Brigadier General Ben Amer discusses the US-Iran agreement, Saudi concerns, and the situation in Lebanon.

Since the announcement of the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding, the regional scene has entered a more complex phase, oscillating between paths of de-escalation and possibilities of escalation. Despite talk of moving from a state of war to a new negotiating path, the rapid field developments in more than one arena, from Lebanon to the Strait of Hormuz, have put the agreement to repeated tests that threaten its outcomes.

Between the declared commitment and the accumulating actions on the ground, the future of the talks during the sixty days remains open to more than one scenario.

In the historical context of the agreement and its milestones, on June 15, a final agreement was announced on a memorandum of understanding consisting of fourteen clauses, sponsored and mediated by Pakistan and Qatar, focusing on ending the war on all fronts, lifting the blockade, opening the Strait of Hormuz, and moving to sixty days of talks related to the nuclear program and sanctions, before the final signing in Switzerland.

Despite the arrangements, the Israeli enemy carried out an attack on the southern suburbs of Beirut, which was considered a violation of the first clause of the agreement.

In response, Iran announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and preparations for a broad response, before an American commitment was announced not to repeat this, and the Israeli enemy stopped its attacks.

On June 18, the memorandum was signed by the US President at a French palace in France, while the Iranian President signed it electronically from Tehran, thus putting the agreement into effect.

On June 21 and 22, the Swiss city of Burgenstock hosted the Iranian and American delegations and mediators for the first round of negotiations, which concluded with a number of results, most notably the announcement by the US President of the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil sales, Iran receiving a portion of its frozen funds, and the formation of expert committees to monitor implementation.

In this regard, the Deputy Director of the Moral Guidance Department, Brigadier General Abdullah bin Amer, confirms in his assessment of the situation that there are no indicators at this moment that can be built upon to confirm the full implementation of what was stated in the memorandum of understanding. The Israeli enemy side, with the tools of pressure it possesses in Washington, is working to thwart the agreement. There are also moves by some Gulf capitals, specifically Saudi Arabia and the UAE, that reflect points of convergence with the Israeli enemy side to obstruct the implementation of the memorandum’s provisions.

Brigadier General Ben Amer adds that the memorandum is a result of Iranian military resilience, and the wresting of Tehran’s rights related to frozen funds, lifting the blockade and managing the Strait of Hormuz.

He continued, “Anyone who reads the details of the scene realizes that implementing the memorandum means a ‘shuffling of the cards’ and a change in the regional role in favor of Tehran, which is what some Arab regimes fear, as they present themselves as leading the front against Iran, and which see the independence of the Iranian decision and its leading role as a model, as a strategic danger to their position as subordinate to the United States, noting that Saudi Arabia seeks to achieve the American agenda, and does not want any Arab or Islamic party to lead the scene in confronting the American enemy.”

He considered that the Saudi move in this regard was undeclared, and could be read from several angles, such as meetings that included Arab leaders and ministers led by Saudi Arabia, and the American side was aware of and supervised the results, for fear of strategic repercussions.

Regarding the Lebanese file, Ben Amer believes that the United States is seeking to give an Arab umbrella to its agreements in Lebanon in order to isolate the resistance and confuse the popular scene, and that the American administration is managing this game in coordination with regional parties to ensure that the resistance does not affect the military and security situation.

He said: “But the resistance remains in a strong position, and Iran is committed to its option of supporting it and the unity of the fronts, which strikes at the core of the Israeli enemy’s military strategy based on fragmenting the fronts since 1953.”

He noted that the composition of the Lebanese government is complex, in addition to the role assigned to the new Syria and some Gulf states, which, according to the analysis, shows that Lebanon is in a critical situation, and the Americans forced it to sign concessions that no government in the world could accept.

He pointed to the American attempt to give an Arab umbrella to this agreement, recalling the results of the civil war in the 1980s, and the