Vice President JD Vance was heavily involved in the ceasefire MoU with Iran. The first part of the Memorandum extended the ceasefire to Lebanon and was supposed to guarantee it sovereignty.
At the same time or shortly thereafter Secretary of State Marco Rubio negotiated an agreement with Lebanon and Israel which guarantees a continuation of the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanese land.
The Lebanon agreement is thus a direct attack on the MoU with Iran.
Via The Cradle we find some interesting speculation how this is an expression of a power struggle within Trump’s White House coterie:
The agreement between Lebanon and Israel cannot be understood through bilateral negotiations alone. It also reflects shifting power dynamics in Washington, where US policy toward Lebanon is shaped not only by official institutions, but by competition within the administration and the Republican Party, alongside pressure from pro-Israel lobbying groups, particularly the Zionist lobby and the hardline Lebanese Christian lobby.
…
[This] is reflected in the quiet contest within the American right, particularly between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who represents the traditional pro-Israel Republican establishment, and Vice President JD Vance, whose camp has been more cautious about US involvement in West Asia.
…
According to sources familiar with the matter, these tensions have extended beyond policy differences. Vance was reportedly angered after learning that Rubio had been planning a tour of the Gulf without consulting him beforehand. He also suspected Rubio of working behind the scenes with US envoys Jared Kushner, and possibly Steve Witkoff, in ways that could undermine Vance’s diplomatic achievements. Those close to Vance increasingly believe that Rubio, Kushner, and Senator Lindsey Graham have formed an informal alliance aimed at sidelining him ahead of the next presidential race.
Rubio has long be captured by the Zionist lobby while Vance is creature of tech tech billionaires. Which side has more firepower if there is a competition?
In other news of interest:
After U.S.-Iran War, Oman Said to Propose Hormuz Fee Plan (archived) – NY Times
Iran and U.S.-allied Oman are moving forward with plans to collect payment for ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, despite public American objections, according to an Iranian official and four diplomats with knowledge of the matter.
…
Oman recently delivered a formal proposal to the United States and other Western allies that outlined a plan in which shipping companies would pay service fees to use the strait, according to the Iranian official and a regional diplomat.A person familiar with the U.S. position confirmed that American negotiators had received the Omani proposal and said that they had concerns that they intended to discuss with Omani officials.
…
Oman’s proposal is partly modeled on arrangements in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, an Asian waterway where a private foundation collects voluntary contributions for safe navigation, the regional diplomat said.Any fees in the Strait of Hormuz would be voluntary, the diplomat said. The Iranian official, however, said that the payments would be obligatory.
The U.S. will certainly put pressure on Oman to refrain from any agreement with Iran about ‘fees’.
A better strategy for Iran would be to stop talking about tolls or fees and to depict the future contributions to Iran by ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz as reparation down-payments for the damage the USraeli war on Iran has wreaked.
The global public would likely understand that reasoning and agree with such ‘fees’.
Oman could take a share of the money and distribute it to those Gulf states where war damage on private property had also occurred.