Exclusive - Russia Exerting Greater Influence in Easing Lebanese-Israeli Tensions

A general view picture shows the Lebanese village of Adaisseh on the left-hand-side of the Israel-Lebanon border, as seen from Kibbutz Misgav Am in northern Israel August 26, 2019. (Reuters)
A general view picture shows the Lebanese village of Adaisseh on the left-hand-side of the Israel-Lebanon border, as seen from Kibbutz Misgav Am in northern Israel August 26, 2019. (Reuters)
TT

Exclusive - Russia Exerting Greater Influence in Easing Lebanese-Israeli Tensions

A general view picture shows the Lebanese village of Adaisseh on the left-hand-side of the Israel-Lebanon border, as seen from Kibbutz Misgav Am in northern Israel August 26, 2019. (Reuters)
A general view picture shows the Lebanese village of Adaisseh on the left-hand-side of the Israel-Lebanon border, as seen from Kibbutz Misgav Am in northern Israel August 26, 2019. (Reuters)

Israel’s latest actions in confronting or stoking regional tensions appear to be related in one way or another with Russia’s attempts to bolster its presence in the Middle East. In wake of the limited confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah on the southern Lebanon border last week, Lebanese and Israeli officials turned to Moscow to contain the tensions.

Soon after, Tel Aviv announced that arrangements were underway for another meeting of the national security advisers of Israel, Russia and the United States to discuss regional affairs and bridge divides over how to handle Iran in Syria and Lebanon. It was later announced that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was set to visit Sochi for talks with President Vladimir Putin ahead of general elections in Israel on September 17.

“All roads lead to Moscow,” boast Russian analysts when addressing Moscow’s growing influence in the Middle East. Russia is seeking to play a greater role in affairs it was not previously involved in, such as tensions between Israel and Hezbollah. Moscow had during the latest flare-up intensified its contacts with concerned parties to contain the tensions.

Russian diplomatic sources acknowledged concerns that Lebanon and Israel were “one step away” from a new war. Should a new conflict erupt, it will not create a major change in the current balance of power, it will however, be costly for Moscow, which believes that any major confrontation will jeopardize its plans in Russia. This explains why Russia was quick to contact Lebanese and Russian parties to avert a major conflict.

Arab and Russian sources said Moscow was informed by Israel and Hezbollah that they were not seeking a greater conflict. Russia informed Israel that there would be no change in the current rules of engagement and Hezbollah’s attack against its armored vehicle was only aimed at saving face. Neither Israel nor the Iran-backed party want a greater conflict.

Russian experts concluded that their country had now gained greater influence in the region and now held sway over its most complicated conflicts.

Expanded Russian efforts

Russian military sources confirmed that Moscow has indeed started to become more involved in easing Lebanese-Israeli tensions, adding that Iran was “helping a lot” in this regard. Moscow has been successful in playing this role due to its good relations with Israel and Lebanon. This does not mean, however, that a flare-up can be ruled out after the Israeli elections because there are other players in the arena, meaning the United States, warned the experts. Moreover, the Lebanese-Israeli conflict is connected to other regional files, including the situation in Syria, Iran’s malign policies and Washington’s efforts to impose a new status quo that would facilitate the implementation of its yet undisclosed Middle East peace proposal.

Tripartite security meeting

Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s announcement that he was seeking to hold a new meeting for the security advisers of Israel, Russia and the US offers a new dimension to the recent regional developments. Sources said that the meeting may be held in Jerusalem in the coming weeks. An informed source told Asharq Al-Awsat, however, that Moscow has not yet decided whether it will join because it was still studying what it could gain from it.

The national security chiefs had met in Jerusalem in June to discuss Syria and Iran’s presence there. They failed to reach common ground on the issue. Head of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev had said at the time that Moscow was keen on ensuring Israel’s security, but this can be first achieved by restoring calm in Syria.

It therefore, became clear that the main dispute was not about discussing Iran’s entrenchment in Syria or its regional policies, but rather, Russia’s refusal to succumb to dictates. An informed diplomatic source told Asharq Al-Awsat that Moscow does not oppose meeting with Israeli and American officials to discuss Iran, but it refuses to join negotiations with predetermined outcomes. In other words, Moscow is flexible about discussing the pullout of Iranian and Russian forces from Syria, but this should take place within negotiations that push forward peace in favor of Bashar Assad’s regime and ensure the security demands of Iran.

Patrushev had said in June that Moscow believes it was more effective to talk with Iran than exert pressure on it. “We understand Israel’s concerns and we want to eliminate the current threats, but at the same time, we must take into consideration the national interests of other regional countries,” he remarked.

Complete Russian-Iranian understanding

This is the main contentious point that impeded progress during the June meeting and the dispute still lingers to this day. Moscow wanted a different result from the talks. It wanted to transform the tripartite meeting into a permanent channel of communication and discussions, not just about Iran, but all other regional affairs that interest the three countries. While still pursuing this goal, Moscow may agree to join the next round of talks.

Furthermore, Russian observers say that Moscow is open to dialogue, but it is not in a rush to offer concessions. One expert said that Russia’s main demand from the US and Israel in Syria is to avoid provoking Iran. This stance is a result of the Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition that was set up in 2015 as part of the war against the ISIS terrorist group. Russia’s stances are completely aligned with those of the other members of the coalition.

Netanyahu in Sochi

Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to Sochi, meanwhile, is not only aimed at boosting his chances ahead of the elections, but it will be an opportunity to tackle latest regional developments. He will discuss with Putin the situation in Lebanon and Russia’s role in containing the tensions. He will also address Israel’s expansion of strikes against Iran in Syria to also include Iraq. Russian media had reported that Israel was no longer giving Russia enough advance notice of the coordinates of its strikes, in violation of agreements between them.



A Look at Sudan’s War by the Numbers

Sudanese refugees, who have fled the violence in their country, line up to receive food rations from World Food Program (WFP), in Adre Chad July 20, 2023. (Reuters)
Sudanese refugees, who have fled the violence in their country, line up to receive food rations from World Food Program (WFP), in Adre Chad July 20, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

A Look at Sudan’s War by the Numbers

Sudanese refugees, who have fled the violence in their country, line up to receive food rations from World Food Program (WFP), in Adre Chad July 20, 2023. (Reuters)
Sudanese refugees, who have fled the violence in their country, line up to receive food rations from World Food Program (WFP), in Adre Chad July 20, 2023. (Reuters)

Sudan is entering a fourth year of war between the military and paramilitary forces.

The fighting has pushed many people into famine, caused a huge displacement crisis and left over 30 million people in need of humanitarian assistance. Parties have been accused of committing atrocities like ethnic cleansing, extrajudicial killings and sexual violence against civilians.

Here's a look at the war by the numbers:

59,000 At least this many people have been killed, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data, or ACLED. Aid groups say the true toll could be much higher as access to areas of fighting across the vast country remains limited.

4.5 million About this many people have fled the country to places like Egypt, South Sudan, Libya and Chad.

9 million About this many people remain displaced in Sudan.

19 million More than this many people face acute hunger, according to the World Food Program.

24% This is the amount that fuel prices have shot up in Sudan since conflict in the Middle East escalated.

354 This is the number of community kitchens that have closed over the last six months after providing a lifeline for millions of people, according to Islamic Relief.

Over 4,300 About this many children have been killed or maimed in the war, according to UNICEF.

8 million At least this many children are still out of school, according to UNICEF.

11% About this many schools are being used by warring sides or are shelters for displaced people, according to UNICEF.

63% This many of Sudan's health facilities are fully or partially functioning, according to World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

217 This is the number of verified attacks on health facilities since the war began, according to the WHO.

1,032 This was the number of civilians killed by air and drone strikes in 2025, according to ACLED, as a surge in drone strikes took a growing toll.


Iran Nuclear Program ‘Badly Damaged’ But Not Wiped Out

This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (AP)
This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (AP)
TT

Iran Nuclear Program ‘Badly Damaged’ But Not Wiped Out

This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (AP)
This image from an Airbus Defense and Space's Pléiades Neo satellite shows a truck that analysts believe was carrying highly enriched uranium to a tunnel in the compound of the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, in Isfahan, Iran, June 9, 2025. (AP)

The United States and Israel may have obstructed the path towards a future Iran-built nuclear bomb by severely damaging Tehran's nuclear and ballistic capabilities in recent attacks.

But they have not succeeded in seizing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, key to any future negotiations between Washington and Tehran, experts and diplomatic sources told AFP.

One of US President Donald Trump's justifications for the war he launched on February 28 was an accusation -- denied by Tehran -- that Iran was developing an atomic bomb. Trump has repeatedly vowed to never allow the country to possess a nuclear weapon.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for his part, has stated that the previous war waged against Iran, a 12-day conflict in June 2025, as well as the current one “wiped out” Iran's nuclear program.

But two European diplomatic sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed caution about the future of Iran's atomic ambitions.

Immediately following the June 2025 strikes, “we were told the program had been set back by several years, before the figure was revised to just several months,” one source noted.

“Iran is no longer a threshold power as it once was,” an Israeli diplomatic source, who requested anonymity, told AFP.

A “threshold” state has the expertise, resources and facilities needed to develop a nuclear weapon on short notice should it choose to.

The source argued that, in addition to the infrastructure damage suffered, Iran's know-how “has been seriously undermined by the elimination of the scientists and officials” and the targeting of universities “where the data centers containing Iran's expertise were located.”

Substantial setback

“Overall, this conflict has set back Iran's nuclear program substantially,” said Spencer Faragasso of the Institute for Science and International Security, a US think tank that monitors Iran's nuclear program.

“It will take a significant amount of time, investment, and resources to reconstitute all of those lost capabilities,” he said.

However, “the gains from the conflict are not permanent by any means.”

Tehran still possesses a significant quantity of uranium enriched both to 60 percent, close to the 90% level required to make an atomic bomb, as well as a stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, another critical threshold.

Prior to the US strikes in June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) calculated that Iran possessed approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, well above the 3.67% limit set by a 2015 agreement from which the United States subsequently withdrew.

Since June 2025, the fate of this stockpile has remained uncertain, with Tehran refusing access to IAEA inspectors at the sites ravaged by US and Israeli strikes.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has repeatedly called for the return of international experts.

Removing enriched uranium

Part of the stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) is believed to remain buried in the tunnels at the Isfahan site in central Iran.

“At least 220 kilogram – roughly half of Iran's declared stockpile of 60% HEU – is believed to be stored in the underground tunnel complex at Isfahan,” said Faragasso.

“The status of the other half is unclear, but we believe it is buried under the rubble at Fordow as large significant quantities of 60% HEU were produced prior to the June 2025 war,” he said.

Only an independent inspection would be able to dispel these doubts.

The issue is how this uranium could be removed from Iranian territory under any eventual accord.

Russia reiterated on Monday that it remained ready to accept Iranian enriched uranium on its soil as part of any potential peace agreement between Washington and Tehran.

“This proposal was put forward by President (Vladimir) Putin during contacts with the United States and with countries in the region,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in response to a question from AFP.

But that scenario is a red line for the Europeans in view of the war that Russia has been waging against Ukraine for more than four years.

Moscow and Tehran are cooperating on nuclear matters through Iran's Bushehr power plant, built and operated with Russian assistance for civilian purposes.

The Iranians “don't have an ability to enrich uranium anymore... So it means they cannot build a nuclear bomb at the moment,” said Danny Orbach of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

“But they still have the enriched material, which is the hardest thing to obtain,” he said.


Rare Precedents for Lebanon-Israel Talks

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C), alongside US State Department Counselor Michael Needham (2L) and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa (2R), speaks during a meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (out of frame) and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (out of frame) at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C), alongside US State Department Counselor Michael Needham (2L) and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa (2R), speaks during a meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (out of frame) and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (out of frame) at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Rare Precedents for Lebanon-Israel Talks

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C), alongside US State Department Counselor Michael Needham (2L) and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa (2R), speaks during a meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (out of frame) and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (out of frame) at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (AFP)
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C), alongside US State Department Counselor Michael Needham (2L) and US Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa (2R), speaks during a meeting with Lebanon's Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad (out of frame) and Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter (out of frame) at the State Department in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2026. (AFP)

There are few precedents for the direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials that began in Washington on Tuesday.

- 1949, Fragile armistice -

The first Arab-Israeli war began on May 15, 1948, the day after the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel.

Five countries -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq -- had rejected a UN plan adopted in November 1947 to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states and went to war against the new state.

In 1949, Israel and neighboring countries signed armistice agreements, but they collapsed with the start of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

- 1983, Unimplemented agreement -

Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6, 1982, in an operation it dubbed "Peace for Galilee" that was initially aimed at expelling Palestinian fighters, but which resulted in a nearly 18-year Israeli occupation.

On May 17, 1983, Lebanon and Israel signed an agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon after four-and-a-half months of direct talks with US participation.

The deal was scrapped less than a year later, in March 1984, under pressure from Syria and its allies in Lebanon.

- 1991-93, Washington talks -

A series of bilateral negotiations between Israel and Syria, Lebanon, and a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation was launched in late 1991, following the Madrid conference on Middle East peace.

Ten rounds of bilateral talks were held in Washington over 20 months until 1993, but failed to produce results.

- 2022, Maritime border deal -

After years of US mediation, Lebanon and Israel reached an agreement on October 27, 2022, which demarcated their maritime border and set the terms for sharing offshore gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean.

There was no direct contact between the two sides, with the deal formalized through separate exchanges of letters with the United States.

- 2024, Fragile ceasefire -

A November 2024 ceasefire sought to end more than a year of fresh hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, but Israeli forces kept up strikes in Lebanon, saying they aimed to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its capabilities.

In December 2025, civilian officials for the first time joined Lebanese and Israeli military representatives in ceasefire-monitoring meetings in southern Lebanon, led by the US and also involving France and the United Nations peacekeeping force.

The talks marked the first direct discussions between the two sides in decades.