al-diyar Exclusive | U.S. “Assurances”: a Cover for Escalation and a Return to the Old Deception Scenarios
The U.S.
“assurances”
delivered to Beirut regarding the Israeli escalation being limited to a
“restricted”
strike are causing serious concern among relevant circles, amid growing doubts that they may simply be a misleading cover intended to lull Lebanese officials into complacency and pave the way for a much broader assault.
The United States’ political record suggests that promises by its officials not to invade or escalate can sometimes point in the opposite direction. Talk of “assurances” has repeatedly been accompanied by preparations for military action:
▫️ IRAQ (2003): U.S. officials repeatedly spoke of maintaining stability and pursuing diplomatic solutions, before Washington launched the invasion and occupation of Iraq—under claims that critics argued were misleading.
▫️ IRAN: U.S. calls for diplomacy have repeatedly coincided with sanctions, pressure campaigns, and military escalation, reinforcing concerns that diplomatic rhetoric can also serve as a tool of strategic maneuvering.
According to sources, the Americans are now speaking of a
“surgical” military operation targeting the Ali al-Taher hills,
while claiming they can contain its scope. But the reality on the ground raises fears of a U.S.
“green light”
for heating up the southern front, alongside increased pressure on Iran.
There are no guarantees that the situation will remain contained or that escalation will not serve Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political objectives.
The concern extends beyond the southern border. There are also fears of high-profile targeted assassinations being carried out ahead of Lebanon’s upcoming parliamentary elections on October 27, potentially reshaping the political and security landscape.
sánchez To Trump: Your Sanctions Mean Nothing
While China and Russia have announced their rejection of the sanctions imposed by Donald Trump on Iran, following Washington’s failure to achieve its military objectives, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez took an even more embarrassing step for Trump: he did not merely reject the sanctions politically, but moved in practice to undermine the effects of the economic blockade on Iran.
It was announced that a Spanish company had obtained a license to operate in the extraction and processing of minerals in South Khorasan Province, raising a broader question:
What remains of the effectiveness of U.S. sanctions when European countries and companies begin doing business with Iran despite American pressure?
But Sánchez’s confrontation with Trump did not begin here.
Throughout the months of war and escalation against Iran, the Spanish prime minister adopted an openly critical position toward the war, refused to participate in supporting it, and maintained that Iran has the right to defend itself—while simultaneously taking increasingly critical positions toward Israel and the war in Palestine.
And this is where the real message lies:
Sanctions do not become powerful simply because Washington announces them.
Their power depends on the United States’ ability to enforce them on others. When major powers or European companies begin circumventing them, sanctions gradually stop being merely an instrument of pressure and become a test of the credibility of American influence itself.
Sánchez has demonstrated, at least politically, that confronting Washington does not require aircraft carriers.
Sometimes, all it takes is saying:
NO.
And refusing to submit.
That is why history may remember the Pedro Sánchez experience for a long time: he chose to pay a political price for opposing the war, challenging U.S. and Israeli policies, defending Iran’s right to protect itself, and defending the Palestinian people’s right to live.
As for those who run toward Washington at the first threat…