Skip to content
Briefings are running a touch slower this week while we rebuild the foundations.See roadmap
Iran Conflict 2026
25MAY

Netanyahu refuses Lebanon withdrawal on Day 4

3 min read
13:55UTC

Day four of the Lebanon truce saw a dispute over a 10km buffer the IDF is holding inside Lebanese territory. Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet Israeli troops would not withdraw.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

Netanyahu's refusal to withdraw from a 10km IDF buffer leaves Lebanon's truce without an agreed line.

Day four of the Lebanon truce saw a "yellow line" dispute over a 10km buffer the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is maintaining inside Lebanese territory, per Al Jazeera 1. Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet Israeli troops would not withdraw from the buffer.

The Lebanon truce was announced on Truth Social without prior cabinet consultation, and the Yellow Line dispute is the first operational stress test of a ceasefire that has no agreed line of demarcation. The 10km depth is meaningful: it puts IDF positions inside villages on the Lebanese side of the Blue Line, the UN-demarcated border, with the force posture of an occupying buffer rather than a withdrawing one. Hezbollah has fired on Tel Aviv as recently as 10 April under truce cover; the buffer is operating as the tripwire between restraint and resumption.

For Lebanese civilians inside the buffer the immediate consequence is displacement under a truce notionally in force. The UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has no mandate to remove IDF positions, and the Lebanese Armed Forces cannot move into the buffer without escalating the dispute. A counter-view from Israeli officials is that the buffer is a temporary operational necessity until Hezbollah disarms under the Lebanon ceasefire's Annex B; Lebanese officials argue the annex requires reciprocal withdrawal that the 10km posture pre-empts. Both readings can be true simultaneously, which is why the dispute is load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Pakistan's air force has deployed F-16 fighter jets to help protect Saudi Arabia's airspace from potential Iranian drone and missile threats, putting Islamabad in the Gulf Arab camp. At the same time, Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, is flying to Tehran to carry diplomatic messages between Iran and the United States. These two roles give Pakistan unusual influence: it is the only country simultaneously protecting Iran's neighbours and talking directly to Iran's military. Both roles depend on the ceasefire holding; if fighting resumes, Islamabad would face a forced choice between the Saudi security relationship and the Iran mediation channel.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

Pakistan's F-16s in Saudi airspace serve two simultaneous functions: they reinforce Saudi air defences against IRGC drone and missile threats without formally committing Islamabad to the US-led coalition, and they signal to Riyadh that Pakistan's mediation of the Iran channel carries a security guarantee alongside it.

The structural dependency is Pakistan's $8 billion annual remittance income from Gulf workers, which requires Riyadh's goodwill regardless of which way the conflict resolves. That financial constraint is why the dual posture exists: Islamabad cannot afford to choose one side, so it is structurally required to serve both.

What could happen next?
  • Risk

    Pakistan's dual-posture leverage depends entirely on the ceasefire holding; a resumption of hostilities forces Islamabad to choose between the Saudi security relationship and the Iran mediation role.

First Reported In

Update #74 · Two unsigned rulebooks collide at Hormuz

Al Jazeera· 20 Apr 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Netanyahu refuses Lebanon withdrawal on Day 4
A truce with a commander-in-chief publicly refusing withdrawal is not a truce with a mutually understood line. The Lebanon front remains the most plausible route back to wider regional escalation while the Iran blockade is in force.
Different Perspectives
Lloyd's of London
Lloyd's of London
The Joint War Committee left Hormuz war-risk premiums at $10-14 million per voyage on 25 May, declining to move on Brent's 5% fall. The JWC's protocol requires a UN Security Council resolution or bilateral government certification letter before de-listing, and neither has arrived: a verbal understanding does not satisfy the formal condition the reinsurance market's treaty terms require.
Gulf Arab producers
Gulf Arab producers
Saudi Arabia and UAE depend on Hormuz for their own crude exports; Aramco CEO Nasser has warned no oil market recovery arrives until 2027 if the blockade continues past mid-June. Monday's $98.96 Brent settlement shortens nothing for Gulf producers without a signed instrument and a Pentagon mine-clearance timeline that runs up to six months post-ceasefire.
Qatar
Qatar
Qatar holds $12bn of frozen Iranian assets at the centre of the sequencing dispute but cannot release them without explicit US Treasury authorisation, given the original freeze was a US instrument. As the asset-holding state, Qatar's leverage is real but passive: it is the escrow holder, not the decision-maker, and any resolution requires US Treasury sign-off that Trump has withheld.
Pakistan
Pakistan
With both Prime Minister Sharif and army chief Munir simultaneously in Beijing on 25 May, Pakistan has for the first time consolidated its civilian and military mediation tracks under China's roof. Munir's direct Tehran-to-Beijing flight signals that the security and financial threads of the sequencing problem are now being worked in parallel rather than sequentially.
China
China
Beijing hosted Pakistan's principal mediators and Iran's China envoy Ghalibaf simultaneously on 25 May while its banking regulator capped new state-bank lending to five sanctioned refiners. China is simultaneously the most credible third-party underwriter of the $12bn sequencing and the state whose institutions face live OFAC secondary-sanctions exposure if the deadlock persists through GL V's expiry.
United States
United States
Trump posted on 24 May that the blockade holds until a deal is certified and signed, ruling out the informal MOU structure both sides had been building. The 'certified, and signed' condition is the first operational bar Trump has attached in 87 days, but it arrived without an executive instrument, maintaining the gap between posted ultimatum and signed US policy.