were separated, and childcare institutions were cut off from the control of the central authorities in Kyiv. As a result, the occupation forces forcibly transferred more than 20,000 Ukrainian children to Russia.

Russian officials claimed that they did not abduct Ukrainian children, but “saved” them through humanitarian evacuations. However, international investigations have since found that many such transfers were unlawful under international humanitarian law. In many documented cases, transfers were carried out without the consent of the living parent or legal guardians of the child.

International humanitarian law prohibits all forcible transfers and deportations of protected people from occupied territory, except for evacuations strictly required to ensure the population’s safety. Even then, evacuation must happen within occupied territory, be temporary, preserve family unity and return evacuees home as soon as hostilities cease.

Today, the lives of thousands of Ukrainian children are devastated by this forcible transfer. Instead of abiding by international legal obligations and returning them to their homeland, Russia has transformed the issue into yet another bargaining chip against the Ukrainian people.

But Ukraine refuses to abandon its children. For the past four years, there have been intense efforts from families, NGOs and the Ukrainian government to bring them back.

Take the case of Lesya (the name has been changed to protect her identity), whose testimony was recorded by The Reckoning Project— a global team of journalists and lawyers documenting and publicising atrocities committed in the war. Lesya was 15 years old when Russian forces occupied her village in the Kherson region in 2022. When the occupation authorities imposed a mandatory evacuation, she was put on a truck with more than 30 other children and was sent to a rehabilitation centre in Feodosia, Crimea. A woman accompanying the children told her that her mother would join her shortly.

At the facility, Lesya and other Ukrainian children were subjected to a strict routine, forced to do chores and study in Russian, using Russian textbooks. They were kept under surveillance indoors most of the time in a building with windows that could not be opened. Two days a week, the children underwent military training.

Eventually, a relative located her, and with the help of Save Ukraine, a Ukrainian NGO facilitating children’s return, her mother managed to bring her back.

But Lesya’s case is the exception rather than the rule. More than 2,000 Ukrainian children have been brought back thanks to efforts by NGOs, the government and foreign mediators.

Pressure through international institutions has also been pursued, but that has not accelerated the process of return.

In March 2023, the International Criminal Court issued warrants of arrest for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.

In July 2025, the European Court of Human Rights, in Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia, found Russia responsible for a number of human rights violations, including the organised removal of children. The court also required Russia to cooperate in establishing a mechanism to find and safely return children.

In March this year, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine concluded that Russia’s deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children amount to crimes against humanity. The report identifies the removal of Ukrainian children as a part of a well-planned and systematically executed policy, conceived at the highest level.

On May 11, the European Union sanctioned 16 individuals and seven entities, while the United Kingdom sanctioned 29 individuals and entities responsible for the deportation, forced transfer, forced assimilation, indoctrination, militarisation and unlawful adoption of Ukrainian children. Overall, the EU has sanctioned more than 130 people and organisations for these actions. The United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Switzerland and several other countries have introduced similar measures.

The lack of progress on this issue has driven families to desperation. Some have tried to bring their children back on their own or through often-daring missions by Save Ukraine and five other Ukrainian NGOs.

There should be no need for these risky missions. Under international humanitarian law, Russia is obligated to identify and register Ukrainian children in their care, facilitate family reunification, and permit access to neutral actors assisting Ukrainian children.

As negotiations for the end of the war have stalled and other global events have displaced Ukraine from global headlines, we urgently need to put the issue of the abducted Ukrainian children back in the spotlight.

There are several areas in which existing efforts can expand.

First, a comprehensive tracing mechanism needs to be established and financed to track abducted Ukrainian children and prevent their disappearance into dispersed care and adoption systems.

Second, ongoing legal efforts to hold to account Russian officials involved in the abduction should be intensified. This means coordinated prosecutions in states where the universal jurisdiction principle can be applied, as well as joint investigation strategies supported by Eurojust, the EU’s judicial hub. Ukraine’s partners should support its judicial processes launched against Russian officials and cooperate where needed, including through extraditions where legally applicable and other lawful transfer mechanisms. While justice may be slow, the prospect of accountability can have a deterrent effect.

Third, states can and should fully implement sanctions, trade restrictions and other obligations they assumed but did not consistently observe in practice. The sanctions regime on Russia has severely hurt its economy, but it has also seen continuous evasion. A strict implementation can help put more pressure on the regime in Moscow.

While stories of family reunions are heartening, they are just a drop in a bucket compared with the number of children who continue to be separated from their families and absorbed into a system of indoctrination and militarisation.

We must not allow the issue of returning Ukrainian children to be yet another negotiating chip for Moscow. It cannot be put on hold because negotiations have stalled or because other priorities have captured the world’s attention.

Four years is a long time in a child’s life. Each passing day further erodes their national identity and deepens the pain of separation, as they grow up in a hostile environment. There is no principle more universal than the belief that children belong with their parents and loved ones, and Ukrainian children deserve this basic human right today, not at some point in the future.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

There will be no replacement referees — and therefore, hopefully, no “Fail Mary” repeat — in the NFL this fall.

The league and the NFL Referees Assn. have avoided a work stoppage by agreeing on a new collective bargaining agreement that runs through the 2032 season.

The current deal was scheduled to expire May 31. The sides having been negotiating since the summer of 2024, and the NFL had begun the hiring process for replacement officials last month.

“This agreement is a testament to the joint commitment of the league and union to invest in and improve officiating,” NFL executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent said in a statement. “It also speaks to the game officials’ relentless pursuit of improvement and officiating excellence. We look forward to working together for the betterment of the game.”

Terms of the agreement have not been released, but the Associated Press reported in March that the league had increased its offer to a 6.45% annual growth rate”growth rate” = increase? in compensation over a six-year labor deal.

“We see this new CBA as a partnership with the league that benefits our membership but also seeks to make our game better,” NFLRA president Carl Cheffers said in a statement. “It is good to get these negotiations behind us so we can focus on preparing for the 2026 season.”

No such agreement between the sides was reached during the 2012 offseason, leading to a lockout that lasted 110 days. It all culminated in Week 3 of that season with the notorious “Fail Mary” call at the end of the Green Bay Packers-Seattle Seahawks game on “Monday Night Football.”

With the Seahawks down by five in the closing seconds, quarterback Russell Wilson threw deep to receiver Golden Tate in the end zone. Green Bay defender M.D. Jennings appeared to come down with the ball first, with Tate attempting to wrestle the ball away.

Two officials stood above the players, with one signaling touchdown (meaning Tate caught the ball, Seattle wins) and the other signaling touchback (meaning Jennings caught the ball, Green Bay wins). The final call on the field was a touchdown, which stood after a lengthy review.

It got worse. The next day, the NFL released a statement saying the officials missed a pass interference call on Tate that would have negated the touchdown. A day after that, the NFL and the referees union announced a new collective bargaining agreement that brought the regular officials back for that weekend’s games.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.