Netanyahu Wants a ‘Broad National Government.’ His ultra-Orthodox Deal Just Made It the Main Election Fight  

Netanyahu’s deal with ultra-Orthodox parties saved his coalition, but it has turned the draft crisis into the first major fight of Israel’s election campaign  

By Gabriel Colodro/The Media Line  

A press conference intended to showcase a major security and diplomatic achievement on Lebanon quickly became the opening scene of Israel’s next election campaign.  

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood before cameras and argued that Israel had secured an unprecedented understanding with Lebanon, mediated by Washington, that would allow Israel to maintain a security zone as long as Hezbollah remained armed and threatening. But when the questions turned from Lebanon to the ultra-Orthodox draft crisis, Netanyahu moved from military maps to political architecture. After the elections, he said, he intends to form a “broad national government.”  

The timing was not accidental. Netanyahu’s government had just weathered another coalition crisis after reaching understandings with the ultra-Orthodox parties over draft enforcement and the arrest of yeshiva students who have ignored military call-up orders. The arrangement may have bought the coalition time, but it also made military service—and the parties that oppose it—a central test for any future government Netanyahu now says he aims to build.   

“I am not boycotting anyone,” Netanyahu said, presenting his proposed post-election coalition as open to any party that accepts several basic principles. He listed those principles as: Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, respect for individual rights, a free economy, technological and defense independence, and broad understandings on the draft and judicial issues. Later, he added another principle: “There is no room for two states. From the sea to the Jordan, there is no room for two states,” explicitly ruling out Palestinian statehood as a principle of the government he seeks to form.  

That formulation sharpened the central political question of the campaign: How can a prime minister who promises a broad, Zionist government continue to rely today on ultra‑Orthodox parties that are historically non‑Zionist and that prioritize exemptions from military service for Torah students?  

Netanyahu’s allies describe it as necessity rather than contradiction. Likud lawmaker Moshe Saada told The Media Line that a broad government is the right response to a fractured society. “You cannot heal the rifts with a narrow government,” Saada said. “It will deepen the divide. We have to do everything to create connections among us.”  

Saada defended the government’s move to freeze arrests of yeshiva students, arguing that criminal enforcement breeds hostility rather than enlistment. “Every arrest of one haredi prevents the enlistment of another haredi,” he said. “It creates hatred and gives nothing.” He added that the state cannot practically arrest tens of thousands, calling a focus on arrests “cheap populism.”  

His alternative is a “no service, no benefits” model, relying less on arrests and more on economic incentives and sanctions. “Only the economy moves people to action. Force and coercion, in the end, produce nothing,” he said. Saada compared the approach to past allowance cuts that helped boost ultra‑Orthodox women’s workforce participation without police enforcement.  

That argument mirrors the government’s formal justification for the proposed freeze. Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs wrote to Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Boaz Bismuth that arrests were undermining haredi enlistment efforts, deepening a rupture with the ultra‑Orthodox public and risking, he warned, severe internal friction that could escalate toward “civil war.”   

Defense Minister Israel Katz also backed moving the issue to the committee and supported a temporary framework that would halt arrests of yeshiva students under defined conditions.  

The opposition frames it differently. Yesh Atid’s Moshe Tur‑Paz, a reservist in the post‑Oct. 7 conflict, told The Media Line that Netanyahu is not solving the draft issue but trying to lock in ultra‑Orthodox support ahead of the elections. “I think what Netanyahu is trying to achieve is to connect haredim stronger toward him, so he makes sure that they don’t leave him after the elections,” Tur-Paz said. “We’re seeing a terrified Netanyahu doing everything to keep the haredi parties on his side.”  

Tur-Paz called the partnership “disgraceful,” especially while Israeli soldiers continue to be killed in Lebanon and the country remains under pressure on several fronts. “The price of … defending Israel’s borders these days is going up by the day,” he said. “Threats haven’t gone down, not in Lebanon, not in Syria, not in Gaza. And Iran is still a big enemy of Israel.” He argued that the government should widen the pool of those who serve, not ease pressure on those who do not.  

He acknowledged that more haredim are serving today than in the past but said that progress did not come from the ultra-Orthodox parties or from Netanyahu’s government. “The army has done a bigger effort to bring in haredim, but nothing has been done or led by the political part of the coalition,” he asserted.  

The dispute is politically risky for Netanyahu because it divides his electorate: a recent Channel 12 poll reported 62% opposed the Netanyahu‑ultra‑Orthodox deal and 23% supported it. The same poll showed Likud rising to 23 seats, Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party steady at 21, and Naftali Bennett’s alliance slipping to 18. The coalition bloc reached 52 seats, while the opposition, including Arab parties, reached 68.  

The numbers show the complexity of Netanyahu’s position. The poll still gave Likud first place, with 23 seats, and Netanyahu remained competitive in the personal matchups. But the warning sign for him was elsewhere. Eisenkot led him again on suitability for prime minister, 38% to 36%, and the broader bloc picture left the current coalition short of a majority—explaining why Netanyahu is already speaking about partners beyond his present camp and why “broad national government” reads less like a slogan and more like a preview of post-election negotiations.  

The shift implies an unstated admission. For years Netanyahu’s formula relied on a hard‑right coalition with ultra‑Orthodox and far‑right partners, but his repeated references to a post‑election broad government suggest he is preparing the ground for a different arrangement. That does not mean he is abandoning current partners, but it suggests the existing formula may be insufficient to secure the stable majority he seeks.  

Tur-Paz did not rule out Likud as a future partner in a broad Zionist coalition, but only without Netanyahu. Saada, by contrast, did not seriously entertain the reverse scenario, in which Likud would join a government led by Eisenkot, Bennett or another center-right figure. For him, the likely outcome remains a Netanyahu-led government joined by at least one centrist party after the election.  

The asymmetry is important. The opposition is trying to separate the Likud from Netanyahu. The Likud, at least as Saada describes it, is trying to separate centrist voters and parties from the opposition while keeping Netanyahu at the head of the table. In both cases, the same question is being tested: whether Israel’s next government can be broader than the current one without first removing the man who built it.  

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir warned that talk of a broad unity government was “very troubling” and argued that Netanyahu must form a fully right-wing government. In a cabinet meeting, after Netanyahu repeated that he would seek a broad national government based on Israel as the Jewish nation-state, defense independence and rejection of a Palestinian state, Ben-Gvir pressed him not to boycott parts of the right-wing bloc. Netanyahu replied that there would be no boycotts.  

Saada took the same line. “Every Zionist party that fights alongside me, … I have no problem with,” he said. He rejected the idea of excluding parties on the right because of political discomfort, saying that anyone who is fit to serve alongside others in combat should not be treated as illegitimate in government. “I do not boycott any Zionist party,” he said. “Period.”  

That distinction becomes more complicated when the current coalition is taken into account. Saada said he would not work with parties that reject Zionism or the state itself, but he treated the ultra-Orthodox parties differently. Asked how non-Zionist haredi factions fit alongside a party such as Likud, he said the gap between rabbinic leadership and the broader haredi public is wider than it may appear from the outside.  

The haredi public, Saada argued, is already moving closer to the rest of Israeli society, even if that process is slow and uneven. The rabbis, he said, may be less connected to the Israeli experience, but the public is moving through its own process. “The haredi mainstream is also part of the melting pot,” he said. “It is Jewish and national. It is more liberal than its rabbis.”  

For Tur-Paz, that is precisely the contradiction. Netanyahu, he said, is strengthening his ties with United Torah Judaism and Shas while presenting himself as the leader of a future Zionist coalition. “People find it hard to believe when they see an Israeli strong leader doing something and yet saying exactly the opposite,” Tur-Paz said. “He is adding more and more laws that are meant to strengthen the ties with them, stop the few haredim that are going to the army, do whatever he can to help them get money from the government, and yet he says, ‘I want a broad Zionist government.’”  

Tur-Paz said Yesh Atid does not rule out, in principle, a future coalition with Likud, but not under Netanyahu. “I do hope there is a future for Likud as a Zionist right-wing party without Netanyahu,” he said. “But that has to be proven.” For now, he argued, Likud remains shaped by the prime minister’s personal leadership and by lawmakers unwilling to break from him. “You really ask yourself, is there a place for different leadership in the Likud? At the moment the answer is no,” he said.  

Netanyahu’s broad-government message has also met public rejection from opposition leaders outside Yesh Atid. Eisenkot dismissed the idea of joining a government under him, arguing that a leader who avoided responsibility after Oct. 7 cannot lecture others about unity. Yair Golan called on the liberal and democratic bloc to declare that it will not sit with Netanyahu. Benny Gantz, who twice entered unity arrangements with Netanyahu, has also expressed disbelief that the offer is genuine.  

The prime minister’s supporters answer that Israel’s security reality requires a larger governing structure, not a narrower one. Saada said the Lebanon understanding itself proves that Israel has entered a period in which military gains must be translated into diplomatic and internal political gains. He described the Lebanese position as “dramatic,” saying it gives Israel international legitimacy to remain in Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed. He framed a broad government as part of the same strategic moment. “To heal the rifts, you need a real broad government,” he said.  

The language of “civil war” now shadows that debate. Netanyahu invoked Menachem Begin’s warning against internal conflict, urging unity while enemies loom. Fuchs used similarly stark language in his letter on draft enforcement. Tur-Paz said such language is dangerous and should not be normalized. “We could argue, we can debate, we can be very anxious about things, but we can’t afford fighting each other because that means the end of Israel,” he said.  

That is where the draft crisis and the election campaign now meet. Netanyahu’s agreement with the ultra-Orthodox parties may help him preserve his current coalition long enough to reach the next political stage. But it has also given his rivals a clear argument: that the same leader who speaks of national unity and a Zionist majority is still bound to partners whose political demands run against the principle of equal service.  

For Netanyahu, the answer is that a future broad government could produce the consensus that the current system cannot. For the opposition, the haredi agreement is proof that no such consensus can be built under him. Between those two claims lies the opening battle of Israel’s election campaign: not only who will win the most seats, but what kind of government can claim to represent a country exhausted by war, divided over service, and uncertain whether “unity” is a governing plan or just another campaign promise.

Katz: US Linking Lebanon to Iran Ceasefire Prevented Hezbollah’s Destruction  

By The Media Line Staff  

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said Monday that US insistence on linking Lebanon to the Iran ceasefire memorandum of understanding prevented Israel’s military from destroying Hezbollah.  

Addressing the halt in Israel Defense Forces (IDF) operations during a briefing for military and diplomatic reporters that focused on Iran, Katz argued that “the pause prevented a massive blow the IDF had planned to continue inflicting on Hezbollah. Linking the arenas saved Hezbollah from a devastating blow, perhaps even its collapse.”  

Katz stressed that Israel would not withdraw from its security zone in Lebanon.  

“In any case, we would not have withdrawn, and we will not do so in the future as long as Hezbollah is there,” he said.  

He added that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon but said any future withdrawal would depend on the Lebanese Army removing Hezbollah from the areas vacated by Israeli forces.  

“We have no territorial ambitions in Lebanon. The Lebanese Army will have to do the job in the areas from which the IDF withdraws. The IDF will have to verify that this has happened and that Hezbollah is no longer present in the areas from which it withdraws. The current mission is to remove Hezbollah from the Litani area.”  

Katz added: “I have no illusions. In the end, the one that will have to do the job is the IDF.”  

He also said Israel had made clear to the Americans that it would not withdraw from security zones in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria.  

“This is Israel’s new security doctrine,” Katz said. “The condition for leaving these areas is the disarmament of the terrorist organizations.”  

Katz noted that, as previously reported by N12, Israel offered to transfer responsibility for the Ali Taher Ridge to the Lebanese Army, but the Lebanese Army declined.  

He concluded: “We will respond to every Hezbollah violation. We will not tolerate violations. The equation still stands: rocket fire toward northern Israel and the frontline communities will be answered with strikes in Dahiyeh.”  

Katz also warned that fighting with Iran could resume at any time and said Israel was preparing for another military confrontation.  

Presenting Israel’s security doctrine for the northern front and the confrontation with Iran, Katz said the IDF had been instructed to prepare for what he described as a “Blue and White operation in Iran.”  

“If we have definitive intelligence about Iranian decisions, we will act on it,” Katz said. “If Iran attacks us with missiles, we will respond with force, and this has been made clear to the Americans.”  

He added: “The war with Iran will resume under one of two scenarios: if President Trump decides and we join, or if they fire at us, it will be the Third Iran War. Israel’s position is clear—there is no scenario in which Israel will allow missile fire on its territory.” 

June 29 (Reuters) – Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado said on Monday that she is “willing to do whatever it takes” to enter Venezuela to help with the country’s recovery efforts following last week’s back-to-back earthquakes. 

Machado, currently in Panama, accused the Venezuelan government of blocking her attempt to return to the country, and in a video posted on X said she “will be in Venezuela to help coordinate and encourage citizens’ efforts during the emergency.” 

She did not provide further details about her plan to enter Venezuela.

Machado had been living in hiding in Venezuela since claiming victory in the country’s disputed 2024 election. In December, she secretly fled Venezuela by boat to travel to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, which she later handed to U.S. President Donald Trump.

Machado’s desire to return to Venezuela has caused friction in Washington, where she has been asked to delay her return.

The opposition leader has contacted several U.S. administration officials, including at the White House, the State Department, and Congress members, to seek support for her possible return to Venezuela, a White House official told Reuters on Saturday.

The capture of former President Nicolas Maduro by U.S. forces in January had raised expectations among some opposition figures that Machado, 58, would take a leading role in governing Venezuela.

However, Trump threw his support behind Maduro’s former deputy, Delcy Rodriguez, saying Machado lacked the backing needed to lead the country in the near term.

Machado had said prior to the earthquakes that she expected to return to Venezuela before the end of the year.

“At this moment, I am willing to do whatever it takes, speak to whoever I need to speak to, in order to coordinate and serve our people,” Machado said on Monday.

(Reporting by Andre Romani and Iñigo Alexander; Editing by Kylie Madry and Daina Beth Solomon)

June 29 (Reuters) – Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy mocked Russia’s military drive on Monday, saying the Kremlin over the course of more than four years had set and put off 15 deadlines to capture the eastern Donbas region.

Zelenskiy’s comments amounted to a response to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s rejection a day earlier of what the Kremlin leader said was a Ukrainian proposal to abandon long-range strikes and scale down the fighting.

He said Putin’s comments showed he was out of touch with the feelings of Russians who faced queues at petrol stations, linked to a Ukrainian campaign of strikes on oil industry targets.

“Even an oil-producing state, a ‘gas station’ as Russia has often been called, is now facing fuel shortages,” Zelenskiy said in his nightly video address.

“This is a direct consequence of the war. One of many consequences. It is also one example of how Ukraine responds — with precision, not through terrorism.”

Zelenskiy explained at considerable length what he said had been 15 deadlines set — and later put back — by the Kremlin over the course of four years to capture four regions in eastern Ukraine — Donetsk and Luhansk in Donbas, and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

“Russia’s political leadership remains obsessed with Donbas,” he said. “If Russia does not end the war, it will have to postpone that deadline once again.”

In the weeks following the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Russian forces initially tried to advance on the capital Kyiv, but when they failed to complete that advance they withdrew and focused efforts on capturing Donbas.

Russia has captured all of the Luhansk region and large chunks of the Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions.

Although Moscow’s forces are slowly moving westward through Donetsk region, Ukrainian officials say the advance has slowed considerably while Ukraine steps up its campaign of medium and long-range drone strikes.

In a televised interview on Sunday, Putin said Russian forces would press ahead with their battlefield aim of fully capturing the four Ukrainian regions.

He acknowledged that Russians were subject to fuel shortages but rejected what he said was a new Ukrainian proposal to rein in hostilities as a ploy to relieve pressure on Kyiv’s military.

Zelenskiy, who this month wrote an open letter to Putin calling for a one-on-one meeting, made no comment on what the Russian president portrayed as a new proposal.

Zelenskiy said Ukraine had already put forward proposals to move towards an end of the war “and Russia rejects them every time”.

He said Russians who had yet to be subject to mobilisation “and are currently arguing in fuel queues should think carefully about what awaits them”.

(Reporting by Ron Popeski and Oleksandr Kozhukhar; Editing by Sonali Paul)

By Kanishka Singh

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) – A Maryland man was sentenced by a judge on Monday to 15 months in federal prison for making online threats, particularly toward Black and Muslim communities, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

Here are some details:

• U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson sentenced Raymond Pumphrey, 47, to 15 months, followed by three years of supervised release, the DOJ said in a statement.

• According to his guilty plea, Pumphrey made a series of threatening posts on YouTube and other social media sites to spread hateful rhetoric, especially against Black and Muslim communities, the DOJ said.

• He advocated for and threatened to participate in the killing of Black people in many large U.S. cities, according to the DOJ.

• He further threatened to kill multiple politicians and members of their families, it added.

• Rights advocates have over the years warned about online racism against Black Americans due to factors like white supremacy and gaps in online content moderation.

• They have also noted rising Islamophobia over the years, attributing it to the September 11, 2001 attacks; and more recently to anti-immigration policies, white supremacy and the fallout of Israel’s war ​in Gaza.

• U.S. political experts have separately warned about political violence amid rising polarization in the country.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)

PARIS, June 29 (Reuters) – Police in Monaco and neigbouring France were hunting for a man suspected of detonating a makeshift bomb in the centre of the Mediterranean principality on Monday and wounding several people, a local official said.

Two of the victims suffered life-threatening injuries, Christophe Mirmand, minister of state of Monaco, told BFM TV.

French emergency services deployed to the scene to provide back up and a joint police operation was underway to track down the fugitive, France’s interior ministry said.

“No event of this nature has ever happened in the Principality before,” Mirmand told the French news channel.

The blast occurred shortly before 9 p.m. (1900 GMT) in the centre of Monaco, a tax-free microstate on the French Riviera known as a haven for billionaires and their luxury yachts.

French newspaper Le Figaro said video surveillance images showed a man dropping a backpack at the entrance of a residential building shortly before the explosion. 

BFM TV described the explosive device as a “parcel bomb”, citing the principality’s prosecutor general.

Eric Ciotti, the right-wing mayor of nearby Nice, across the border in France, said on X: “The attack committed this evening is a tragedy for Monaco.”

(Reporting by Layli Foroudi; Editing by Richard Lough and Sanjeev Miglani)

LONDON, June 29 (Reuters) – Asylum seekers in Britain could have to repay the state around £10,000 ($13,222) for accommodation and basic living support before becoming eligible to apply for settlement, the government said on Monday in its latest effort to deter illegal migration.

Immigration is one of the most contested issues in British politics, consistently ranking among voters’ top concerns in opinion polls and at times fuelling protests and community tension.

The centre-left Labour Party has ratcheted up efforts to stop migrants arriving both legally and illegally, seeking to counter the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party, which has promised to deport up to 600,000 asylum seekers.

Interior minister Shabana Mahmood said her latest reforms were designed to reduce the burden on taxpayers.

“Receiving asylum support is a right, but it is also a responsibility,” she said. “Once people can contribute and repay the generosity of the British people, we expect them to do so.”

Under the proposed rules, only adults who can afford to pay would be charged, with safeguards to prevent them being pushed into destitution, the government said. The rules would not be applied retrospectively and children would be exempt.

The latest measures come at a politically sensitive moment for the Labour Party, which has faced internal divisions over how far to tighten immigration policy, as well as broader uncertainty following Keir Starmer’s announcement that he will step down as prime minister.

The interior ministry estimates that accommodating asylum seekers costs an average of £23.25 per person per night in temporary housing and £144 in hotels, plus a weekly subsistence payment. In total the annual cost of asylum accommodation and support was estimated at about £4 billion last year.

($1 = 0.7563 pounds)

(Reporting by Sam Tabahriti; editing by William James)

By Serhii Chalyi

ZAPORIZHZHIA, Ukraine, June 29 (Reuters) – Russian attacks on three major Ukrainian cities killed 10 people and wounded dozens on Monday, authorities said, with strikes continuing into the afternoon as the death toll climbed.

A missile attack in the southeastern city of Dnipro killed six people and wounded 29, regional governor Oleksandr Hanzha said on Telegram. He said a business, a school, private homes and cars had come under attack.

“Russia launched a missile strike on Dnipro, targeting infrastructure,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on X, adding that rescue operations were underway at the site.

“It is essential that Europe is as active as possible in developing its own anti-ballistic defence – its own systems and missiles,” he said.

Later, in his nightly video address, the president vowed a response to all the strikes. “And we are doing this so that, above all, it will affect the Russian state system and Russia’s ability to drag out the war,” he said.

In Zaporizhzhia, a city further southeast, a Russian drone attack on a minibus killed two men and a woman and injured eight, including a 7-year-old boy, regional officials said.

The regional governor, Ivan Fedorov, posted footage on Telegram of a white minibus, its floor bloodied and back doors damaged, with a body of a man inside.

Reuters Television footage showed a blackened minibus with its back doors blown out and a pool of blood on the floor.

“People are feeling the war more. What else can I say? This is terrorism, nothing else,” Svitlana Komarova, 58, whose husband was killed in the incident, told Reuters.

The driver of a nearby car damaged in the incident, Anatolii Natkin, described the attack as “very serious terror. So many gas stations have already been damaged”.

Fedorov also said seven people, including two children, were injured later when a drone exploded near a bus.

In Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, in the northeast, a glide bomb killed a 23-year-old woman and wounded 10, according to officials.

That strike damaged a tram and more than 15 cars, Mayor Ihor Terekhov said. Reuters Television footage showed police and forensic experts combing through the site and a body covered in a tarp lying nearby.

Another glide bomb flew in less than an hour later but failed to detonate.

Kharkiv, Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia, three large industrial cities, have come under repeated Russian attacks during the war, now in its fifth year.

There was no comment from Russia on the attacks. Its war in Ukraine has killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians. Moscow has also accused Ukraine of hitting civilian targets during attacks on Russia or Russian-occupied areas, though on a much smaller scale. Both sides deny targeting civilians.

(Reporting by Anna Pruchnicka and Max HunderEditing by Gareth Jones, Peter Graff, Ron Popeski and Sanjeev Miglani)

BELGRADE, Serbia (AP) — Serbia’s populist President Aleksandar Vucic on Monday said that early general elections in the Balkan country will be held in the next three to four months, and reiterated he will resign the presidential post ahead of the vote.

Vucic offered no exact dates. At a rally Saturday, he told supporters that it was likely the last time he would address them as president and said he will step down within weeks.

The move is widely seen as a political maneuver that would allow Vucic to become prime minister, formally the most powerful office in the country. Vucic is serving his second presidential term and is barred from running again.

“Yes, it is logical that we will have elections soon, and when I say soon I mean the next three-four months,” Vucic said. He added he is yet to decide whether to seek the prime minister’s post if his Serbian Progressive Party, SNS, wins the future parliamentary vote.

“Whatever I decide and whatever decision I make, it will be transparent, just like I have done by announcing my resignation,” he said, adding he could step down any time in July, August or September. “It will be no surprise.”

Once Vucic formally resigns, the presidential ballot must be held within the next 90 days. Regular presidential and parliamentary elections in Serbia are due next year.

Vucic has faced more than a year of mass street protests that first started in response to a train station tragedy in Serbia’s north which killed 16 people. A youth-led movement demanding accountability for the station canopy collapse has shaken Vucic’s firm grip on power more than ever in the past.

Before he became president in 2017, Vucic had previously already served as prime minister.

The populist leader has gradually tightened his rule since his right-wing SNS party came to power in 2012. He has pushed back aggressively against the protesters, and has faced European Union criticism over Serbia’s democratic backsliding, including a media clampdown.

Hundreds of people have been detained while protesters and international human rights groups have accused Serbian police of using excessive force and carrying out arbitrary arrests.

Anti-government protesters have blamed the fall of a concrete canopy at the Novi Sad railway station on alleged corruption-fueled negligence in big state infrastructure projects.

The United States and Iran have less than 60 days to negotiate a permanent end to the war, but they still seem to be at odds over the interim deal they reached this month.

It’s not even clear when the two sides will meet again. “The situation is sensitive and complex,” a senior Iranian negotiator, Kazem Gharibabadi, posted Monday on X.

Talks are just one of the pressing questions. Others include the Strait of Hormuz, which the U.S. says is open while Iran insists on a measure of control. The issue led both sides to carry out days of military strikes that appeared on Monday to have ended.

Here’s a look at what both sides have said about key sticking points, including the ongoing fighting in Lebanon, and why the conflict is still far from resolved.

WHAT THE U.S. SAYS:

“IRAN HAS REQUESTED A MEETING. IT WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW IN DOHA!” U.S. President Donald Trump posted on social media Monday.

WHAT IRAN SAYS:

“There are no negotiation meetings with the U.S. side at any level scheduled in the coming days,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said Monday.

WHAT’S GOING ON:

The U.S. and Iran have a roughly mid-August deadline to reach a permanent peace deal including an agreement on Iran’s disputed nuclear program.

What’s ahead are technical talks involving lower-level diplomats before any return to the table by top negotiators. Mediators are eager to get going. Pakistan, a key mediator along with Qatar, has said talks would resume Tuesday.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News on Monday that envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, were flying to Qatar to meet with the Iranians and that technical negotiations would occur on the sidelines.

Later, Iranian state media cited Baghaei as saying an expert delegation will travel to Qatar this week but with no planned U.S. meetings.

There’s plenty to discuss, including arrangements around the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions waivers on Iran and the future of Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

But the deal says fighting must stop before further negotiations. After the exchange of fire over the weekend, Iran on Sunday threatened a “complete halt” in talks. On Monday, both sides appeared to pause their attacks. Tehran may be waiting to see if that holds.

WHAT THE U.S. SAYS:

The Strait of Hormuz is open, according to the interim deal.

WHAT IRAN SAYS:

Iran insists it must govern the strait. “Any attempt to establish new or separate arrangements from those currently being carried out by the Islamic Republic of Iran will only lead to further complications, delay the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and increase the level of tension,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday.

WHAT’S GOING ON:

This AP explainer is a good start. But in short, Iran during the war discovered a powerful new source of leverage in the waterway that carried a fifth of the world’s oil and gas before the conflict.

The interim deal says Iran should immediately facilitate commercial shipping through the strait that lies between it and Oman. It says Iran can work with Oman and other Persian Gulf countries to administer the waterway in line with international laws ensuring freedom of navigation.

Iran says shippers must use its designated routes and coordinate with its authorities. It has objected to a new route overseen by the U.S. that runs along Oman. That sparked the fighting over the weekend.

The Trump administration is operating on the understanding that the U.S. and Iran are standing down and vessels can move freely through the strait, a U.S. official said Monday on condition of anonymity to discuss the closed-door negotiations.

Ships have begun transiting again, but traffic is still below prewar levels.

WHAT IRAN SAYS:

Fighting must stop everywhere and Israel must withdraw from Lebanon before moving ahead on other issues.

WHAT HEZBOLLAH SAYS:

The Iranian-backed militant group will resist Israel’s occupation of large parts of southern Lebanon, and linking Israel’s withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament is a “very dangerous suggestion,” Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem said Saturday.

WHAT ISRAEL SAYS:

Israeli forces will remain in southern Lebanon “until Hezbollah and the rest of the terrorist organizations are disarmed, and until no further threat to Israel is posed from Lebanon,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

WHAT’S GOING ON:

A separate set of U.S.-brokered talks have been held between Israel and Lebanon’s government.

Iran says its interim deal with the U.S., which calls for a complete ceasefire in Lebanon, requires Israel to withdraw. But a separate U.S.-brokered agreement between Lebanon and Israel allows Israeli forces to stay in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah has been disarmed. Hezbollah was not part of those talks and has rejected that deal.

Hezbollah attacked Israel two days after it and the United States attacked Iran on Feb. 28. Israel responded with aerial bombardment and a ground invasion.

Israel has vowed to keep forces in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah’s threat is eliminated. Lebanon’s government does not have the capacity to disarm Hezbollah by force.

Sporadic clashes continued in Lebanon over the weekend. That could delay Iran’s return to the negotiating table.

___

Associated Press writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed.