Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the military had standing orders to act against any threats encountered in Lebanon and reiterated that Israeli forces would not withdraw from the security zone extending roughly 10 kilometers into Lebanese territory.

“There has never been, and there is currently no restriction on IDF soldiers in Lebanon from acting to eliminate threats,” Katz said in a statement, adding that both he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made clear that Israel would maintain its presence in the area.

The comments underscored continuing tensions along the Israel-Lebanon frontier despite diplomatic efforts involving Washington and Tehran to halt hostilities across multiple fronts in the region.

Iran, which backs Hezbollah, said later on Sunday that implementation of provisions related to ending the conflict in Lebanon was a prerequisite for advancing negotiations with the United States on a final agreement following a deal reached earlier this week.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran could not move into the next phase of negotiations unless commitments regarding a cessation of hostilities were fulfilled. In a post on X, he said the termination of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, remained essential to further diplomatic progress.

Baghaei also said the situation in Lebanon would dominate discussions with U.S. officials in Switzerland, alongside issues including frozen Iranian assets and Iranian oil exports.

“The Zionist regime continues to violate its commitment in Lebanon, and this issue will be the main topic of discussion in today’s talks,” Baghaei said in remarks carried by the IRNA state news agency.

Tehran announced on Thursday that it had reached an agreement with Washington aimed at ending months of hostilities that began on Feb. 28 following U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran. Under the arrangement, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon was also expected to cease.

Iran’s military said on Saturday it had again closed the Strait of Hormuz in response to what it described as ongoing Israeli attacks in Lebanon, adding another layer of uncertainty to regional security and energy markets.

Despite the sharp rhetoric, there were no reports of new strikes in Lebanon after Saturday evening. Baghaei said a “fragile cessation” of hostilities had been in place since Saturday.

The latest exchanges highlight the central role of the Lebanon conflict in wider regional diplomacy, as efforts continue to stabilize tensions following months of military confrontation involving Israel, Hezbollah, Iran and the United States.

The meeting at the Swiss resort of Buergenstock brought together U.S. Vice President JD Vance, Iranian officials and mediators from Qatar and Pakistan in the first diplomatic engagement since Washington and Tehran agreed a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending months of regional conflict.

The accord, reached last week, calls for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a halt to hostilities across the region, including in Lebanon, where Israeli forces have been fighting Hezbollah since March. Iran has accused Washington of failing to ensure implementation of those commitments and said substantive negotiations would not proceed until conditions on the ground improve.

“Iran must immediately stop their highly paid PROXIES in Lebanon from causing trouble. If they don’t, we’ll hit Iran very hard again, just like we did last week, only harder!!!” Trump said in a statement, signaling the possibility of renewed military escalation despite ongoing diplomatic efforts.

Iranian officials responded by narrowing the scope of Sunday’s discussions. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said the talks would focus only on implementation of the memorandum rather than broader issues such as Iran’s nuclear program, arguing that commitments related to Lebanon had not been fulfilled.

Baghaei said Tehran’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz again stemmed from continued Israeli military operations in Lebanon despite a ceasefire announced on Friday. Iran’s Fars news agency cited a military source as saying no new permits were being issued for ships seeking to transit the strategic waterway.

The move has renewed concerns over global energy supplies. The strait serves as one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes, and its earlier closure during the conflict caused major disruptions to international energy markets.

U.S. officials questioned Iran’s assertion that the waterway had been fully closed. However, shipping data indicated a sharp decline in vessel movements following Tehran’s announcement, with significantly fewer tankers reported transiting the passage compared with recent days.

At the talks, Vance sought to project optimism, saying progress had been made toward reducing violence in Lebanon despite continuing instability.

“These things are always a little bit messy,” he told reporters.

Earlier on Sunday, Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Pakistan’s Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir on the sidelines of the negotiations. The meeting featured cordial exchanges among the participants as diplomatic efforts continued to secure broader regional stability.

Under the memorandum, Washington and Tehran are expected to hold 60 days of negotiations covering Iran’s nuclear activities, sanctions relief and economic measures. Iran has said initial economic benefits, including sanctions waivers and access to frozen assets, must be delivered before more substantive commitments can be discussed.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian expressed confidence that negotiations could support economic recovery and said initial progress had already enabled Tehran to regain access to part of its financial resources.

Despite diplomatic engagement, conditions in Lebanon remain fragile. Lebanese authorities reported 20 deaths from Israeli strikes on Saturday, while military teams continued clearing unexploded ordnance from southern towns. Reuters journalists observed residents returning to parts of southern Lebanon on Sunday, suggesting a tentative improvement in security conditions despite the absence of a durable ceasefire.

The negotiations represent the most significant direct diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran since the outbreak of hostilities earlier this year, but sharp disagreements over Lebanon and maritime access underscore the challenges facing efforts to secure a lasting regional settlement.

The poll, conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in partnership with the Agam Institute between June 17 and June 20, surveyed 3,644 respondents and found widespread concern about Israel’s strategic position following the conflict and diplomatic settlement.

According to the survey, 92.1 percent of respondents said Iran had either won the conflict or gained more from its outcome than Israel, while 82.9 percent believed Israel’s long-term security position had deteriorated as a result of the war and the subsequent U.S.-Iran agreement.

The findings suggest dissatisfaction extended across Israel’s political spectrum. Among supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing governing bloc, 93.1 percent said Iran had emerged as the victor or principal beneficiary of the conflict.

Opposition to the agreement between Washington and Tehran was also pronounced. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63.2 percent, opposed the deal, while only 12.1 percent expressed support. The remainder were either undecided or did not state a preference.

The survey also highlighted declining confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership during the conflict. Some 72.5 percent of respondents said they did not believe the prime minister’s assessment of the military campaign’s achievements, while 56.4 percent rated his management of the conflict as either poor or unsuccessful.

Support for Netanyahu’s continued premiership also appeared to weaken. The poll showed backing for the Israeli leader falling to 29.4 percent in June from 40.5 percent recorded in early March, indicating a significant erosion in public support over the course of the conflict.

Despite concerns about the outcome of the war, the survey found continued public backing for a hardline security approach toward Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon. Nearly half of respondents, 48.2 percent, supported renewed large-scale military action against the Iran-backed group, even if such a move risked friction with the United States. By comparison, 21 percent opposed further escalation.

The release of the survey coincided with efforts to advance diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran. Representatives from both countries were scheduled to meet in Switzerland on Sunday to discuss transforming the temporary agreement into a more durable framework.

The diplomatic process faces additional uncertainty amid tensions on Israel’s northern border. A renewed ceasefire announced by Washington on Friday followed clashes between Israeli forces and Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon, with both sides accusing each other of violating the truce.

The poll’s findings underscore the political and strategic challenges facing Israel’s leadership as it seeks to reassure the public about the country’s security posture while navigating a rapidly evolving regional landscape shaped by diplomacy, military confrontation and shifting alliances.

The disciplinary action follows a wave of nationwide unrest that began in December as demonstrations over rising living costs and later evolved into broader anti-establishment protests. The movement reached its peak in January before continuing in smaller forms on university campuses across the country.

According to the Fars news agency, the university’s Disciplinary Committee issued separate preliminary rulings ordering the expulsion of six students for their alleged participation in unrest that took place in February.

Fars reported that the students were accused of organizing and leading unauthorized gatherings, using language deemed insulting by authorities, engaging in activities considered hostile to the Islamic Republic, and committing other disciplinary violations.

The report did not indicate whether the students face separate criminal proceedings in Iran’s judicial system, including before revolutionary courts, which frequently handle cases involving national security and political offenses.

Among the allegations cited by Fars was the display and promotion of the Lion and Sun emblem, a historic national symbol that appeared on Iran’s flag before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The emblem is often associated with opponents of the current political system and supporters of exiled opposition figure Reza Pahlavi.

Sharif University of Technology, widely regarded as Iran’s most prestigious engineering and scientific institution, has historically been a focal point for student activism and political debate.

The protests that spread across Iran earlier this year drew international attention and prompted criticism from foreign human rights organizations, which accused authorities of carrying out a harsh crackdown. Iranian officials have rejected those accusations, maintaining that violence during the unrest was driven by individuals they describe as terrorists backed by the United States and Israel.

Neither the university nor Iranian authorities immediately released additional details regarding the disciplinary rulings or the appeals process available to the affected students.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Naqvi’s visit forms part of Pakistan’s continuing engagement on issues related to the dialogue between Tehran and Washington, the Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) reported.

The meeting comes amid heightened regional diplomatic activity as governments across the Middle East seek to support channels of communication between Iran and the United States following months of tensions and negotiations over key security and political issues.

Neither Iranian nor Pakistani officials immediately disclosed the detailed agenda for the talks. However, Baghaei indicated that the visit is connected to Islamabad’s efforts surrounding the ongoing discussions involving Tehran and Washington.

Pakistan has maintained relations with both Iran and the United States and has periodically sought to facilitate diplomatic engagement during periods of regional uncertainty. The country shares a lengthy border with Iran and has frequently emphasized dialogue and regional stability as central elements of its foreign policy.

The planned discussions between Naqvi and Araqchi follow previous high-level contacts between officials from the two neighboring countries and underscore continued coordination on regional developments.

No further details were immediately available regarding the duration of Naqvi’s visit or whether additional meetings with Iranian officials were scheduled.

The 13 independent experts welcomed the signing of the memorandum but said the framework places primary emphasis on military withdrawal, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear commitments, sanctions relief and a proposed $300 billion reconstruction fund.

In a joint statement, the experts said the Iranian population, which has endured both wartime destruction and domestic repression, remains largely absent from the agreement’s provisions.

The warning comes after months of conflict that caused extensive damage across Iran, with infrastructure including hospitals, schools and religious sites reportedly affected by military strikes.

The experts said the humanitarian situation had been deteriorating even before the outbreak of hostilities, citing ongoing crackdowns on anti-government dissent and challenges linked to the presence of large Afghan refugee populations.

According to the statement, Iranian authorities have intensified actions against perceived opposition since the conflict began in late February. The experts alleged that thousands of people had been detained and reported cases involving torture, enforced disappearances, mock executions and coerced confessions.

The group, which includes UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran Mai Sato, said at least 156 executions had been carried out since the start of the conflict.

They also expressed concern over reports that at least 42 individuals were executed on espionage-related charges, alleging that convictions relied on confessions obtained under torture. Access to legal representation for many detainees remains restricted, the experts said.

The statement further highlighted the seizure of assets belonging to approximately 1,500 Iranians and said extensive internet restrictions imposed during the conflict had disrupted businesses, limited communications and contributed to worsening economic conditions.

The experts noted that unemployment had risen sharply while inflation had reached 115 percent, adding to the economic burden faced by households.

While welcoming the proposed reconstruction fund, the group stressed that assistance should directly benefit civilians and support long-term social and economic recovery.

“A deal that serves geopolitical interests while leaving the Iranian people behind is not a peace agreement worthy of the name,” the experts said.

They argued that the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz merely restores pre-conflict conditions and should not be viewed as the sole measure of success in peace negotiations.

The experts called for provisions including a moratorium on executions of political prisoners, the release of individuals held without charge and broader protections for civil and political rights.

They also urged negotiators to ensure that the views of Iranian citizens are reflected in any final settlement intended to shape the country’s future.

The demonstration, organized by the National Resistance Council of Iran (NRCI), was intended to protest a recent wave of executions in Iran and was expected by organizers to attract as many as 100,000 participants.

In an order issued on Thursday, Paris police said the event posed a serious security risk given the “particularly tense national and international context.” Authorities warned that confrontations between groups holding opposing political views could disrupt public order, especially because the planned route passed near government buildings and diplomatic missions.

The NRCI said the prohibition was communicated after business hours on Thursday and described the reasons given by authorities as “bogus.” The group has filed an emergency legal challenge seeking to overturn the ban before the planned gathering.

Organizers suggested the decision may have been linked to diplomatic contacts between France and Iran, noting that the cancellation came hours after a telephone conversation between French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot and his Iranian counterpart.

France’s Foreign Ministry rejected that assertion, stating that Barrot neither raised the planned demonstration nor requested its cancellation during the call.

The NRCI serves as the political wing of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as the MEK, a group designated as a terrorist organization by Iran’s government.

The organization has staged numerous demonstrations in Paris over the years, including rallies linked to anti-government protests in Iran and recent regional tensions involving Tehran.

French authorities highlighted concerns that competing Iranian diaspora groups, many of which maintain deep political disagreements, could come into conflict during the event.

The planned march was intended to draw attention to executions carried out in Iran during the recent conflict involving Tehran, Israel and the United States.

Human rights organizations have reported that more than 40 people have been executed in Iran since the outbreak of the conflict, including individuals allegedly connected to anti-government protests.

Iranian authorities have also carried out executions involving individuals accused of links to banned opposition movements, including the MEK, as well as outlawed Kurdish and Sunni Baluch organizations.

The court challenge filed by organizers is expected to be considered on an expedited basis ahead of the scheduled date of the rally.

The disagreements emerged as the United States pursued an agreement with Iran aimed at ending hostilities and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy shipments. Netanyahu reportedly argued for maintaining pressure on Tehran and expressed skepticism about the durability and enforceability of any negotiated settlement.

According to the report, Israeli officials were surprised by Washington’s decision to move toward a diplomatic framework with Iran after months of military confrontation and coordinated efforts to contain Tehran’s regional influence.

During a series of conversations, Netanyahu questioned whether Iran could be trusted to adhere to any agreement and warned against easing pressure on its leadership. Trump, meanwhile, focused increasingly on preventing a broader regional war and minimizing the economic consequences of continued conflict, particularly disruptions to energy markets and maritime trade.

Differences between the two leaders also extended to Lebanon, where Trump reportedly objected to Israeli military operations that could jeopardize ongoing ceasefire initiatives.

The Washington Post reported that exchanges between the leaders became increasingly strained as Trump challenged the strategic value of certain military actions and urged greater restraint in order to preserve diplomatic momentum.

The tensions mark a significant departure from the close alignment that characterized much of the conflict. Throughout the war, Netanyahu had advocated a more aggressive approach toward Iran, presenting intelligence assessments and military proposals while encouraging stronger U.S. involvement.

Trump initially supported many of those objectives and maintained close oversight of developments on the battlefield. However, the report said he later rejected options that could have expanded direct American involvement or prolonged the conflict.

The evolving relationship reflects broader debates within Washington over how best to balance military deterrence with diplomatic engagement in the Middle East.

According to the report, Trump increasingly sought alternative assessments from advisers after discussions with Netanyahu, while some officials within the administration questioned whether domestic political considerations in Israel were influencing decisions related to military operations and regional diplomacy.

Despite the disagreements, the United States and Israel continue to maintain extensive security cooperation. Military coordination between the two countries reportedly expanded significantly during the conflict, with officials describing the level of operational collaboration as unprecedented.

Netanyahu has cultivated a close working relationship with Trump over the past year through frequent visits, regular consultations and public displays of solidarity. However, the latest differences suggest that diverging priorities over Iran, Lebanon and regional stabilization efforts are placing new strains on one of the Middle East’s most consequential strategic partnerships.

The reported disputes come at a critical moment as negotiators seek to transform the U.S.-Iran ceasefire arrangement into a broader settlement while international actors push for a durable ceasefire in Lebanon and greater regional stability.

The discussions come a day after Washington and Tehran signed an interim agreement that commits participating parties to respect Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, a provision that could complicate Israel’s efforts to preserve a military presence in areas it has seized during recent operations.

Two Israeli officials, including a senior official close to Netanyahu, told Reuters that Israel is seeking U.S. acceptance of its continued troop deployment south of Lebanon’s Litani River, a strategically important area that Israeli leaders regard as essential to national security.

The senior official said Israel was conducting “stubborn negotiations” with Washington and would not retreat from its core position that troops should remain deployed in southern Lebanon despite mounting international pressure.

A second Israeli official said the outcome could ultimately depend on whether Trump chooses to exert direct pressure on Israel by linking compliance with the broader U.S.-Iran diplomatic framework to future bilateral cooperation.

Netanyahu’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Israel expanded military operations in southern Lebanon after Hezbollah launched attacks against Israeli territory on March 2 in support of Iran following the outbreak of hostilities involving Tehran and its regional allies. Israeli forces subsequently carried out a large-scale air and ground campaign aimed at degrading Hezbollah’s military infrastructure.

Israeli officials have described territory captured in Lebanon, Gaza and Syria as part of a network of “buffer zones” designed to provide strategic depth and reduce security threats along Israel’s borders. Netanyahu has consistently rejected calls for withdrawal from those areas, arguing that they are necessary to prevent future attacks.

The dispute over Lebanon has become one of the most visible points of friction between Trump and Netanyahu despite their close cooperation during the conflict with Iran.

Speaking at the conclusion of the G7 summit in France on Wednesday, Trump publicly urged the Israeli leader to exercise greater restraint in Lebanon and suggested that military actions should be calibrated to support diplomatic efforts rather than undermine them.

“Netanyahu happens to be a good man, gets a little excited sometimes,” Trump told reporters.

The U.S. president added that Israel could adopt a “softer touch” in dealing with Hezbollah and questioned the necessity of extensive military strikes in response to every perceived threat.

“We have a little dispute over Lebanon. I say you can do a little softer touch, Bibi,” Trump said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname.

The disagreement reflects broader tensions surrounding efforts to convert the U.S.-Iran interim agreement into a permanent settlement. Iran has repeatedly argued that any durable regional arrangement must include an end to hostilities in Lebanon and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied areas.

Netanyahu has maintained that Israel is not bound by agreements negotiated between Washington and Tehran and retains full freedom of action against Hezbollah.

Despite the public disagreements, Trump acknowledged Netanyahu’s role during the conflict with Iran and praised the close military coordination between the United States and Israel throughout the campaign.

Trump also rejected reports suggesting that Washington had excluded Israel from discussions surrounding the interim agreement, stating that he had personally shared the memorandum of understanding reached with Iran. The framework is expected to serve as the basis for broader U.S.-Iran negotiations scheduled to begin in Switzerland on Friday.

The talks over Lebanon underscore the challenge facing both governments as they attempt to balance military objectives, regional diplomacy and competing visions for post-conflict security arrangements across the Middle East.

Speaking during his weekly general audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican, the pontiff praised the agreement reached earlier this week between Washington and Tehran and expressed gratitude to those involved in the negotiations.

“I hope that this agreement will contribute to strengthening mutual trust, security, and stability in the Middle East by promoting paths of dialogue and cooperation between peoples,” Leo said.

The remarks marked one of the pope’s most direct endorsements of a major diplomatic breakthrough since taking office. His comments underscored the Vatican’s longstanding support for negotiated solutions to international conflicts and efforts aimed at reducing regional tensions.

Leo, 70, framed the accord as evidence that sustained engagement between adversaries can yield tangible results, emphasizing dialogue as a tool for advancing peace and stability.

Turning to the war in Ukraine, the pope said he continued to receive “painful” news from the conflict and appealed for renewed diplomatic initiatives capable of producing a just and enduring settlement.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, now in its fifth year, remains Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War Two and has resulted in widespread destruction, heavy casualties, and extensive damage to civilian infrastructure.

“So many innocent victims, rescuers killed, churches and cultural heritage sites devastated by flames,” Leo said during the audience.

The pontiff also expressed solidarity with those affected by the conflict, including families mourning lost relatives, those injured in attacks, and humanitarian workers operating in dangerous conditions.

“I am close to those mourning their loved ones, to the injured, and to those who, amidst the violence, continue to serve life with courage,” he said.

The Vatican has consistently advocated diplomatic engagement in both Middle Eastern and European conflicts, with Leo’s latest remarks reinforcing the Holy See’s emphasis on dialogue, negotiation, and international cooperation as pathways to peace.