only a week after the devastating port explosion (which suceeded the government’s interests in a chinese partnership for investment in the port), David Hale was in beirut providing no concrete support but rather aiming to delineate the lebanese maritime boundries with isra*l.

Despite the so-competent-FBI’s hand in investigation no satisfactory explaination was reached concernig the explosion. Schenker followed in his step ascertaining the US’s adamant interest in the maritime borders.

While cooperation remained reluctant on the lebanese side, attempts to pressure this reluctance were evident i.e the American sanctions that were done gradually rather than all at once in an attempt to draw out a compromise from the reluctant side

,and only recently another explosion took place targetting a HA-associated-base that was claimed to be a “technical accident” by HA themselves.

While there is no evident reasons to disprove this or take the cause to be otherwise, I think the odds are too coincidential for them to be ruled out.

1.such an accident on HA’s side seems very dubious and somewhat out of character considering HA being one of the most disciplined and organized non-state actors in the region 2. The close temporal proximity of the two explosions

3. as well as the heavy IDF drone presence preceeding both incidents.

i suppose, HA remains insistent about them being innocent accidents and refuse to entertain such probable and grounded suspicions —in light of pressures targeting the resistance (American sanctions/allegations

& recent Gulf-Israeli alliance) and being preoccupied ensuring stability and persistence in lebanon and for their party— for any acknowledgement of the incidents as zio-american in origin would be weakening their position in terms of the “Rules of Engagement”-

-that they have worked so hard on instilling as ground rules for their resistance activity.