gotchanewsdaily.com 
According to polls, Israeli public opinion regarding the cease-fire is also divided down the middle.
In essence, the cease-fire falls far short of what Netanyahu had outlined as his goal for military action in Lebanon: Crushing Hezbollah in much the same way he’s been crushing Hamas in Gaza. Still, the Israeli leader argued he wasn’t letting the militant Shiite group off the hook, saying “Hezbollah is no longer the same. It has gone back decades.” But the deal doesn’t involve disarming Hezbollah, which has the possibility to militarily regroup and live to fight another day with the thousands of long-range and short-range missiles, drones and rockets it still likely has.
Rather, the truce will see only the partial implementation of 2006 U.N. Resolution 1701 — meaning no Hezbollah presence south of the Litani, no units, no rockets and no tunnels, yet without the requirement for all Lebanese groups, including Hezbollah, to disarm.
So why should it be different this time? The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) is no match for the Lebanese Shiite militia, even in its now degraded state, and it has failed to compel Hezbollah to withdraw to the Litani before. In fact, more Shiites have entered LAF ranks since 2006, raising the question of divided loyalties.
More immediately, much depends on how Hezbollah’s bosses in Tehran proceed. There seems little appetite in the Iranian capital to enrage Trump — the country is hardly in shape to fight a proxy war against Israel while Trump turns the screws on Iran economically. Thus, Iran has been pushing the door ajar for talks with Washington about resuming negotiations over its nuclear program.
The cease-fire has Tehran’s support too — at least for now. On Wednesday, it welcomed what it called the end of Israel’s “aggression” in Lebanon, and Ali Larijani, an adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said the country backed a cease-fire in videos posted earlier this week. However, there was also a sting in the tail, as he warned Hezbollah hadn’t yet utilized “its most important equipment” and that if it did in the future, “the situation could change entirely.”
Here, Larijani was speaking in the context of how Iran might respond to Israel’s Oct. 26 airstrikes on Iranian military targets — retaliation for a previous Iranian missile barrage on Israel. “Military officials are exploring various options for such a response,” he added.
How Iran responds will no doubt determine whether the cease-fire is short-lived.
