The article discusses the silence of Israel and the U.S. concerning Hezbollah’s claims of pressure on Lebanon to halt Iranian flights delivering cash. The Lebanese government suspended these flights under the pretext of security concerns, complicating Iran’s support for Hezbollah. Analysts highlight the indirect methods both Israel and the U.S. use to communicate threats and maintain regional influence, demonstrating inconsistencies in Lebanon’s airport security measures.
Israel and the United States have remained silent regarding Hezbollah’s claims that they pressured Lebanon to halt Iranian flights delivering funds to the group. This silence reflects their usual approach to regional security, as noted by U.S. and Israeli researchers. The indefinite suspension of landing rights for Iranian airlines, initiated on February 13, complicates but does not eliminate Iran’s ability to supply cash to Hezbollah.
Lebanon’s move to suspend these flights was initially framed as a “security” measure, which left passengers of Iran’s Mahan Air stranded. Authorities extended the suspension without a definitive timeline for resolution. A prior warning issued by the Israeli military on social media urged the cessation of Iran’s Quds Force utilizing civilian planes for illicit activities, indicating that the IDF will employ all necessary measures to ensure its security.
Hezbollah’s leader, Naim Qassem, remarked that the Lebanese government received threats that Israel could attack the Beirut airport if the Mahan Air flight had landed. A Hezbollah-affiliated commentary attributed the flight’s cancellation to “American bullying and threats,” implying sanctions influencing Lebanon’s decision to restrict Hezbollah’s activities.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun linked the government’s actions against Iranian airlines to sanctions on those carriers. Many Iranian airlines are under U.S. and EU sanctions, affecting their operational capabilities. Despite inquiries, both the Lebanese Embassy in Washington and the Israeli military refrained from commenting on potential threats or implications regarding airport security.
Former Israeli intelligence officials suggested Israel can convey messages without explicit threats, citing previous military actions against Syrian airports. Israel’s history of targeting Damascus International Airport exemplifies this indirect communication style. The U.S. often employs diplomatic channels for its warnings to Lebanon rather than direct threats, according to analysts.
On February 7, U.S. Deputy Special Envoy Morgan Ortagus asserted that Hezbollah must not use its governmental role to intimidate the Lebanese populace, marking a crucial stance for Washington. U.S. Major General Jasper Jeffers, responsible for the ceasefire monitoring mechanism in Lebanon, has maintained a low profile with limited public statements.
Iran’s inability to land flights in Beirut complicates cash delivery methods to Hezbollah, although alternatives exist through Iraqi and Turkish carriers. However, transferring large sums through these routes would necessitate cooperation from the respective authorities. Smaller transactions may be easier to execute yet pose challenges with proof of illegality.
The Lebanese government has exerted greater control over Beirut’s airport since October, curtailing Hezbollah’s influence amid pressures from Israel. However, the selective suspension of flights only from Iran indicates inconsistencies in Beirut’s security enforcement policies on international air traffic.
Israel and the U.S. have chosen to keep a low profile regarding Hezbollah’s allegations of coercion on Lebanon over Iranian flights supplying funds. The indefinite suspension of these flights poses challenges for Iran’s logistical efforts to support Hezbollah financially. Lebanon’s government has increased its security oversight at Beirut airport, yet the current approach exhibits inconsistencies, underscoring the ongoing complexities in regional dynamics.
Original Source: www.voanews.com
