Israel and the U.S. have remained silent regarding Hezbollah’s allegations that they pressured Lebanon to cancel Iranian flights delivering cash to Hezbollah. Lebanon’s indefinite suspension of these flights complicates Iran’s ability to finance its proxy. Experts consider these responses typical for both nations in the context of regional security threats.
The Israeli and U.S. governments have refrained from commenting on Hezbollah’s claims that they pressured Lebanon into halting Iranian commercial flights delivering funds to the group. This silence is considered a typical response to regional security issues, according to experts from both nations. The Lebanese government’s indefinite ban on Iranian flights, initiated on February 13, complicates Iran’s ability to transfer cash to Hezbollah, although alternative routes remain available.
The suspension began with Lebanese authorities labeling it a “security” measure, leading to the cancellation of an Iranian Mahan Air flight. Initial reports suggested a five-day halt, but this has been extended indefinitely. Approximately one day prior, Israel issued a warning regarding Iranian military operations through civilian flights to Beirut, stressing its commitment to security as Hezbollah seeks to recover financially from recent losses.
Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem stated that a warning was issued to the Lebanese government that an Israeli strike would occur if the Mahan Air flight was allowed to land on February 13. Subsequently, Hezbollah’s media claimed that U.S. pressure played a role in the cancellation of flights, referring to threats of financial and political sanctions against Lebanon should it fail to restrict Hezbollah.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun commented that the restrictions on Iranian airlines were a reaction to existing sanctions imposed on them. Various Iranian airlines are targeted by U.S. and EU sanctions that bar transactions with these companies. The Lebanese Embassy in Washington did not confirm whether the government received an Israeli threat regarding the airport, nor did the Israeli military provide comments on these allegations.
Israeli defense analysts suggest that Israel’s failure to publicly disclose any threats does not diminish their capacity to influence Lebanon. Citing past military actions against Syrian infrastructure, they indicate that perceived threats can communicate effectively without public declarations. The mechanisms of U.S. diplomacy often involve discreet communication to convey messages without issuing overt threats.
Despite the limitations imposed by Lebanon on Iranian flights, experts believe Iran may utilize alternative airliners from Iraq and Turkey, albeit with some complications. The transfer of cash through these alternative routes may require cooperation from other governments, complicating logistics. Comparatively smaller cash deliveries on these flights could lessen detection risks, according to analysts.
Lebanon’s increased control at Beirut’s airport has been evident, especially following Israeli military actions. However, the suspension of only Iranian flights suggests an inconsistent application of security protocols. This selective restriction raises questions about the effectiveness of measures against Hezbollah’s influence and ability to operate effectively in Lebanon.
In summary, the Israeli and U.S. governments maintain silence on Hezbollah’s allegations of coercion against Lebanon regarding Iranian flights. Lebanon’s suspension of these flights complicates cash transfers to Hezbollah, though alternative routes exist. Moreover, the measures taken reflect inconsistencies in Lebanon’s security policies and highlight ongoing tensions in the region. Ultimately, the geopolitical landscape remains complex, necessitating careful monitoring of developments by the international community.
Original Source: www.voanews.com
