Israel continues strikes on Lebanon as Iran threatens response

For Belgrade, which has spent years building a policy of cautious balance between its Western partners and its own ties to the Middle East, every fresh conflict in the region is not a distant headline but a test of the energy flows and diplomatic channels Serbia relies on. That is why it matters what is happening in southern Lebanon, where the fire has not eased despite a signed ceasefire memorandum. Iran has stated that the Israeli military breached the agreement 84 times over the past two days, and Tehran warns that its response will be sharp if the strikes do not stop.

The geopolitical reality is that the memorandum, however valid on paper, has already been called into question on the ground. Israeli forces carried out several strikes on southern Lebanon on June 17, among them three drone attacks in the city of Tyre, as well as strikes in the Bint Jbeil and Kfar Tebnit areas. These followed attacks on June 16 in which, according to available figures, at least four people were killed. The numbers show the intensity is uneven: the count of projectiles fired fell from 705 recorded the previous week to 174 on June 15, of which 169 were attributed to the Israeli side and five to Hezbollah.

Can the memorandum survive this pace of strikes at all?

The obvious question is how long a framework agreement can hold while breaches are recorded along the border every day. Iran’s minister, Abbas Araghchi, sent a clear message: an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory is a necessary condition for any progress on the framework deal. With that, Tehran shifted the burden onto the Israeli side and made further talks conditional on a concrete move on the ground rather than new wording at the negotiating table.

The logic is understandable from the standpoint of a diplomatic channel. A memorandum signed amid simultaneous strikes loses credibility before it even begins to be implemented, because it gives both sides an excuse to accuse the other of the first violation. Iran’s figure of 84 breaches in two days, however it is counted, serves exactly that purpose: to assign blame for an eventual collapse in advance. On the other hand, the drop in the overall number of projectiles could suggest that some de-escalation channels are working, at least in part.

What does this mean for the wider security picture?

For the region around the Mediterranean, any prolonged conflict in southern Lebanon carries the risk of spillover, both through refugee flows and through pressure on maritime and energy routes. That is precisely why European chancelleries are watching closely to see whether Iran’s warning will stay at the level of rhetoric or gain an operational follow-up. The EU High Representative has repeatedly insisted that the durability of the ceasefire is a precondition for any serious conversation about stabilisation, and a memorandum breached 84 times in two days hardly meets that test.

For Serbia, which seeks to preserve diplomatic ties with both Israel and the countries of the region, it means counting on added instability in the months ahead. The energy consequences of any escalation do not stop at the borders of the Middle East, and the economies of the Balkans are sensitive to every price spike such conflicts produce. The deadline to implement the memorandum is approaching, while the conditions Tehran has set remain unmet on the ground.

Will the parties find a way to save the memorandum before the deadline runs out, or will this two-day run of strikes become the prelude to a wider conflict?