English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For  August 19/2025
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2025/english.August19.25.htm

News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006 

Click On The Below Link To Join Elias Bejjaninews whatsapp group
https://chat.whatsapp.com/FPF0N7lE5S484LNaSm0MjW
اضغط على الرابط في أعلى للإنضمام لكروب Eliasbejjaninews whatsapp group

Elias Bejjani/Click on the below link to subscribe to my youtube channel
الياس بجاني/اضغط على الرابط في أسفل للإشتراك في موقعي ع اليوتيوب
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAOOSioLh1GE3C1hp63Camw

Bible Quotations For today
will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing.
Luke 12/22-31: “Jesus said to his disciples, ‘Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? If then you are not able to do so small a thing as that, why do you worry about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you you of little faith! And do not keep striving for what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not keep worrying. For it is the nations of the world that strive after all these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, strive for his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.”

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on August 18-19/2025
Nabih Berri and the Heresy of Dialogue: A Fake Cover for the Iranian Occupation/Elias Bejjani/August 18/2025
Text and Video: Deconstructing the Deceptions, Foreign Agendas, and Terrorism in the Speech of Naim Qassem—Iran's Puppet and an Enemy of the Lebanese/Elias Bejjani/August 15/2025
In the eighth anniversary of the Fajer El-Jaroud Battle, an interview from "Sawt al-Libnan" with the Army Leader of that battle, General Fadi Daoud
Netanyahu says Lebanon strikes in line with ceasefire agreement
Israeli official says withdrawal after Lebanon takes 'actual steps'
US envoy backs Lebanon’s step-by-step policy for disarmament of Hezbollah
Barrack says Israel's turn to 'comply' as Lebanon moves to disarm Hezbollah
Aoun tells Barrack Israel and Syria need to commit to declaration paper
Aoun stresses 'step-for-step' approach with Israel
Salam tells Barrack of need for int'l conference for reconstruction, recovery
Berri tells Barrack Israeli pullout 'gateway to stability'
Berri urges dialogue, rules out civil strife
Trump Administration Moves to Phase Out UNIFIL
Europe pushes back as US seeks to end UN peacekeeping in Lebanon
Beirut Blast Victims' Families Reject Treason Allegations Against William Noun
Lebanon’s Sovereignty Tested at the Syrian Border/Mario Chartouni/This is Beirut/August 18, 2025
Barrack and Ortagus End Tour On a Hopeful Note for Lebanon
Mistrust and fear: The complex story behind strained Syria-Lebanon relations
Terrorists' Brinkmanship/Dr. Charles Chartouni/This Is Beirut/August 18/2025
Lebanon’s real battle is inside the Shia house/Yassin K. Fawaz/The Arab Weekly/August 18/2025
Lebanon and the Possible Scenarios/Dr. Nassif Hitti/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 18-19/2025
Zelensky, Trump express hope for trilateral talks with Putin to bring end to Russia-Ukraine war
What to Know About Zelenskyy’s Meeting with Trump
Iran warns war with Israel could resume at any time
Hamas agrees to new Gaza ceasefire proposal
Egypt says ready to take part in international force for Gaza
Israel says will deliver humanitarian aid to South Sudan
Amnesty says Israel deliberately starving Gaza's Palestinians
Tens of thousands of Israelis protest as army presses on with Gaza war plan
Druze demand self determination, wave Israeli flags in Syria demo
Historic drought, wheat shortage to test Syria's new leadership
Strategic shift as Egypt prepares to join Turkey’s KAAN stealth fighter project

Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources on August 18-19/2025
The Palestinian Authority's Human 'Slaughterhouse'/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/August 18, 2025
Turkey and Syria warn Israel and Kurds against fuelling ‘chaos’ in Syria/The Arab Weekly/August 18/2025
Larijani in Baghdad, others in Beirut/Karam NamaThe Arab Weekly/August 18/2025
Where Did Iran’s Arab Supporters Disappear?/Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025
The Solo Player and Czar’s Red Carpet /Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025
Trump and Putin: History, Strategy, and Interests /Ahmad Mahmoud Ajaj/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025
Selected tweets for 18 August/2025

The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on August 18-19/2025
Nabih Berri and the Heresy of Dialogue: A Fake Cover for the Iranian Occupation
Elias Bejjani/August 18/2025
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2025/08/146411/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb2a8NKddKk
For decades, the Speaker of Parliament and head of the Amal Movement, Nabih Berri, has been selling illusions to the Lebanese people under the banners of “dialogue” and the so-called “defensive strategy,” as if the Constitution, the Taif Agreement, and international resolutions were mere opinions or negotiable papers. In reality, everything Berri does is nothing but a circumvention of the law, an assault on the Constitution, and a blatant collusion with Hezbollah to keep Lebanon hostage to illegal weapons and under Iranian tutelage.
Constitutional Heresies in the Name of Dialogue
All that is being called “dialogue” or a “defensive/national strategy” is nothing but constitutional heresy. Its sole purpose is to jump over clear legal texts and to justify the continued existence of Hezbollah’s weapons, its parallel state, and its occupation of Lebanon. Sovereignty is not a matter of negotiation but a binding duty of the state, one that cannot be subjected to political bargaining or opportunistic deals.
Berri’s Empty Roundtables
The so-called national dialogue sessions presided over by Nabih Berri in 2006 are the clearest evidence: not a single clause was ever implemented. They turned into a dull theatrical performance to waste time. President Michel Suleiman followed the same path, launching a dialogue that ended with the Baabda Declaration, only to see Hezbollah openly defy it. The group told Suleiman, “Tear it up and drink its water,” before sending its militias into Syria to help the criminal Bashar al-Assad massacre the Syrian people demanding freedom.
No Mention of Dialogue in Any Agreement
Neither the Taif Agreement, nor international resolutions 1559, 1701, and 1680, nor even the most recent ceasefire agreement—signed by Nabih Berri himself with Hezbollah’s approval to halt the war with Israel—contained a single mention of “dialogue” or a “defensive strategy.” All of these agreements explicitly affirmed that weapons must remain exclusively in the hands of the Lebanese state. Berri signed these clauses, only to betray them later, hiding behind false slogans to justify Hezbollah’s continued dominance.
No State With Hezbollah’s Weapons
There can be no independent, sovereign state that shares its decision-making in war and peace with a militia or a party. The use of force must rest solely with the state and its legitimate army. Any claim to the contrary is high treason and an assault on national sovereignty.
Berri: Corruption and Betrayal of Sovereignty
Nabih Berri, who has dominated Parliament for decades, is the number one corrupt politician and the ultimate protector of corruption. He prostituted the Constitution, dismantled the pillars of the state, and turned it into a personal fiefdom for himself and his cronies. In fact, he is a million times more dangerous than Hezbollah, because he provided the group with the political, legal, and parliamentary cover it needed. Anyone who describes him as “concerned for the country” is either a fool who understands nothing, or a submissive lackey who accepts humiliation.
No Legitimacy for Dialogue or Fake Strategies
Nabih Berri’s call for dialogue on disarming Hezbollah is rejected outright:
Because with a President of the Republic in place, Berri has no right to usurp executive roles that do not belong to him.
Because enforcing the Constitution and the law is not a matter of “opinion” or a negotiable item.
Because the legislative authority, which Berri chairs, has no executive power, and any attempt to cross that line is a constitutional crime.
Conclusion
Anyone who boasts about dialogue or defensive strategies as a way to resolve the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons is nothing but a traitor, a collaborator, and an accomplice to the Iranian occupation against Lebanon. The Constitution is clear, the international resolutions are even clearer, and the solution will never come from new, futile dialogues, but from a sovereign and decisive decision that enforces the state’s monopoly over arms and permanently dismantles Hezbollah’s mini-state and Nabih Berri’s corrupt regime.

Text and Video: Deconstructing the Deceptions, Foreign Agendas, and Terrorism in the Speech of Naim Qassem—Iran's Puppet and an Enemy of the Lebanese.
Elias Bejjani/August 15/2025
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2025/08/146313/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUdE7FE6pzc&t=150s
Today’s speech by Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, is a full-fledged declaration of war. It came just after the visit of the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, to Beirut. Larijani met with President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and he heard clear, sovereign, and constitutional words from them: no weapons outside state control, decisions of war and peace are only in the hands of state institutions, No for foreign interference, and the Lebanese army is the sole guarantor of national security.
Qassem, hiding in an underground lair—perhaps in Iran or inside the Iranian embassy in Beirut—gave a recorded, rebellious speech. He confirmed he is nothing more than a trumpet and a tool for the mullahs of Iran, leaving no doubt that he was carrying out Larijani’s orders and instructions, both in letter and in spirit. In his address, Qassem issued a direct threat to the state and the army, saying: “If you decide to eliminate us, let it be clear that we will fight our battle to the end, and we will not allow a repeat of Karbala,” adding, “Either we live together on the terms of the resistance, or farewell to Lebanon.”
These statements are not just emotional rhetoric; they are a clear announcement that Hezbollah, under direct Iranian orders, will consider any attempt by the Lebanese state to impose its authority over its weapons a battle for survival, even if it’s against the Lebanese army itself. He did not stop at threats and disgusting shrieks. He also resorted to his pathological delusions of grandeur, claiming that Hezbollah “prevented Israel from achieving its goals” and that the South is “protected by the resistance’s weapons.”
The reality is quite different: in the last confrontation with Israel, Hezbollah suffered painful blows, losing most of its leaders commanders and weakening its military structure. Its weapons couldn’t even protect Hassan Nasrallah himself. This narrative of fake and false victories is meant to hide the failure and justify the continued existence of an illegitimate and non-Lebanese weapon that is an enemy of Lebanon and its people.
In an attempt to give Hezbollah’s weapons popular legitimacy, Qassem cited a “public opinion poll” that claims the majority of Lebanese support the “resistance strategy.” However, this poll was conducted by an institution affiliated with Hezbollah itself, which strips it of any scientific value or impartiality. The political, electoral, and popular facts confirm that the majority of Lebanese, including a large segment of the Shia community, reject the continued dominance, terrorism, Persian influence, and occupation by Hezbollah, as well as its control over the decision of war and peace and the dragging of the country into futile and destructive Iranian wars.
The most dangerous aspect of Qassem’s threatening speech today is that it falls directly under the articles of the Lebanese Penal Code:
Article 329: Armed threat to prevent authorities from performing their duties.
Article 314: Acts that cause public panic and threaten civil peace.
Article 315: Terrorist acts that lead to the disruption of state facilities.
By these standards, what Qassem said with brazenness, immorality, and depravity constitutes a full-fledged crime, requiring his immediate arrest and prosecution. He openly incited armed rebellion and announced the readiness of the terrorist Hezbollah to engage in a civil war if the constitution is applied.
In practice, Naim Qassem’s speech is a literal translation of Iranian orders carried by Larijani from Tehran to Hezbollah. These positions have nothing to do with Lebanese sovereignty or civil peace. Rather, it is a declaration of absolute loyalty to the authority of the mullahs, who see Lebanon merely as a battlefield for their wars and its people as sandbags, hostages, and their fuel.
The stark difference between the constitutional language of Presidents Aoun and Salam and Qassem’s response in the language of “Karbala” reveals the clear difference between those who want a state and those who want a terrorist, jihadist mini-state loyal to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
In a reading of Naim Qassem’s words, the following eight points can be highlighted:
First: A Threatening Karbala-Style Speech Against the State and the Army
Naim Qassem’s speech, which came one day after the visit of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani to Lebanon and their meeting, clearly exposes Hezbollah’s complete subordination to Iran and its operation according to the agenda of the Revolutionary Guard. While Larijani listened to direct and explicit sovereign and independent stances from Presidents Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam, Qassem chose to respond with a direct threatening tone against the Lebanese government, describing its decision as the implementation of “an Israeli and American paper.” Even more dangerous is his implicit and explicit declaration that Hezbollah is ready to confront the Lebanese army with a “Karbala concept,” should the state try to implement the constitution and disarm it. Qassem’s words represent a clear declaration of rebellion against the state and a readiness to enter into a civil war if Hezbollah’s dominance is threatened.
Second: The Majority of Lebanese, Including many Shiites, Are Against Hezbollah’s Weapons
Contrary to the lies and fabricated illusions that Qassem repeats, the popular and political reality in Lebanon today is clear: the majority of Lebanese, including many from the Shia community, reject the continued existence of Hezbollah’s weapons. These weapons have caused Lebanon’s isolation, destroyed its economy, dragged it into losing wars with Israel, and held it hostage to an Iranian decision that has nothing to do with the country’s interest. The people of the South themselves have paid a heavy price with their lives and homes because of Hezbollah’s adventures, and they realize that Lebanon’s true protection lies in a strong state with its army and laws, not in a sectarian Iranian militia.
Third: The Hypocrisy of the Alleged Poll
In an attempt to polish his party’s image, Qassem cited what he called a “public opinion poll” claiming that the majority of Lebanese support Hezbollah’s weapons and the defensive strategy it proposes. These are false claims, as the poll was conducted by the “Consultative Center for Studies,” an institution directly affiliated with Hezbollah, which robs it of any credibility. The goal of these lies is to create the illusion of popular support, while the political, electoral, and street realities prove the opposite.
Fourth: The Lie of Preventing Israel from Achieving its Goals
Qassem’s claim that Hezbollah prevented Israel from achieving its goals, including establishing settlements in the South, is a distortion of history. Hezbollah itself failed in the war of support for Gaza, which it began with an Iranian order. This resulted in the assassination of most of its leaders, field commanders, the displacement of Shiite people from the South and the southern suburbs, and the destruction of their areas. Its weapons couldn’t even protect Hassan Nasrallah personally, let alone Lebanon. This defeat is part of a larger defeat that Iran suffered during the 12 days when Israel and the United States destroyed its nuclear facilities and air defense systems, and assassinated dozens of its military and political leaders and nuclear scientists. The link is clear: Iran’s defeat is Hezbollah’s defeat, because the militia is nothing but an Iranian arm in Lebanon.
Fifth: Hezbollah… The Enemy of Lebanon
It is necessary to call things by their names: Hezbollah is not the protector of Lebanon; it is Lebanon’s primary enemy. Its weapons are not for defending the borders or confronting Israel, but for dominating national decisions and maintaining the Iranian occupation of Lebanon. These weapons are a tool to impose a unilateral political will that contradicts the principles of sovereignty, the constitution, and living together.
Sixth: Illegitimate Weapons and a Rogue Iranian Gang
Since its establishment in 1982, Hezbollah has been involved in a series of crimes covered by the Lebanese Penal Code under terrorism, murder, threats, and restricting freedoms, in addition to engaging in drug trafficking and manufacturing, money laundering, and arms smuggling etc.
Seventh: The Most Dangerous Threat
Qassem said it plainly: “There is no life for Lebanon if you decide to eliminate us. Either we live together, or farewell to Lebanon.” This is an existential threat to the state and the people, and a clear message that Hezbollah considers Lebanon its private property, and that the survival of the nation is conditional on the survival of the militia.
Eighth: The Necessity of Arresting and Prosecuting Naim Qassem
Based on the content of this speech and in accordance with the articles of the laws mentioned at the beginning of the text—which include incitement to sectarian strife, direct threats to the government and the army, and brazen boasting of committing acts criminalized by Lebanese laws—the national and legal duty requires the immediate arrest of Naim Qassem and his prosecution according to the articles of the Penal Code related to terrorism and armed rebellion.

In the eighth anniversary of the Fajer El-Jaroud Battle, an interview from "Sawt al-Libnan" with the Army Leader of that battle, General Fadi Daoud
The Fajer El-Jaroud battle solidified the unity of the army and the people.
Fadi Daoud to Sawt al-Libnan and VDL24 screen: "Fajer el-Jaroud" solidified the unity of the army and the people, and the party's tone changed with Iran's entry into the picture.
Sawt al-Libnan/August 18, 2025
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2025/08/146419/
The commander of the "Fajer el-Jaroud" battle, retired Commando Brigadier General Fadi Daoud, said during an interview with Sawt al-Libnan and VDL24 screen, "We are not only facing the anniversary of a military battle (Fajer el-Jaroud) but a battle that solidified the unity of the army and the people together, and an occasion that established the army's ability to fight battles against terrorism, while the countries of the region were hesitant to do so."
He pointed out that the Lebanese army expelled the "ISIS" organization in this battle, noting that this battle was the third and most dangerous episode of the takfiri emirate project that he was working on, and he went back in history to the year 2000 when the martyr officer Milad al-Naddaf was kidnapped and what happened then.
He continued: "The terrorists entered the Fajer El-Jarouds to cut off an area from it to establish the takfiri emirate, noting that one of the terrorist elements was wounded in the battle, and while he was being taken to the hospital, he kissed the foot of a Lebanese army element to return him to the battlefield to die in it, and this indicates the mentality they were fighting with, as these are people who were misled."
He believed that anyone who doubts the ability of the Lebanese army institution is doubting himself, especially if he is a military person, as the army has been victorious in every joint, and we are always asked abroad about this special link between the people and the Lebanese army. Regarding the army's ability to repel any attack, he said: "The army is capable according to the capabilities it currently possesses, but if it is asked to deploy on the borders and maintain security in the border areas and in other Lebanese areas, this requires increasing its numbers and capabilities, as no army, no matter how large, can carry out all these missions at once."Regarding the extension of the UNIFIL forces, he pointed out that there are more than one indication that their work will stop, as in recent years many problems have appeared between them and the people, and with every extension, a modification of their work system was requested, which indicates that the day will come when they will stop working permanently, considering that the problem of border control is an internal problem, and the ministerial statement previously allowed the resistance to work, unlike today.
He said: "The recent positions of the government are met with American approval, which has been long-awaited approval, especially since these positions were stipulated in the oath speech and the ministerial statement, and things are going in the right direction, and the implementation of the decision to exclusively hold weapons remains." He believed that Iran is trying to gain time in an attempt to escape forward. He pointed out that Israel is implementing what is required of it in American policy, noting that the American media described President Joe Biden as weak, and despite that, he made Netanyahu back down from a major military action, which means that there is a major American policy happening in the Middle East, and Trump wants to achieve achievements during his term, and he wants to end all crises from now until 2027, and he also wants to include Iran in his policy.

Netanyahu says Lebanon strikes in line with ceasefire agreement
Naharnet/August 18, 2025
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that “the bombing on Lebanon is taking place according to the ceasefire agreement.”“We will target any violation of the agreement by Hezbollah,” Netanyahu vowed. In a speech focused on Gaza, the Israeli PM also boasted that the Israeli air force has “attacked Hezbollah commanders and the openings of tunnels for rocket launchpads” since the November agreement came into effect. Under the November truce agreement, weapons in Lebanon were to be restricted to the state and Israel was to fully withdraw its troops from the country, although it has kept forces at five border points it deems strategic. Israel has routinely carried out air strikes in Lebanon despite the ceasefire, and has signaled it would not hesitate to launch destructive military operations if Beirut failed to disarm Hezbollah.

Israeli official says withdrawal after Lebanon takes 'actual steps'
Naharnet/August 18, 2025
An unnamed Israeli official on Monday responded to remarks by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack, who is visiting Lebanon, by saying that “there is no intention to keep occupying Lebanese territory.”“We’ll do what’s needed when Lebanon’s leadership takes actual steps,” the official added, according to Al-Arabiya television. “We will discuss withdrawal from the five points in Lebanon with the (ceasefire) monitoring committee,” the Israeli official said. Barrack on Monday called on Israel to honour commitments under a ceasefire that ended its war with Hezbollah, after the Lebanese government launched a process to disarm the militant group. "There's always a step-by-step approach but I think the Lebanese government has done their part. They've taken the first step. Now what we need is Israel to comply," Barrack said following a meeting in Beirut with President Joseph Aoun.

US envoy backs Lebanon’s step-by-step policy for disarmament of Hezbollah
NAJIA HOUSSARI/Arab News/August 18, 2025
BEIRUT: US envoy Tom Barrack on Monday called on Israel to honor its commitments under the ceasefire agreement that ended its war with Hezbollah, after the Lebanese government launched a process to disarm the group. During a visit to Beirut, Barrack affirmed Lebanon’s commitment to a “step-by-step policy” for implementation of the plan to strip Hezbollah of its weapons. Following a series of meetings with Lebanese officials, Barrack told Hezbollah and Iran: “Hezbollah is part of the Shiite sect and must understand which option is better than the one currently available. “The next step entails working with the government to clarify what this means, how we can restore prosperity, who will invest in it, who will participate, and how we can bring Israel and Iran to cooperate. "In the end, Iran is still our neighbor and everyone should play a role in this matter. There should be cooperation, not hostility and confrontation.”
The Lebanese government announced on Aug. 7 that it would bring all weaponry in Lebanon under state control within a specified time frame. It instructed the army to draw up a plan for disarming Hezbollah in areas south of the Litani River and submit it to the cabinet in early September, with implementation scheduled to begin by the end of the year.
This sparked a political crisis within Hezbollah, which categorically rejected the plan. The group’s secretary-general, Naim Qassem, said: “We will not give up a single weapon.”
Hezbollah has set a number of conditions before it will enter into any talks about its weapons, including an end to Israeli hostilities and assassinations of its members, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied areas in southern Lebanon.
Barrack and fellow US envoy Morgan Ortagus first met with President Joseph Aoun. The president’s office said he “asked his guest whether he had received an Israeli response to the US proposal and Lebanon’s remarks on it.”
Barrack said that “the Israelis have not yet responded,” and “the US had also not received an answer from the Syrian side regarding the eastern and northern borders, as outlined in the US proposal.”A source at the Presidential Palace told Arab News that Barrack congratulated Aoun on the Lebanese government’s decision. Their discussion focused on the renewal of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon’s mandate at the end of this month, the source added, noting that “the American side insisted this year should be the UN peacekeepers’ last.”
Aoun reiterated calls “to support the Lebanese army in light of the missions assigned to it, particularly the deployment in the south and along the eastern and northern borders, to facilitate the implementation of the army’s disarmament plan.”
The president also reminded the US representatives of the need for the reconstruction project for southern Lebanon, parts of which were destroyed by Israel during its most recent conflict with Hezbollah, to proceed swiftly to provide displaced citizens with stability.
Barrack described the hour-long meeting with Aoun as excellent and said he hoped to see progress over the next few weeks.
“The next step is we need participation on the part of Israel, and we need an economic plan for prosperity, restoration and renovation, for all regions, not just the south,” he said.
“When we talk about disarming Hezbollah, it is actually for the (Shiites) … It’s not (anti-Shiite). The idea is that the (Shiite) population is Lebanese. This is a Lebanese decision that requires Israel’s cooperation.”Barrack said that what is required is “the implementation of the (existing) ceasefire agreement that has been violated. We do not have a new agreement and our goal is not to create a new one. “There’s always a step-by-step approach but I think the Lebanese government has done their part. They’ve taken the first step. Now what we need is Israel to comply.”
If Hezbollah refuses to surrender its weapons, Barrack said the group “will have missed an opportunity. But at this stage, everyone is cooperating.”He added: “We are beginning long discussions and I believe that this will proceed, step-by-step. The major step was what the president and the government’s team undertook in giving us an opportunity to help, for the US to help with this transition, and to reach a more peaceful relationship with its neighbors.
“We are not considering issuing any threats. This is complicated. When we talk about disarmament, they ask, ‘What will we gain and how do we protect ourselves?’ They say, ‘We have regional forces that protect us. Will the Lebanese army protect us? What is the transitional phase, and what does the future hold for us?’”Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese parliament, also held talks with the American envoys, which focused on Israel’s commitment to the ceasefire agreement, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. “Such a commitment is the gateway to stability in Lebanon, and an opportunity to launch reconstruction and pave the way for the return of residents to their towns, in addition to securing the requirements for supporting the Lebanese army,” Berri said, according to his media office. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam told the US envoys the government’s latest decisions were based on the national interest. Washington “should carry out its responsibility in pressing Israel to halt hostilities, withdraw from (Lebanese territory) and release captives,” he added. Salam also stressed “the priority of supporting and enhancing the capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces, in salaries and equipment, to enable them to perform the missions requested from them, and the importance of renewing the mandate of the UNIFIL forces in light of their role in consolidating stability and supporting the army in extending the state’s authority in the south.”Salam’s office said the discussions also addressed “developments in Syria, with both sides emphasizing the importance of preserving its unity and enhancing stability there.”Barrack and Ortagus also met Gen. Rodolph Haykal, commander of the Lebanese army, to discuss assistance for his forces in the implementation of the disarmament plan. The US officials traveled from Lebanon to Israel on Monday afternoon. Israeli media quoted a political source as saying that Israel would play its part in the process when Lebanon was seen to be taking concrete steps. A withdrawal from Lebanese territory would take place through a coordinated mechanism with the ceasefire-agreement committee, the source added, and Israel has no intention of retaining any of that territory. However, a Lebanese military source warned of “a dangerous Israeli expansion in recent weeks across the southern border territories, without any deterrence.”The source said Israel had established military barracks at Al-Mahafir Hill on the outskirts of the border town of Adaisseh, created a new post near the outskirts of Kfar Kila, adjacent to the separation wall, and blocked several kilometers of the border with concrete walls extending from the northern entrance of Adaisseh, opposite Misgav Am, to Talat Al-Hamames, alongside Kfar Kila’s wall opposite the Metula settlement. The source told Arab News that Israel was attempting to establish a closed security belt extending up to 3 kilometers deep in places.

Barrack says Israel's turn to 'comply' as Lebanon moves to disarm Hezbollah
Agence France Presse/Associated Press/August 18, 2025
U.S. envoy Tom Barrack on Monday called on Israel to honor commitments under a ceasefire that ended its war with Hezbollah, after the Lebanese government launched a process to disarm the militant group. Under the November truce agreement, weapons in Lebanon were to be restricted to the state and Israel was to fully withdraw its troops from the country, although it has kept forces at five border points it deems strategic. "I think the Lebanese government has done their part. They've taken the first step. Now what we need is Israel to comply," Barrack said following a meeting in Beirut with President Joseph Aoun. Asked by reporters about whether he expected to see Israel fully withdraw from Lebanese territory, Barrack said that "that's exactly the next step" needed. To the U.S. diplomat, "the next step is we need participation on the part of Israel, and we need an economic plan for prosperity, restoration and renovation" in Lebanon, weighed down by dire political and economic crises in recent years. Barrack said Washington was "in the process of now discussing with Israel what their position is," adding that "in the next few weeks you're going to see progress on all sides."
"It means a better life for the people... and at least the beginning of a roadway to a different kind of dialogue" in the region, he said. Barrack is also set to meet with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Speaker Nabih Berri, who often negotiates on behalf of Hezbollah with Washington. The U.S. diplomat's visit comes less than two weeks after Lebanon's cabinet tasked the army with developing a plan to disarm Iran-backed Hezbollah by the end of the year -- an unprecedented step since civil war factions gave up their weapons decades ago. A second cabinet meeting on August 7 tackled a U.S. proposal that includes a timetable for Hezbollah's disarmament, with Washington pressing Lebanon to take action on the matter. The cabinet endorsed the introduction of the U.S. text, which lists 11 objectives including "ensuring the sustainability" of the November ceasefire agreement with Israel, and "the gradual end of the armed presence of all non-governmental entities, including Hezbollah, in all Lebanese territory." Israel routinely carries out air strikes in Lebanon despite the ceasefire, and has signlled it would not hesitate to launch destructive military operations if Beirut failed to disarm Hezbollah. Barrack on Monday stressed that "dealing with Hezbollah, as we've always said, is a Lebanese process." The Lebanese cabinet's decision last week to support a plan to disarm Hezbollah angered the Iran-backed group and its allies, who believe Israel's military should first withdraw from the five hilltops it has occupied in southern Lebanon since the end of its 14-month war with Hezbollah last November and stop launching almost daily airstrikes in the country. Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hezbollah's chief, has vowed to fight efforts to disarm the group, sowing fears of civil unrest in the country. Barrack warned Hezbollah that it will have “missed an opportunity” if it doesn't back the calls for it to disarm.

Aoun tells Barrack Israel and Syria need to commit to declaration paper
Naharnet/August 18, 2025
President Joseph Aoun told visiting U.S. envoy Tom Barrack on Monday that Israel and Syria need to commit to the “joint declaration paper,” after Lebanon endorsed a U.S.-backed plan for Hezbollah to disarm. “What’s needed now is the commitment of the other parties to the content of the joint declaration paper, in addition to further support for the Lebanese Army and expediting the steps required internationally to launch reconstruction in the areas targeted by Israeli attacks,” Aoun told Barrack. The U.S. envoy for his part said that his team would discuss the long-term cessation of hostilities with Israel and also said Washington would seek an economic proposal for post-war reconstruction in the country, after months of shuttle diplomacy between the U.S. and Lebanon. “I think the Lebanese government has done their part. They’ve taken the first step,” said Barrack, who is also the U.S. ambassador to Turkey. “Now what we need is for Israel to comply with that equal handshake.”Lebanon’s decision last week to support a plan to disarm Hezbollah angered the Iran-backed group and its allies, who believe Israel's military should first withdraw from the five hilltops it has occupied in southern Lebanon since the end of its 14-month war with Hezbollah last November and stop launching almost daily airstrikes in the country. Sheikh Naim Qassem, Hezbollah's secretary-general, has vowed to fight efforts to disarm the group, sowing fears of civil unrest in the country. Barrack warned Hezbollah that it will have “missed an opportunity” if it doesn't back the calls for it to disarm. Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam both want to disarm Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups, and have demanded Israel halt its attacks and withdraw from the country.

Aoun stresses 'step-for-step' approach with Israel
Naharnet/August 18, 2025
President Joseph Aoun said in an interview that U.S. envoy Tom Barrack’s paper “became a Lebanese paper” after Lebanon “introduced its remarks to it.”“It will not become in effect before Lebanon, Syria and Israel agree to it. The second matter that we emphasized is the ‘step-for-step’ principle, because if any step is not implemented, the step that matches it will not be implemented in return,” Aoun told Al-Arabiya television. He added that he had to choose between two options: “I either agree to the paper and tell the world that I performed my duty and that they now have to perform their duty in obtaining Israel approval of it, or I don’t agree and then Israel would increase its attacks and Lebanon would become isolated economically.”“None of us can respond to the attacks. And if anyone has a third choice that can lead to Israel’s withdrawal, the liberation of the captives, border demarcation and the economy’s revival, let them come forth and propose it,” Aoun said. Noting that Hezbollah’s arms are a “domestic affair” and that “state institutions are concerned with addressing this matter,” the president added that he believes that “no one in the Lebanese state across the country has a problem with arms monopolization.”Aoun also stressed that his concern is “not to move Lebanon from one axis to another,” but rather to “restore Lebanon, end its isolation and achieve security, prosperity and stability.” “I don’t have a political or electoral ambition not a party to be concerned about, I’m only concerned about Lebanon and I have an occupation in the South that I want to get rid of. I also want to finalize border demarcation with Syria, not to move the country from one axis to another,” the president went on to say.

Salam tells Barrack of need for int'l conference for reconstruction, recovery
Naharnet/August 18, 2025
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Monday told visiting U.S. envoy Tom Barrack that the government’s latest decisions on Hezbollah’s disarmament “stemmed from the higher national interest.”Salam added that “the U.S. side should carry out its responsibility in pressing Israel to halt hostilities, withdraw from the five points and release the captives.”Salam also stressed “the priority of supporting and enhancing the capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces, in salaries and equipment, to enable them to perform the missions requested from them.” And emphasizing “the importance of renewing the mandate of the UNIFIL forces in light of their role in consolidating stability and supporting the army in extending the state’s authority in the South,” the premier called for “declaring a clear international commitment to holding a conference for supporting reconstruction and economic recovery in Lebanon.”Speaking later in the day at the Rashid Karami International Fair in Tripoli, Salam said “the decision to monopolize arms in the hand of the state has been taken and without that there can be no security or stability.”“Without security and stability, investments will not come and the economy will not grow,” he added.

Berri tells Barrack Israeli pullout 'gateway to stability'
Naharnet/August 18, 2025
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Monday asked visiting U.S. envoy Tom Barrack about Israel’s commitment to the ceasefire agreement and its withdrawal from Lebanon, stressing that “this is the gateway to stability in Lebanon and an opportunity to launch reconstruction and pave the way for residents’ return to their towns, in addition to securing the requirements for supporting the Lebanese Army.”Barrack for his part said they discussed how to reach prosperity across Lebanon and for all Lebanese, adding that Berri is “bright, intelligent” and has an “amazing history.”“We’re all moving in the right direction,” Barrack added.

Berri urges dialogue, rules out civil strife
Naharnet/August 18, 2025
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has called for a “dialogue” on the government’s decision to monopolize arms in the hands of the state, rejecting the manner in which Cabinet took its latest decisions on Hezbollah’s disarmament. In an interview with Al-Arabiya television, Berri reassured that there will be no “civil war” or “any threat to civil peace.”“I will hear from U.S. envoy Tom Barrack his vision for how to disarm Hezbollah and I don’t have anything to propose to the U.S. envoy,” the Speaker added. Stressing that no decision on Hezbollah can be implemented as long as Israel continues to reject to honor its commitments, Berri lamented that Hezbollah has not fired a bullet since the ceasefire while Israel is continuing its strikes.

Trump Administration Moves to Phase Out UNIFIL
This is Beirut/August 18, 2025
The future of U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon has become a point of tension between the United States and its European allies, raising implications for regional security. UNIFIL’s mandate, which expires at the end of August, requires renewal by the U.N. Security Council.
According to an ABC News article published on August 17, Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved a plan to wind down UNIFIL within six months, according to administration officials and congressional aides. Trump administration officials have aimed to end UNIFIL, viewing the operation as “an ineffectual waste of money” that delays restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces. As stated in the article, European countries, particularly France and Italy, pushed back, lobbying for a one-year extension followed by a six-month wind-down. They argued that ending UNIFIL prematurely could create a security vacuum Hezbollah could exploit. The article further states that with US support easing, the focus now shifts to European resistance over setting a firm withdrawal deadline. Even if renewed, UNIFIL could face a reduced footprint due to budget constraints, though technological enhancements might maintain its monitoring capabilities. “There are about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese army has around 6,000 soldiers, a number that is supposed to increase to 10,000,” the ABC News article notes, highlighting US concern over Lebanon’s readiness to fully secure the border. The U.N. insists the mission remains essential to regional security. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said the force is “waiting for the final decision” of the Security Council.

Europe pushes back as US seeks to end UN peacekeeping in Lebanon
Associated Press/August 18, 2025
The future of U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon has split the United States and its European allies, raising implications for security in the Middle East and becoming the latest snag to vex relations between the U.S. and key partners like France, Britain and Italy. At issue is the peacekeeping operation known as UNIFIL, whose mandate expires at the end of August and will need to be renewed by the U.N. Security Council to continue. It was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel's 1978 invasion, and its mission was expanded following the monthlong 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. The multinational force has played a significant role in monitoring the security situation in southern Lebanon for decades, including during the Israel-Hezbollah war last year, but has drawn criticism from both sides and numerous U.S. lawmakers, some of whom now hold prominent roles in President Donald Trump's administration or wield new influence with the White House. Trump administration political appointees came into office this year with the aim of shutting down UNIFIL as soon as possible. They regard the operation as an ineffectual waste of money that is merely delaying the U.S. goal of eliminating Hezbollah's influence and restoring full security control to the Lebanese Armed Forces that the government says it is not yet capable of doing.After securing major cuts in U.S. funding to the peacekeeping force, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed off early this month on a plan that would wind down and end UNIFIL in the next six months, according to Trump administration officials and congressional aides familiar with the discussions. It's another step as the Trump administration drastically pares back its foreign affairs priorities and budget, including expressing skepticism of international alliances and cutting funding to U.N. agencies and missions. The transatlantic divide also has been apparent on issues ranging from Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine conflict to trade, technology and free speech issues. Israel has for years sought an end to UNIFIL's mandate, and renewal votes have often come after weeks of political wrangling. Now, the stakes are particularly high after last year's war and more vigorous opposition in Washington. European nations, notably France and Italy, have objected to winding down UNIFIL. With the support of Tom Barrack, U.S. ambassador to Turkey and envoy to Lebanon, they successfully lobbied Rubio and others to support a one-year extension of the peacekeeping mandate followed by a time-certain wind-down period of six months, according to the administration officials and congressional aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic negotiations. Israel also reluctantly agreed to an extension, they said.
The European argument was that prematurely ending UNIFIL before the Lebanese Army is able to fully secure the border area would create a vacuum that Hezbollah could easily exploit. The French noted that when a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali was terminated before government troops were ready to deal with security threats, Islamic extremists moved in. With the U.S. easing off, the issue ahead of the U.N. vote expected at the end of August now appears to be resistance by France and others to setting a firm deadline for the operation to end after the one-year extension, according to the officials and congressional aides. The final French draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, does not include a date for UNIFIL's withdrawal, which U.S. officials say is required for their support. Instead, it would extend the peacekeeping mission for one year and indicates the U.N. Security Council's "intention to work on a withdrawal." But even if the mandate is renewed, the peacekeeping mission might be scaled down for financial reasons, with the U.N. system likely facing drastic budget cuts, said a U.N. official, who was not authorized to comment to the media and spoke on condition of anonymity. One of the U.S. officials said an option being considered was reducing UNIFIL's numbers while boosting its technological means to monitor the situation on the ground.
There are about 10,000 peacekeepers in southern Lebanon, while the Lebanese Army has around 6,000 soldiers, a number that is supposed to increase to 10,000. Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon have frequently accused the U.N. mission of collusion with Israel and sometimes attacked peacekeepers on patrol. Israel, meanwhile, has accused the peacekeepers of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah's military activities in southern Lebanon and lobbied for its mandate to end. Sarit Zehavi, a former Israeli military intelligence analyst and founder of the Israeli think tank Alma Research and Education Center, said UNIFIL has played a "damaging role with regard to the mission of disarming Hezbollah in south Lebanon."
She pointed to the discovery of Hezbollah tunnels and weapons caches close to UNIFIL facilities during and after last year's Israel-Hezbollah war, when much of the militant group's senior leadership was killed and much of its arsenal destroyed. Hezbollah is now under increasing pressure to give up the rest of its weapons. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said UNIFIL continues to discover unauthorized weapons, including rocket launchers, mortar rounds and bomb fuses, this week, which it reported to the Lebanese Army.
Under the U.S.- and France-brokered ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah were to withdraw from southern Lebanon, with the Lebanese Army taking control in conjunction with UNIFIL. Israel has continued to occupy five strategic points on the Lebanese side and carry out near-daily airstrikes that it says aim to stop Hezbollah from regrouping. Lebanese officials have called for UNIFIL to remain, saying the country's cash-strapped and overstretched army is not yet able to patrol the full area on its own until it. Retired Lebanese Army Gen. Khalil Helou said that if UNIFIL's mandate were to abruptly end, soldiers would need to be pulled away from the porous border with Syria, where smuggling is rife, or from other areas inside of Lebanon — "and this could have consequences for the stability" of the country. UNIFIL "is maybe not fulfilling 100% what the Western powers or Israel desire. But for Lebanon, their presence is important," he said. The United Nations also calls the peacekeepers critical to regional stability, Dujarric said. UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said deciding on the renewal of the mandate is the prerogative of the U.N. Security Council. "We are here to assist the parties in implementation of the mission's mandate and we're waiting for the final decision," he said.

Beirut Blast Victims' Families Reject Treason Allegations Against William Noun
This is Beirut/August 18, 2025
The families of the Beirut Port explosion victims denounced on Monday “certain paid voices affiliated with parties that have already threatened and obstructed the investigation.” They accused these groups of targeting William Noun, brother of firefighter Joe Noun, who was killed in the August 4 blast, with allegations of “collaboration with the enemy (Israel) and incitement of sectarian strife.” “These claims bear no connection to reality, and their timing is highly suspicious,” the families said in a statement. Noun was summoned for questioning on Friday following a complaint filed against him by lawyer Hassan Ibrahim, known for his ties to Hezbollah. The committee representing the families also warned these “mouthpieces” of the consequences of their “suspicious actions,” noting that the judge who began interrogating Noun, Sabouh Sleiman, is the same one who previously issued controversial rulings in the port investigation, including suspending the arrest warrant against former minister Youssef Fenianos, an ally of Marada leader Sleiman Frangieh. Fenianos was sanctioned by the US Treasury in September 2020 for corruption and support for Hezbollah. The families stressed the importance of “shielding the case of the largest explosion in history from the maze of malicious voices seeking to silence and intimidate victims’ relatives by associating them with crimes for which they bear no responsibility.”They concluded by reiterating that “what affects one, affects all,” vowing never to “stop speaking out or acting responsibly” until their goal, “that all those responsible for the explosion are held accountable,” is achieved.

Lebanon’s Sovereignty Tested at the Syrian Border
Mario Chartouni/This is Beirut/August 18, 2025
Since mid-August, a viral social media video has shown a man claiming to represent “Syrian tribes” issuing a stark warning to Lebanon: “We will invade Lebanon within 48 hours if Syrian detainees are not released,” referring to Syrians held at Roumieh prison. The threat follows the death of a Syrian inmate on August 14, which sparked heightened tensions. Reports also circulated that extremist Syrian groups were planning to abduct Lebanese soldiers in retaliation. These border tensions come as Lebanon recently endorsed the broad outlines of a four-phase action plan presented by US envoy Thomas Barrack. Backed by the Trump administration, the plan aims to restore Lebanese sovereignty after the conflict with Israel and the fall of the Assad regime. Key elements include dismantling non-state armed factions—chiefly Hezbollah—deploying the army nationwide, securing the withdrawal of Israeli forces from certain southern positions and permanently demarcating Lebanon’s borders with Israel and Syria.
Beirut Seeks to Reassure
Lebanese authorities moved quickly to calm public concern. The Lebanese Army dismissed rumors that its air force had entered Syrian airspace, calling the claims “completely false.” The army stressed it is closely monitoring the border and coordinating with Syrian authorities to prevent any escalation. On August 7, the Lebanese Council of Ministers unanimously approved indirect negotiations to formally demarcate the Lebanon-Syria and Lebanon-Israel borders, in line with Barrack’s roadmap. For decades, Lebanon’s border with Syria remained undefined, partly because Damascus refused to fully acknowledge Lebanese independence after 1943. This ambiguity fueled smuggling, territorial disputes and repeated armed incidents. “The Lebanese Army responds to any attempt to violate national sovereignty, but the main problem lies in the lack of border demarcation when Syria refused to recognize Lebanon’s independence,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs Youssef Rajji in March. The fall of the Assad regime in late 2024 and the arrival of a new Syrian government shifted the situation. Damascus officially recognized Lebanon’s sovereignty and initiated talks on outstanding disputes. In April, Lebanese authorities and Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa began discussions on land and maritime border demarcation following a ceasefire that ended cross-border clashes. The US roadmap now serves as a catalyst to finalize the border demarcation, seen as crucial for lasting stability.
Sovereignty and International Law
If armed Syrian groups attempt an incursion into Lebanese territory, it would constitute a serious violation of international law and Lebanon’s sovereignty. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of a sovereign state, and any illegal crossing by armed forces is considered an act of aggression. Even non-state actors entering Lebanese soil with hostile intent would violate international norms. Lebanon would be justified in invoking its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, allowing military measures until the UN Security Council intervenes to restore peace. The Max Planck Institute notes that the Security Council’s response after September 11, through resolutions 1368 and 1373, confirmed that this right also applies to non-state armed groups if the attack meets a certain threshold. A border long left undefined has now become a crucial point for asserting Lebanese sovereignty. With tensions high and the roadmap in motion, the coming weeks will test Lebanon’s ability to safeguard its territory and enforce its independence.

Barrack and Ortagus End Tour On a Hopeful Note for Lebanon
This is Beirut/August 18, 2025
US envoy and ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack, accompanied by Deputy U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Morgan Ortagus, and U.S. Ambassador to Beirut Lisa Johnson on Monday held a series of meetings with Lebanese officials focused on Washington’s plan for disarming Hezbollah, following the government’s endorsement of the paper. Barrack was first received by President Joseph Aoun who stressed that, following Lebanon’s declared position on the agreed paper, the responsibility now lies with other parties to uphold its content. He also underscored the need for greater international support for the Lebanese Army and the urgency of accelerating reconstruction efforts in areas devastated by Israeli attacks. Following the hour-long meeting, Barrack addressed reporters, describing the discussions as “excellent” and praising the steps taken by the Lebanese government. “We are in the middle of a process, and I know many of you feel hopeful—we too feel hopeful,” he said, adding that Lebanon is moving closer to “prosperity and peace.”On the issue of Israeli withdrawal, he emphasized that “the next step will require Israel’s participation and a reconstruction plan covering all regions, not just the South,” noting that “the Lebanese government has done its part with the first step, and it is now up to Israel to take the initiative.”Regarding the sensitive matter of disarmament, Barrack stressed that “Hezbollah’s disarmament is in the interest of the Shia community and not against them. In the coming weeks, we will see progress toward a better life for the Lebanese people.” He warned that “refusing this decision would be a missed opportunity, and Hezbollah must understand the best choice for development and prosperity in the country.”
He also reaffirmed that “Washington is not using threats regarding Hezbollah’s disarmament.”Barrack further noted that cooperation with Hezbollah is a Lebanese-led process, and that US efforts aim to establish a stable communication network between Hezbollah, the Shia community, and Israel. He clarified that no US proposals have been made to Israel, and Israel has not rejected any measures. The main objective remains the implementation of the existing ceasefire agreement, not negotiating a new deal. Finally, the envoy encouraged Lebanese citizens to take pride in their government, while emphasizing that decisions regarding disarmament fall under the authority of the Lebanese state. The diplomat also noted that Morgan Ortagus, previously responsible for Lebanese affairs, has now joined his team. Later Monday, Barrack met Speaker Nabih Berri and Prime Miniter Nawaf Salam. According to a communique issued by Berri’s office, the Speaker told him that “Israel’s commitment to the ceasefire agreement and its withdrawal from Lebanese territory to the internationally recognized borders is the gateway to stability in Lebanon, and an opportunity to launch the reconstruction process, in addition to supporting the Lebanese Army.” For his part, Salam called for international engagement to organize a conference in support of Lebanon’s reconstruction and stressed the importance of renewing UNIFIL’s mandate for its role in consolidating stability and supporting the army in exercising its authority in South Lebanon. Salam also urged pressure on Israel to halt its military actions. Lebanese Army Chief, General Rodolphe Haykal, had earlier discussed with Barrack the resources needed to support the army in implementing its plan, particularly in terms of assistance and logistics.

Mistrust and fear: The complex story behind strained Syria-Lebanon relations
Naharnet/August 18, 2025
A lot has happened in just a year on both sides of the Lebanon-Syria border. A lightning offensive by Islamist insurgents in Syria toppled longtime autocrat Bashar Assad and brought a new government in place in Damascus. In Lebanon, a bruising war with Israel dealt a serious blow to Hezbollah — the Iran-backed and Assad-allied Shiite Lebanese militant group that had until recently been a powerful force in the Middle East — and a U.S.-negotiated deal has brought a fragile ceasefire. Still, even after the fall of the 54-year Assad family rule, relations between Beirut and Damascus remain tense — as they have been for decades past, with Syria long failing to treat its smaller neighbor as a sovereign nation. Recent skirmishes along the border have killed and wounded several people, both fighters and civilians, including a four-year-old Lebanese girl. Beirut and Damascus have somewhat coordinated on border security, but attempts to reset political relations have been slow. Despite visits to Syria by two heads of Lebanon's government, no Syrian official has visited Lebanon. Many Syrians have resented Hezbollah for wading into Syria's civil war in defense of Assad's government. Assad's fall sent them home, but many Lebanese now fear cross-border attacks by Syria's Islamic militants. There are new restrictions on Lebanese entering Syria, and Lebanon has maintained tough restrictions on Syrians entering Lebanon. The Lebanese also fear that Damascus could try to bring Lebanon under a new Syrian tutelage. Syrians have long seen Lebanon as a staging ground for anti-Syria activities, including hosting opposition figures before Hafez Assad — Bashar Assad's father — ascended to power in a bloodless 1970 coup. In 1976, Assad senior sent his troops to Lebanon, allegedly to bring peace as Lebanon was hurtling into a civil war that lasted until 1990. Once that ended, Syrian forces — much like a colonial power — remained in Lebanon for another 15 years. A signature of the Assad family rule, Syria's dreaded security agents disappeared and tortured dissidents to keep the country under their control. They did the same in Lebanon.
"Syrians feel that Lebanon is the main gateway for conspiracies against them," says Lebanese political analyst Ali Hamadeh. It took until 2008 for the two countries to agree to open diplomatic missions, marking Syria's first official recognition of Lebanon as an independent state since it gained independence from France in 1943. The move came after the 2005 truck-bombing assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri that many blamed on Damascus. Two months later, Syria pulled its troops out of Lebanon under international pressure, ending 29 years of near-complete domination of its neighbor. When Syria's own civil war erupted in 2011, hundreds of thousands of Syrians fled across the border, making crisis-hit Lebanon the host of the highest per capita population of refugees in the world. Once in Lebanon, the refugees complained about discrimination, including curfews for Syrian citizens in some areas.
Hezbollah, meanwhile, rushed thousands of its fighters into Syria in 2013 to shore up Assad, worried that its supply lines from Iran could dry up. And as much as the Lebanese are divided over their country's internal politics, Syria's war divided them further into those supporting Assad's government and those opposing it. A key obstacle to warming relations has been the fate of about 2,000 Syrians in Lebanese prisons, including some 800 held over bomb attacks and shootings, many without trial. Damascus is asking Beirut to hand them over to continue their prison terms in Syria, but Lebanese judicial officials say Beirut won't release any attackers and that each must be studied and resolved separately.
In July, family members of the detainees rallied along a border crossing, demanding their relatives be freed. The protest came amid reports that Syrian troops could deploy foreign fighters in Lebanon, which Damascus officials denied.
Another obstacle is Lebanon's demand that Syrian refugees go back home now that Assad is gone. About 716,000 Syrian refugees are registered with the U.N. refugee agency, while hundreds of thousands more are unregistered in Lebanon, which has a population of about 5 million. Syria is also demanding the return of billions of dollars worth of deposits of Syrians trapped in Lebanese banks since Lebanon's historic financial meltdown in 2019. The worst post-Assad border skirmishes came in mid-March, when Syrian authorities said Hezbollah members crossed the border and kidnapped and killed three Syrian soldiers. The Lebanese government and army said the clash was between smugglers and that Hezbollah wasn't involved. Days later, Lebanese and Syrian defense ministers flew to Saudi Arabia and signed an agreement on border demarcation and boosting their coordination.
In July, rumors spread in Lebanon, claiming the northern city of Tripoli would be given to Syria in return for Syria giving up the Golan Heights to Israel. And though officials dismissed the rumors, they illustrate the level of distrust between the neighbors.
Beirut was also angered by Syria's appointment this year of a Lebanese Army officer — Abdullah Shehadeh, who defected in 2014 from Lebanon to join Syrian insurgents — as the head of security in Syria's central province of Homs that borders northeastern Lebanon.
In Syria, few were aware of Shehadeh's real name — he was simply known by his nom de guerre, Abu Youssef the Lebanese. Syrian security officials confirmed the appointment. Analysts say an important step would be for the two neighbors to work jointly to boost security against cross-border smuggling. A U.S.-backed plan that was recently adopted by the Lebanese government calls for moving toward full demarcation of the border. Radwan Ziadeh, a senior fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, says the best way forward would be for Syria and Lebanon to address each problem between them individually — not as a package deal. That way, tensions would be reduced gradually, he said and downplayed recent comments by prominent Syrian anti-Assad figures who claimed Lebanon is part of Syria and should return to it. "These are individual voices that do not represent the Syrian state," Zaideh said.

Terrorists' Brinkmanship
Dr. Charles Chartouni/This Is Beirut/August 18/2025
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2025/08/146426/
The riddled negotiations taking place in Lebanon and Gaza and the equivocations of the Syrian transition are quite compelling since they convey the ambiguities undermining political stability in these different environments. Nonetheless, they illustrate the difficulties of political transitioning in countries partially or totally controlled by Islamist groups with meandering political agendas. We should not fool ourselves over their liberal and democratic velleities because there are none. Their political simulations are mere tactical maneuvering to deflect political pressure, consolidate political footholds and ultimately sabotage any political dynamic that may question their control. The inherent ambiguities are here to stay unless the geostrategic and political dynamics change. Lebanon’s main dynamics are decipherable since the country has faced, throughout the last 66 years, an enduring challenge to its political stability, targeting mainly its national legitimacy and political and civic culture, whatever might be the vehicles and modulations. It has always taken place on the crossroads between the domestic realm and the alternating regional power politics. The awkwardness of the political situation is located along the political continuum, which ties both ends. How can you convince Lebanese Shias to renounce their domination politics as long as their regional power broker is not defeated or ultimately diplomatically co-opted? The destruction of the strategic platforms of the Iranian Islamic regime, including its internal one, is essential if we are to curb and terminate its presumed resurgence. The US and Israel have to finalize their military objectives before reengaging diplomatically in the political scene. It’s quite obvious that Iran is trying to gain back politically what it lost on the battlefield.
The unfinished job doesn’t help when it comes to negotiations because the levers, however weakened, are still in place. The pseudo-diplomatic moves of Ali Larijani are designed to claim back the erstwhile political turfs and prepare for future conflicts. Hezbollah’s sabotaging has no chance of abating unless Iran’s political leverage is annihilated and the power equation is changed. The Lebanese executive was summoned by the US to change its script, call on Hezbollah to take responsibility and elicit a countervailing Shia movement. So far, nothing has changed or seems to change unless the Iranian umbilical cord is severed once and for all.
The simulated naïveté of the executive unveils its fear and inability to do its job. Aside from disarming Hezbollah and Palestinian camps, what lies at the roots of the problem is the inability to address its origin: the political and military extraterritoriality. Nothing is likely to be achieved unless the ideological, political and strategic variables of the political subversion are dealt with. The incoherences of the actual cabinet are bad omens because they are hindering its ability to act as a constitutionally integrated body.
The same discrepancies apply to the relationships between the two aisles of the executive, since both are ill prepared to deal with the tasks ahead. This bleak picture sends us to the regional picture and its strategic imponderables. Israel is unlikely to compromise over its national security interests and rights, and it is unwilling to condone the lamentable predicament of a Lebanese state incapable of exercising its constitutional prerogatives as a sovereign state.
The situation in Gaza is like the one in Lebanon, with one major difference: the unstructured nature of the district and its systematic control by a criminal group that reigns through terror. No political or diplomatic approach is likely to take hold as long as this terror group controls the district. This geopolitical stretch has no grounding whatsoever, and its problematic existence is unlikely to be tackled unless the broader Israeli-Palestinian question is addressed. Aside from the geopolitical flimsiness of the Gaza district, the group of terror controlling it makes it more controversial than it already is, especially after the late war.
The questionable status of this group gets more complicated when it claims representativeness or is being granted one. The only exception at this stage is the need to negotiate the epilogue of this bloody war. European diplomacy is wrong in pinpointing the unilateral responsibility of Israel, while overlooking the responsibility of Hamas in triggering and perpetuating the disaster. The externalization of the blame and the establishment of a nexus between the overall political solution and the end of the ongoing conflict are not only wrong, but also counterproductive from a diplomatic standpoint.
The only exit is to force a diplomatic breakthrough jointly with the Qatari bankroller to end the conflict by liberating and returning the remains of the Israeli hostages, securing the withdrawal of the Hamas combatants and negotiating a transition of governance. Any other option is delusional and impractical if this diplomacy is ready to overcome its ideological biases and search for a real solution.
The late maneuver of Prime Minister Netanyahu is well geared in this direction; it is indirectly nudging the international mediators to put a diplomatic end to a conflict that has outlasted its usefulness. Hopefully, diplomacy is not waiting for Hamas to change its script or for the conversion of Israeli messianic groups fueled by Palestinian negationism. As for the Syrian context, the policies of Ahmad al-Sharaa are positioned on intricate crossroads, and one wonders whether he is unable to set his direction, his maneuverability is tightened or his underlying ideological subtexts are not yet changed. These legitimate questions have been raised lately by a set of controversial political evolutions elicited by the religious pogroms and terror, which targeted indiscriminately Alawites, Druze and Christians and questioned the Kurdish autonomy. Aside from the insidious Islamization of lifestyles and public spaces and the predatory nature of public policy. The major political conflict caused by these consecutive crises was met with dysfunctional policies emphasizing Sunni supremacy and open sectarianism, discriminatory allocation of public resources and moral dismissiveness towards minority groups. The outright sectarianism was matched with the open control of the jihadists over the newly established political and military institutions. Nothing seems to disturb Sharaa, navigating his course under the surveillance of his Sunni mentors, who make him aware of his behavior with no major reservations. This policy line is unlikely to remain unchallenged, and it may create problems in a volatile regional environment where the geopolitical dynamics have substantially changed after the Israeli counter-insurgency and its transformative effects.

Lebanon’s real battle is inside the Shia house
Yassin K. Fawaz/The Arab Weekly/August 18/2025
If Hezbollah and Amal remain aligned, the government’s disarmament plan will almost certainly stall. When Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s leader, warned on August 15 that Lebanon would “have no life” if the state pressed ahead with disarmament, he was not merely shaking his fist at the cabinet. He was drawing a red line around the country’s Shia political house and daring outsiders, and rivals at home, to cross it. The timing was no accident. After months of pressure from Washington and donors, Lebanon’s government has shifted from pious resolutions to practical steps, tasking the army to draft a plan to confine weapons to the state and endorsing the objectives of a US-backed roadmap. In response, Hezbollah and its Shia allies walked out of the cabinet, denounced the decision as a foreign diktat, and now threaten mass street protests if “confrontation” is imposed. The spectre is of a duel between an emboldened state and a militia that still sees itself as the nation’s shield. Lebanon’s leaders know that plans on paper will not disarm a movement forged by war, sanctified by resistance and woven through state institutions. Yet the political context is shifting. Since hostilities erupted in October 2023, Israel has pummelled Hezbollah’s infrastructure, assassinated senior commanders and, most consequentially, killed its long-time chief, Hassan Nasrallah, in September 2024. The organisation survived the shock, installing a new leadership and adjusting tactics. But attrition, material losses and the burden of reconstruction have mounted. Outside Hezbollah’s core constituencies in the south and the Bekaa, tolerance has thinned; within them, war-weariness competes with communal pride. Even so, Qassem’s message is that Hezbollah’s red lines are unchanged: no disarmament until Israeli attacks cease and contested territory is vacated.
The state’s latest gambit is bolder than the usual Lebanese fudge. The cabinet has asked the army to produce an implementation plan, deadlines, sequencing and the mechanics of reasserting a monopoly on force, by the end of the summer, with ministers publicly embracing the goal that all weapons should be in the hands of the state alone.
To signal resolve, senior officials have framed the move as a prerequisite for aid and for the country’s fragile rehabilitation after years of crisis and conflict. This is not just technocracy. It is an attempt to redefine the boundary between a sovereign state and a party that insists it is both movement and army. Hezbollah’s riposte is also familiar: delegitimise the decision as made “under American orders,” warn against involving the military in domestic confrontation, and evoke the ghosts of 2008, when gunmen briefly seized parts of West Beirut.
The group says the cabinet has committed a “grave sin” and that it will treat the decision “as if it does not exist”, unless, of course, it is forced to act. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has called this rhetoric an “unacceptable” threat of civil strife. In the background, President Joseph Aoun, elected earlier this year, has told Iranian envoys that Lebanon rejects foreign interference, even as Tehran pledges respect for decisions “taken in consultation with the resistance.” The dance is intricate; the stakes are plain.
Yet to mistake this for a contest between a “national” state and a “sectarian” militia is to miss the point of Lebanese politics. The decisive arena is inside the Shia community itself. For four decades, Shia politics have rested on two pillars: Hezbollah, the formidable military-religious party; and Amal, the more traditionally political movement led by Nabih Berri, parliament’s long-time speaker and the consummate broker of Lebanese deals. Rivals once, the two were yoked into uneasy partnership under Syrian tutelage in the 1990s. Since then, Hezbollah has carried the gun and the narrative of resistance; Amal has managed the levers of the state, parliament, ministries, patronage, translating communal weight into institutional power.
What Qassem staged in his speech was a show of unity: Amal and Hezbollah as a single flank. For the government, and for the West, that is the real obstacle. In theory, a Sunni prime minister and a Maronite president can claim the mantle of national sovereignty as they challenge any armed group outside state authority. In practice, their confrontation can strengthen the very movement they seek to weaken. Hezbollah thrives on the story that it protects a community historically marginalised by the old confessional order, threatened by Israeli power and by hostile domestic factions. Decrees from a Sunni-led cabinet or admonitions from Christian politicians fit all too comfortably into this narrative. The more sectarian the optics of disarmament appear, the more Hezbollah’s core voters rally around its guns. That is why Western talk of a “national” solution often founders on Lebanon’s sectarian arithmetic: legitimacy here is not evenly distributed across the polity; it is mediated through communities. Hence the centrality of Mr Berri. If Amal were to decouple from Hezbollah, not in a showy break that invites fratricide, but in a gradual, unmistakable repositioning, the consequences would be profound.
First, the fiction of a monolithic Shia consensus would end. A sizeable share of Shia voters, activists and municipal networks, teachers’ unions, syndicates, municipal councils, would have permission to say publicly what some whisper privately: that perpetual “managed confrontation” with Israel, and the war economy it sustains, have become too costly.
Second, Hezbollah’s presence within the state in procurement, customs, borders, energy, would face real scrutiny from within the sect, not just from hostile ministries. Third, the army, whose rank and file mirror the country’s sects, would find political cover for cautious, negotiated steps to reassert control in areas where Hezbollah has long been primus inter pares. What would it take for Mr Berri to move? His instinct is to survive, not to crusade. He has, after all, held the speaker’s gavel since 1992 by balancing between regional patrons, domestic rivals and the moods of his own base. Three conditions might shift his calculus. The first is cost: if Hezbollah’s strategy reliably delivers escalation with Israel, more assassinations, more air strikes, more ruin in the south, without tangible gains, Amal’s grassroots may start blaming the partner, not the enemy.
The second is incentive: Berri would need guarantees, from both local and foreign players, that Amal’s political dominance within the Shia sphere would not be eroded in the aftermath of a split. The third is cover: a framing that makes such a shift appear as protecting the community, not betraying it. For now, these conditions remain unmet. Iran still provides Hezbollah with financial and political oxygen, and Tehran’s influence over both parties remains considerable. The Lebanese state is too weak to impose its will without triggering a clash it cannot win. The United States and its allies, meanwhile, continue to treat the problem as a cross-sectarian project, leaning on the Sunni prime minister, lobbying the Maronite president, hoping for “national consensus.” In reality, Hezbollah’s fate will be decided in Dahieh, Tyre and Nabatieh, not in the presidential palace.
If Hezbollah and Amal remain aligned, the government’s disarmament plan will almost certainly stall. Even partial implementation, targeting Palestinian factions or smaller militias, would be spun as vindication of Hezbollah’s “resistance” role.
The risk, as ever, is that Lebanon slides back into paralysis: too weak to impose decisions, too divided to build consensus, too great a hostage to the calculations of armed actors to regain true sovereignty. The West has often treated Lebanon’s sects as interchangeable players in a national drama. In reality, they are separate audiences watching the same play. Disarming Hezbollah is not a matter of winning over Beirut’s Sunni elite or Christian leaders. It is a matter of persuading the Shia establishment that the cost of resistance has finally outweighed its pride. Until then, threats from the cabinet or foreign capitals will be met, as ever, with defiance and the guns will remain in the same hands they have been in for the past forty years.
*Yassin K Fawaz is an American business executive, publisher and security and terrorism expert.

Lebanon and the Possible Scenarios
Dr. Nassif Hitti/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025
Tensions in Lebanon are rising, and with them, political schisms are deepening, following the Lebanese government’s decision to establish a state monopoly on arms. This comes amid an increasingly heated regional climate, particularly in Lebanon’s immediate neighborhood.
Israel's political discourse, and its military and repressive actions on the ground in Gaza and the West Bank, suggest that escalation is a strong possibility. These developments inevitably leave their mark, though potentially indirectly, on the situation in Lebanon, which has always been hostage to its political geography. The Lebanese state’s decision, which was approved by both the president and the government, is a crucial step. Indeed, it is crucial for reviving the logic of state authority at the expense of what are often called “de facto powers,” within the de facto configuration of sectarian politics that shapes Lebanon’s political reality. The monopoly on arms, and along with it the monopoly over decisions of war and peace, is an essential requisite for reaffirming statehood after it had been absent or eclipsed for nearly five and a half decades, though to varying degrees. During this time, it was usurped by different Lebanese and foreign actors, either directly or through local proxies, under multiple banners and at different stages.
The Taif Accords, having learned the lessons of past wars to introduce a new phase in Lebanon, emphasized the need to extend state authority across Lebanon’s territory. Sovereignty, it should be recalled, is not discretionary nor relative, it cannot be shared with de facto forces in parts of a country, regardless of these forces’ size, representation, or their ideological and political slogans. Before the liberation of May 2000, armed resistance was natural. It enjoyed broad support and solid national legitimacy. Israel’s 2006 war of destruction came in response to the Truthful Promise Operation, when Israeli soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah. The party later admitted through its secretary-general: “Had I known that the operation came after the rules of engagement had changed since liberation, I would not have carried it out, for it gave Israel the pretext it needed to launch its destructive war.”Hezbollah’s “support war” (or the “unity of the fronts” war) launched in 2023 - though it had been limited in scope at first - similarly provided Israel with a pretext for a large-scale war of destruction against Lebanon. This war continues unilaterally, with potential for escalation since the ceasefire agreement of last November.
Despite the principled solidarity shown toward Gaza in the Arab world, Lebanon should not have been dragged into a war for regional strategic objectives. The Lebanese people are paying for “the wars of others.”
The current deadlock, and the open-ended risk of escalation following Hezbollah’s firm and sharp rejection, of the government’s decision in both tone and substance (a decision backed by its partner in the “Shiite duo,” albeit from a different perspective), coupled with Hezbollah’s menacing rhetoric, leaves Lebanon before the following scenarios:
First: Sliding into civil war: some fear it and others threaten it. In my estimation, this scenario is unlikely, even if sporadic skirmishes erupt should the trajectory of escalation continue. No Lebanese political faction has an interest in such a war, nor the capacity to enter the tunnel of a conflict that leads to the unknown. Based on the lessons of the past, and given that all these forces would lose in such a war, I consider it far-fetched. Second: A political crisis triggered by the resignation of the Shiite duo’s ministers from government. The duo believes such a step would strip the government of its national legitimacy, while others believe it would merely undermine this legitimacy. Either way, such a step would severely weaken the government’s political and practical capacity to implement its decision on monopolizing arms. Lebanon would then enter an open-ended crisis. Attempts at containment, de-escalation, and “saving-face,” would be made to find a compromise that allows all sides to return to negotiations over the implementation of the government’s decision, which (in light of the government’s insistence and the domestic and foreign support behind it) there is clearly no turning back form.
Third: Dialogue within the government, which officials call “executive” talks and the Shiite duo call “principled.” “Friendly and concerned states” would offer certain guarantees to those seeking them, in order to prevent a major political explosion. This would amount to kicking the can down the road, perpetuating tensions that could lead to oscillation between escalation and containment on the difficult road toward some form of solution. The second or third scenarios could lead to a search for a “new Doha Agreement,” backed by foreign actors, some familiar and others new to the role. Such a framework would give rise to new arrangements, even if the roles and positions of the Lebanese parties shift in the process. This could facilitate the implementation of the decision on arms as part of a broader package of solutions.
However, I believe that Lebanon’s friends, the foreign states and invested in its stability, should press Israel to change its behavior rather than pursuing the arduous path toward a new Doha Agreement, which would be more difficult to achieve today. Indeed, pursuing the latter risks further tensions amid deadlock, and given their leverage and influence over Israel, these states could compel Israel to finalize its withdrawal from the five sites it occupies and to ratify a border demarcation agreement in line with the 1949 Armistice Agreement. This would, in turn, ease the implementation of the decision.
In sum, Lebanon today stands at a crossroads. Wasting more time creates risks. It must embark on the path to statehood and ensure that the Lebanese state reclaims its most essential and defining role: monopolizing arms and the right to decide questions of war and peace.
Further delay will only raise the cost of rebuilding the state and its capacity to carry out its functions (political, economic, and social) - roles that serve the interests of all Lebanese communities. However, the key requisite for achieving this remains the state playing the essential roles and fulfilling the basic national responsibilities outlined above.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 18-19/2025
Zelensky, Trump express hope for trilateral talks with Putin to bring end to Russia-Ukraine war
AP/August 18, 2025
WASHINGTON: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump expressed hope that their critical meeting Monday with European leaders at the White House could lead to three-party talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin to bring an end to his war on Ukraine.
The US president also said he would back European security guarantees for Ukraine as European leaders gathered in Washington to show support for Ukraine at the extraordinary White House meeting. Trump stopped short of committing US troops to the effort, saying instead that there would be a “NATO-like” security presence but that all those details would be hashed out in their afternoon meeting with EU leaders. “They want to give protection and they feel very strongly about it and we’ll help them out with that,” Trump said. “I think its very important to get the deal done.”
Trump’s engagement with Zelensky had a strikingly different feel to their last Oval Office meeting in February. It was a disastrous moment that led to Trump abruptly ending talks with the Ukrainian delegation after he and Vice President JD Vance complained that Zelensky had shown insufficient gratitude for US military assistance.Zelensky at the start of the meeting presented a letter from his wife, Olena Zelenska, for Trump’s wife, Melania. The US first lady over the weekend sent a letter to Putin urging him to bring an end to the brutal 3 1/2 year war.
Trump at one point needled Zelensky over Ukraine delaying elections. They had been scheduled for last year but were delayed because of the ongoing Russian invasion. Ukrainian law does not allow presidential elections to be held when martial law is in effect.
Trump joked that a similar circumstance wouldn’t play well in the US.“So let me just say three and a half years from now — so you mean, if we happen to be in a war with somebody, no more elections, oh, I wonder what the fake news would say,” Trump said.Zelensky faced criticism during his February meeting from a conservative journalist for appearing in the Oval Office in a long sleeve T-shirt. This time he appeared in dark jacket and buttoned-shirt. Zelensky has said his typically less formal attire since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022 is to show solidarity with Ukrainian soldiers.
Monday’s hastily assembled meeting comes after Trump met on Friday with Putin and has said that the onus is now on Zelensky to agree to concessions of land that he said could end the war.
“If everything works out today, we’ll have a trilat,” Trump said, referring to possible three-way talks among Zelensky, Putin and Trump. “We’re going to work with Russia, we’re going to work with Ukraine.”
Trump also said he plans to talk to Putin after his meetings with Zelensky and European leaders.
Zelensky expressed openness to trilateral talks.
“We are ready for trilateral as president said,” Zelensky said.
Trump first held one-on-one talks with Zelensky. The two will later gather with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. The European leaders were left out of Trump’s summit with Putin. They want to safeguard Ukraine and the continent from any widening aggression from Moscow. Many arrived at the White House with the explicit goal of protecting Ukraine’s interests — a rare show of diplomatic force. Ahead of Monday’s meeting, Trump suggested that Ukraine could not regain Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, setting off an armed conflict that led to its broader 2022 invasion.
“President Zelensky of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight,” Trump wrote Sunday night on social media. “Remember how it started. No getting back Obama given Crimea (12 years ago, without a shot being fired!), and NO GOING INTO NATO BY UKRAINE. Some things never change!!!”Zelensky responded with his own post late Sunday, saying, “We all share a strong desire to end this war quickly and reliably.” He said that “peace must be lasting,” not as it was after Russia seized Crimea and part of the Donbas in eastern Ukraine eight years ago, and “Putin simply used it as a springboard for a new attack.” Zelensky said in a social media post he met with Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg, on Monday ahead of his scheduled talks with Trump to discuss the battlefield situation and the shared “strong diplomatic capabilities” of the US, Ukraine and Europe. He also held talks with European leaders at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington.
European heavyweights in Washington
On the table for discussion with European leaders are possible NATO-like security guarantees that Ukraine would need for any peace with Russia to be durable. Putin opposes Ukraine joining NATO outright, yet Trump’s team claims the Russian leader is open to allies agreeing to defend Ukraine if it comes under attack. “Clearly there are no easy solutions when talking about ending a war and building peace,” Meloni told reporters. “We have to explore all possible solutions to guarantee peace, to guarantee justice, and to guarantee security for our countries.”The European leaders are aiming to keep the focus during the White House talks on finding a sustainable peace and believe forging a temporary ceasefire is not off the table, according to a European official. The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the leaders are also looking to keep pressure on Russia to end the fighting and want to get more concrete assurances from the US about security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any deal. Zelensky outlined what he said his country needed to feel secure, which included a “strong Ukrainian army” through weapons sales and training. The second part, he said, would depend on the outcome of Monday’s talks and what EU countries, NATO and the US would be able to guarantee to the war-torn country. Trump briefed Zelensky and European allies shortly after the Putin meeting. Details from the discussions emerged in a scattershot way that seemed to rankle the US president, who had chosen not to outline any terms when appearing afterward with Putin. Ahead of Monday’s White House meetings, Trump took to social media to say that even if Russia said, “We give up, we concede, we surrender” the news media and Democrats “would say that this was a bad and humiliating day for Donald J. Trump.”Following the Alaska summit, Trump declared that a ceasefire was not necessary for peace talks to proceed, a sudden shift to a position favored by Putin.‘A very big move’ European officials confirmed that Trump told them Putin is still seeking control of the entire Donbas region, even though Ukraine controls a meaningful share of it. Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, said the US and its allies could offer Ukraine a NATO-like commitment to defend the country if it came under attack as the possible security guarantee, with details to be worked out. Zelensky came into the talks look to prevent a scenario in which he gets blamed for blocking peace talks by rejecting Putin’s maximalist demand on the Donbas. It is a demand Zelensky has said many times he will never accept because it is unconstitutional and could create a launching pad for future Russian attacks.

What to Know About Zelenskyy’s Meeting with Trump
Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025
US President Donald Trump is set to host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders at the White House on Monday to discuss how to end Russia's three-year war in Ukraine. Months of US-led diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting haven’t made headway, but the stakes have risen since Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday. After that summit, Trump abandoned the requirement of reaching a ceasefire in order to hold further talks and aligned with Putin's position that negotiations should focus on a long-term settlement instead. The presence of several European leaders at the talks in Washington shows how central the conflict — and any settlement — is to wider security questions on the continent. They are looking to safeguard Ukraine and Europe more broadly from any further aggression from Moscow, but also are providing a show of support for Zelenskyy after his last visit to the White House led to an angry confrontation. The American and Ukrainian leaders are scheduled to first meet privately, without the Europeans.
On “Trump’s ultimate policy towards the Russia-Ukraine war hangs not just the future of Ukraine security, but Europe’s as well,” said Nigel Gould-Davies, senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “The stakes could not be higher for the continent.’’ Here’s what to know about the Washington meeting. The talks could be a pivotal moment in the war After meeting Putin in Alaska, Trump is making a big push for a breakthrough. A lot of issues need to be resolved, however, and the two sides have previously established red lines that are incompatible, including questions of whether Ukraine will cede any land to Russia, the future of Ukraine's army and whether the country will have any guarantee against further Russian aggression. In a post on social media Sunday night, Trump appeared to shift the burden for ending the war to Zelenskyy, whose country was invaded in February 2022. “President Zelenskyy of Ukraine can end the war with Russia almost immediately, if he wants to, or he can continue to fight,” he wrote. A comprehensive peace deal could still be a long way off.
Putin wants the Donbas As a condition for peace, the Russian leader wants Kyiv to give up the Donbas, the industrial region in eastern Ukraine that has seen some of the most intense fighting but that Russian forces have failed to capture completely. In his Sunday night post, Trump wrote that Zelenskyy should also accept Russia’s illegal 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region. As part of a deal, Putin has said the United States and its European allies can provide Ukraine with a security guarantee resembling NATO’s collective defense pledge, according to a senior US official. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff called that a “game-changing” step though he offered few details on how it would work. Ukraine has long pressed for some kind of guarantee that would prevent Russia from invading again. Ukraine won’t surrender land to Russia Zelenskyy has rejected Putin’s demand that Ukraine surrender the Donbas region, made up of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, since the Ukrainian Constitution forbids giving up territory or trading land. That also means he can't cede Crimea either. Instead, freezing the front line, which snakes roughly 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) from northeastern to southeastern Ukraine, seems to be the most the Ukrainian people might accept.Russia currently holds about 20% of Ukrainian territory.
Europe’s security is also at stake European leaders see Ukraine’s fight as a bulwark against any Kremlin ambitions to threaten other countries in eastern Europe and beyond. French President Emmanuel Macron described Ukraine as an “outpost of our collective defense if Russia wanted to advance again.”“If we are weak with Russia today, we’ll be preparing the conflicts of tomorrow and they will impact the Ukrainians and — make no mistake — they can impact us, too.” Macron said Sunday. The European political heavyweights expected in Washington are Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Civilians are killed as the fighting continues Ukraine has in recent months been losing more territory against Russia’s bigger army, and Moscow’s forces breached Ukrainian lines in a series of minor infiltrations in the Donetsk region ahead of the Alaska summit. But there is no sign of a looming, major Russian breakthrough on the front line. Both sides have also kept up their daily long-range strikes behind the front line. A Russian drone strike on Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, killed six people late Sunday, including an 18-month-old and a 16-year-old, according to regional head Oleh Syniehubov. The attack on the northeastern city injured 20 others, including six children, he said. Russia’s Defense Ministry on Monday reported intercepting 23 Ukrainian drones over Russian regions and the annexed Crimean peninsula overnight.

Iran warns war with Israel could resume at any time
Agence France Presse/August 18/2025
A senior Iranian official warned Monday that war with Israel could erupt at any moment, describing the current lull after June's 12-day conflict as only a temporary halt. "We must be prepared at every moment for confrontation; right now, we are not even in a ceasefire (agreement); we are in a cessation of hostilities," said First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref. The fighting in June saw Israel bombard Iranian nuclear and military sites, as well as residential areas, killing more than 1,000 people, including senior commanders and nuclear scientists. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes that killed dozens in Israel. The United States announced a halt in fighting on June 24, two days after it joined the war by bombing Iranian nuclear facilities. But there was no agreement formalizing the ceasefire, only an undeclared pause in hostilities. On Sunday, Yahya Rahim Safavi, a military adviser to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told Iranian media the country was "preparing plans for the worst-case scenario". "We are not in a ceasefire now, we are in a war phase, it could break down at any time, there is no protocol, no regulations, no agreement between us and the Israelis, between us and the Americans," he said in remarks carried by the Shargh daily. "A ceasefire means ceasing attacks; that could change at any time," he added. Since then, Iranian officials have insisted the country is not seeking war but is ready for another confrontation. Western powers accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons through its atomic program, a charge Tehran strongly denies. Following the war, Israel and the United States repeatedly threatened to attack Iran again should Tehran relaunch its nuclear sites and resume its nuclear enrichment program. The United Nations nuclear watchdog has warned that Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed country that enriches uranium to 60 percent -– far beyond the 3.67 percent cap set by a landmark international accord reached in 2015. The level is a short step from the 90-percent enrichment required for a nuclear weapon.
Last week, Britain, France and Germany, all signatories to the 2015 deal, threatened to reimpose sanctions lifted under the agreement. Iran has warned of serious consequence with some officials in the country hinting at withdrawal of Tehran from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Hamas agrees to latest Gaza ceasefire proposal
FRANCE 24/August 18, 2025
Palestinian group Hamas on Monday agreed to a new proposal from mediators to end the nearly two-year-long war in the Gaza Strip, a Hamas source told AFP. The plan reportedly involves a 60-day ceasefire "during which 10 Israeli hostages would be released alive, along with a number of bodies", said a source from Islamic Jihad. Hamas has accepted a new ceasefire proposal for Gaza, a senior member from the group said Monday, after a fresh diplomatic push to end more than 22 months of war. Mediators Egypt and Qatar, backed by the United States, have struggled to secure a lasting truce in the conflict, which has triggered a dire humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. But after receiving a new proposal from meditators, Hamas said it was ready for talks. "The movement has submitted its response, agreeing to the mediators' new proposal. We pray to God to extinguish the fire of this war on our people," senior Hamas official Bassem Naim said on Facebook. Earlier a Hamas source told AFP the group accepted the proposal "without requesting any amendments". Egypt said it and Qatar had sent the new proposal to Israel, adding "the ball is now in its court". Israel has yet to respond. A Palestinian source familiar with the talks said mediators were "expected to announce that an agreement has been reached and set a date for the resumption of talks", adding guarantees were offered to ensure implementation and pursue a permanent solution. According to a report in Egyptian state-linked media Al-Qahera, the deal proposed an initial 60-day truce, partial hostage release, release of some Palestinian prisoners and provisions to allow for the entry of aid. The proposal comes more than a week after Israel's security cabinet approved plans to expand the war into Gaza City and nearby refugee camps, which has sparked international outcry as well as domestic opposition.
'Confronted and destroyed'
Out of 251 hostages taken during Hamas's October 2023 attack that triggered the war, 49 are still held in Gaza including 27 the Israeli military says are dead. I Just Spit Out My Sugar Free Red Bull Cackling At These Complete Strangers Who Came Out Of Nowhere With The Funniest Possible Reply To A Random Comment.They added that "all factions are supportive" of the Egyptian and Qatari proposal. US President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social: "We will only see the return of the remaining hostages when Hamas is confronted and destroyed!!!" "The sooner this takes place, the better the chances of success will be."Last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel "will agree to an agreement in which all the hostages are released at once and according to our conditions for ending the war". Meanwhile, in a now familiar scene in Gaza, AFP footage from the southern city of Khan Younis showed crowds of mourners kneeling over the shrouded bodies of their loved ones who were killed seeking aid the day before.
'Beyond imagination'
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty, visiting the Rafah border crossing with Gaza on Monday, said Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani was visiting "to consolidate our existing common efforts in order to apply maximum pressure on the two sides to reach a deal as soon as possible". Alluding to the dire humanitarian conditions for the more than two million people living in the Gaza Strip, where UN agencies and aid groups have warned of famine, Abdelatty stressed the urgency of reaching an agreement. "The current situation on the ground is beyond imagination," he said. Egypt said on Monday it was willing to join a potential international force deployed to Gaza, but only if backed by a UN Security Council resolution and accompanied by a "political horizon".
'Deliberate' starvation
On the ground, Gaza's civil defence agency said Israeli forces killed at least 11 people across the territory on Monday, including six killed by Israeli fire in the south. Contacted by AFP, the Israeli military said it was "not aware of any casualties as a result of IDF fire" in the southern areas reported by the civil defence. Media restrictions in Gaza and difficulties accessing swathes of the Palestinian territory mean AFP is unable to independently verify the tolls and details provided by the civil defence agency or the Israeli military. Rights group Amnesty International meanwhile accused Israel of enacting a "deliberate policy" of starvation in Gaza and "systematically destroying the health, well-being and social fabric of Palestinian life".Israel, while heavily restricting aid allowed into Gaza, has repeatedly rejected claims of deliberate starvation. Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official figures. Israel's offensive has killed more than 62,004 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to figures from the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza which the United Nations considers reliable.

Egypt says ready to take part in international force for Gaza
Agence France Presse/August 18/2025
Egypt said on Monday it was willing to join a potential international force deployed to war-torn Gaza, but only if backed by a UN Security Council resolution and accompanied by a "political horizon", as ceasefire efforts pressed on in Cairo.
Egypt has repeatedly called for Palestinian unity under the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), an umbrella group that dominates the Palestinian Authority and excludes militant group Hamas. The PA previously governed the Gaza Strip before losing power in 2007 during violent clashes with Hamas, whose October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel sparked the current war in the territory. "We are standing ready of course to help, to contribute to any international force to be deployed in Gaza in some specific parameters," Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty told a joint press conference with Palestinian prime minister Mohammad Mustafa at the Rafah border crossing on Monday. "First of all, to have a security council resolution, to have a clear-cut mandate, and of course to come within a political horizon," Abdelatty said. "Without a political horizon, it will be nonsense to deploy any forces there." Abdelatty said a political framework would enable international troops to operate more effectively and support Palestinians "to realize their own independent Palestinian state in their homeland". The Palestinian premier, Mustafa, said a temporary committee would manage the territory after the war ended, with full authority resting with the Palestinian government. "We're not creating a new political entity in Gaza. Rather, we are reactivating the institutions in the State of Palestine and its government in Gaza," he said. While Hamas has previously welcomed the idea of a temporary committee to "oversee relief efforts, reconstruction and governance", it remains unclear whether the group is willing to relinquish control of the territory. In an interview with U.S. network Fox News earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel planned to seize complete control of the Gaza Strip, but did not intend to govern it. "We don't want to keep it," the premier said, adding Israel wanted a "security perimeter" and to hand the Palestinian territory to "Arab forces that will govern it properly without threatening us". On Monday, Hamas negotiators in Cairo received a new proposal for a ceasefire in the Gaza war, a Palestinian official said, with the prime minister of key mediator Qatar also in Egypt to push for a truce.

Israel says will deliver humanitarian aid to South Sudan
Agence France Presse/August 18/2025
Israel on Monday announced it will provide emergency humanitarian aid to South Sudan, one of the world's poorest countries in the midst of renewed violent political instability. The announcement by Foreign Minister Gideon Saar comes after media reports that Israel held talks with the African state to resettle Palestinians from Gaza -- a claim South Sudan has firmly rejected. The war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, now in its 23rd month, has created a dire humanitarian crisis for the Palestinian territory's population of more than two million people. "In light of the severe humanitarian crisis in South Sudan, (Israel) will deliver urgent humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations in the country," a statement from Saar's office said. "South Sudan is currently struggling with a cholera outbreak and facing a severe shortage of resources," the statement added. "The aid will include essential medical supplies for treating patients, water purification equipment, gloves and face masks, as well as special hygiene kits to prevent cholera" and food packages, the statement added. Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Sharren Haskel paid an official visit to the country's capital Juba last week. Meanwhile, UN-backed experts have warned of widespread famine unfolding in Gaza, where Israel has drastically curtailed the amount of humanitarian aid it allows in and convoys have been repeatedly looted. Rights group Amnesty International on Monday accused Israel of enacting a "deliberate policy" of starvation in Gaza and "systematically destroying the health, well-being and social fabric of Palestinian life". Israel has rejected claims of deliberate starvation. The war in Gaza was triggered by Hamas's October 2023 attack on Israel resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on official figures. Israel's offensive has killed at least 62,004 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to figures from the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza which the United Nations considers reliable.

Amnesty says Israel deliberately starving Gaza's Palestinians
Agence France Presse/August 18/2025
Rights group Amnesty International on Monday accused Israel of enacting a "deliberate policy" of starvation in Gaza, as the United Nations and aid groups warn of famine in the Palestinian territory. Israel, while heavily restricting aid allowed into the Gaza Strip, has repeatedly rejected claims of deliberate starvation in the 22-month-old war. In a report citing testimonies of displaced Palestinians and medical staff who treated malnourished children, Amnesty said that "Israel is carrying out a deliberate campaign of starvation in the occupied Gaza Strip." The group accused Israel of "systematically destroying the health, well-being and social fabric of Palestinian life". "It is the intended outcome of plans and policies that Israel has designed and implemented, over the past 22 months, to deliberately inflict on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction -- which is part and parcel of Israel's ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza," Amnesty said. The report is based on interviews conducted in recent weeks with 19 displaced Gazans sheltering in three makeshift camps as well two medical staff in two hospitals in Gaza City. Contacted by AFP, the Israeli military and foreign ministry did not immediately comment on Amnesty's findings. In a report issued last week, the Israeli defense ministry's COGAT, a body overseeing civil affairs in the Palestinian territories, rejected claims of widespread malnutrition in Gaza and disputed figures shared by the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory. In April, Amnesty accused Israel of committing a "live-streamed genocide" against Palestinians by forcibly displacing Gazans and creating a humanitarian catastrophe in the besieged territory, claims that Israel dismissed at the time as "blatant lies".

Tens of thousands of Israelis protest as army presses on with Gaza war plan
The Arab Weekly/August 18/2025
Clutching pictures of hostages, waving yellow flags, banging on snare drums and shouting chants to bring captive Israelis home, tens of thousands of Israelis took to Tel Aviv’s streets Sunday to call for an end to the war in Gaza. Demonstrators waved Israeli flags and carried photos of hostages as whistles, horns and drums echoed at rallies across the country, while some protesters blocked streets and highways, including the main route between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Ahead of Sunday, some businesses and institutions said they would allow staff to join the nationwide strike, which was called by the hostages’ families. While some businesses closed, many also remained open across the country on what is a working day in Israel. Schools are on summer recess and were not affected. Israeli police said that 38 demonstrators had been detained. Some protesters blocking roads scuffled with police, and were carried away by officers. Demonstrations have been held regularly through most of the 22 months of war in the wake of the Hamas attacks in 2023, but Sunday’s protests appeared to be among the largest yet. The renewed energy of the movement came with the government deciding just over a week ago to seize Gaza City and nearby camps in a new offensive. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s vow to conquer the most populated swathes of the Gaza Strip has triggered an international backlash while aid agencies and UN experts have warned of unfolding famine in the territory. Recent video footage released by Palestinian militants showed hostages heavily emaciated and pale, spurring fears that the captives’ health is more fragile than ever. On Sunday, Netanyahu told the cabinet: “Those who call today for an end to the war without defeating Hamas are not only hardening Hamas’ position and delaying the release of our hostages. They are also ensuring that the horrors of October 7 will repeat themselves over and over again.”The prime minister, who leads the country’s most right-wing government in history, said his administration was determined to implement a decision for the military to seize Gaza City, one of the last major areas of the enclave it does not already control. That decision is widely unpopular among Israelis and many of the hostages’ families, who fear an expanded military campaign in Gaza could risk the lives of their loved ones still held captive. There are 50 hostages held by militants in Gaza, of which Israeli officials believe around 20 are still alive. The Israeli army’s chief of staff said Sunday the military was pressing ahead with plans for the next phase of its Gaza offensive, with a focus on Gaza City. “Today we are approving the plan for the next phase of the war,” Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir said during a field visit to the Palestinian territory, according to an army statement. “We will maintain the momentum of Operation ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ while focusing on Gaza City. We will continue to strike until the decisive defeat of Hamas,” he said. The large-scale operation in Gaza, dubbed “Gideon’s Chariots” by the Israeli army, began in mid-May. “We will continue to strike until the decisive defeat of Hamas, with the hostages always at the forefront of our minds,” Zamir added. In response, Hamas said the plans would result in “a new wave of extermination and mass displacement”.The Palestinian militant group also condemned the proposals as a “a major war crime” which it said reflected Israel’s “disregard for international and humanitarian law”. Earlier this month, Netanyahu laid out his plan, approved by his security cabinet, for a new phase of operations in Gaza. Israel has said it is preparing to take control of Gaza City and neighbouring refugee camps with the stated aim of defeating Hamas and freeing the hostages kidnapped during the October 7, 2023 attack that sparked the 22-month war.Zamir said Israel’s ongoing offensive had “achieved its objectives”, that “Hamas no longer possesses the same capabilities”, and the military had dealt the Palestinian militant group a “severe blow”. “The current campaign is not a pinpoint one; it is just another layer in a long-term and planned strategy,” he added. On Friday, the army said its troops were conducting a series of operations on the outskirts of Gaza City, where residents have been reporting intense strikes and ground incursions for days. Israel on Saturday said it was preparing “to move the population from combat zones to the southern Gaza Strip for their protection”.Hamas said Israel’s statements on this, including its plans for the installation of tents in southern Gaza, were “a blatant deception to cover up the imminent massacre and forced displacement”. Israel’s army radio reported on Sunday residents would be evacuated before troops encircle the Gaza City and finally seize it, beginning “in the coming weeks”.
Tens of thousands of reservist soldiers would be called up for the mission, the report added.

Druze demand self determination, wave Israeli flags in Syria demo
Associated Press/August 18/2025
Hundreds of people demonstrated in Syria's southern city of Sweida and elsewhere on Saturday to demand the right to self determination for the Druze minority, the largest protests to take place since deadly clashes in the area last month. Some of the protesters waved Israeli flags to thank Israel for intervening on their side during heavy clashes in mid-July between Druze militias and armed tribal groups and government forces. Saturday's demonstration comes as Syria grapples with deep ethnic and religious divisions following the collapse of the Assad family rule last December. The transition has proven fragile, with renewed violence erupting in March along the coast and in July in Sweida, a city with a significant Druze population, highlighting the continued threat to peace after years of civil war. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Syrian war monitor, said the protesters expressed their rejection of the interim central government in Damascus and demanded that those responsible for atrocities against Druze be brought to justice. The Observatory said some of the protesters called on Israel to intervene to support their demand of self determination. Rayyan Maarouf, who heads the activist media collective Suwayda 24, said Saturday's demonstration in Sweida was the largest since last months's clashes, and that there were similar gatherings in areas including the nearby towns of Shahba and Salkhad. He added that this is the first time people protested under the slogan of self determination. "This is an unprecedented change for the Druze in Syria," Maarouf told The Associated Press. Clashes erupted on July 13 between Druze militias and local Sunni Muslim Bedouin tribes in Sweida. Government forces then intervened, nominally to restore order, but ended up essentially siding with the Bedouins against the Druze. Israel intervened in defense of the Druze, launching dozens of airstrikes on convoys of government fighters and even striking the Syrian Defense Ministry headquarters in central Damascus. Atrocities were committed during the clashes that left hundreds of people dead. The new interim government set up a committee last month tasked with investigating attacks on civilians in the sectarian violence in the country's south. It is supposed to issue a report within three months. The Druze religious sect began as a 10th-century offshoot of Ismailism, a branch of Shiite Islam. Over half of the roughly 1 million Druze worldwide live in Syria. Most other Druze live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast War and annexed in 1981.

Historic drought, wheat shortage to test Syria's new leadership
Sarah El Safty and Maha El Dahan/Reuters/August 18, 2025
Syria faces a potential food crisis after the worst drought in 36 years slashed wheat production by around 40%, squeezing the country's cash-strapped government, which has been unable to secure large-scale purchases. Around three million Syrians could face severe hunger, the United Nations' World Food Programme told Reuters in written answers to questions, without giving a timeframe. Over half of the population of about 25.6 million is currently food insecure, it added. In a June report, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that Syria faced a wheat shortfall of 2.73 million metric tons this year, or enough to feed around 16 million people for a year. The situation poses a challenge to President Ahmed al-Sharaa, whose government is seeking to rebuild Syria after a 14-year civil war that saw the toppling of long-time ruler Bashar al-Assad in December. Wheat is Syria's most important crop and supports a state-subsidised bread programme - a vital part of everyday life. Yet Sharaa's government has been slow to mobilise international support for big grain purchases. Reuters spoke to a Syrian official, three traders, three aid workers and two industry sources with direct knowledge of wheat procurement efforts, who said more imports and financing were needed to alleviate the impending shortage. The new government has only purchased 373,500 tons of wheat from local farmers this season, the Syrian government official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. That is around half of last year's volume. The government needs to import around 2.55 million tons this year, the source added. So far, however, Damascus has not announced any major wheat import deals and is relying on small private shipments amounting to around 200,000 tons in total through direct contracts with local importers, the two industry sources said, also declining to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter. The ministry of information did not respond to a request for comment. "Half of the population is threatened to suffer from the drought, especially when it comes to the availability of bread, which is the most important food during the crisis," Toni Ettel, FAO's representative in Syria, told Reuters. So far, Syria has received only limited emergency aid, including 220,000 tons of wheat from Iraq and 500 tons of flour from Ukraine.
'THE WORST YEAR'
While Syria consumes around four million tons of wheat annually, domestic production is expected to fall to around 1.2 million tons this year, down 40% from last year, according to FAO figures. "This has been the worst year ever since I started farming," said Nazih Altarsha, whose family has owned six hectares of land in Homs governorate since 1960.Abbas Othman, a wheat farmer from Qamishli, part of Syria's breadbasket region in northeast Hasaka province, didn't harvest a single grain. "We planted 100 donums (six hectares) and we harvested nothing," he told Reuters. Only 40% of farmland was cultivated this season, much of which has now been ruined, particularly in key food-producing areas like Hassakeh, Aleppo, and Homs, the FAO said. Local farmers were encouraged to sell what they salvaged from their crop to the government at $450 a ton, around $200 per ton above the market price as an incentive, the official source said. "In a good year I can sell the government around 25 tons from my six hectares but this year I only managed to sell eight tons," said Altarsha, the Homs farmer. "The rest I had to just feed to my livestock as it wasn't suitable for human consumption," he said, hoping for better rains in December when the new planting season begins. Before the civil war, Syria produced up to four million tons of wheat in good years and exported around one million of that. U.S. POLICY SHIFTIn a major U.S. policy shift in May, President Donald Trump said he would lift sanctions on Syria that risked holding back its economic recovery. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates Syria will need to import a record 2.15 million tons of wheat in 2025/26, up 53% from last year, according to the department's database. Still, Syria's main grain buying agency is yet to announce a new purchasing strategy. The agency did not respond to Reuters questions over the issue. Wheat imports also face payment delays due to financial difficulties despite the lifting of sanctions, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter. Food was not restricted by Western sanctions on Assad's Syria, but banking restrictions and asset freezes made it difficult for most trading houses to do business with Damascus. Russia, the world's largest wheat exporter and a staunch supporter of Assad, had been a steady supplier but to a large extent has suspended supplies since December over payment delays and uncertainty about the new government, sources told Reuters following Assad's ouster.

Strategic shift as Egypt prepares to join Turkey’s KAAN stealth fighter project
The Arab Weekly/August 18/2025
Local and international media report that Egypt is on the verge of joining Turkey’s strategic project to develop the KAAN stealth fighter jet. The move represents a major step in military cooperation, yet its significance extends far beyond a bilateral agreement between two countries that, until recently, were distant and politically at odds. The collaboration surpasses earlier public discussions that focused on Ankara’s attempt to compensate for being denied the American F-35 following its purchase of the Russian S-400 air defence system, or on Washington’s restrictions on Egypt in acquiring advanced weaponry. Egypt and Turkey, together with other major powers, aim to cooperate to prevent the United States and Israel from unilaterally shaping geopolitical maps in the Middle East and establishing borders solely to serve their own interests. Cairo and Ankara have recognised that regional developments are at odds with their strategic objectives. Both countries see the need to overcome past political disagreements and build a robust strategic partnership. Military cooperation is thus framed as a starting point rather than an end, carrying mutual significance and sending a clear signal that they will not yield to the dictates of external powers. The initiative also emphasises the capacity of regional actors to develop independent defence industries, reducing reliance on the United States or other foreign powers. The challenges confronting both countries have driven a level of cooperation that is no longer discreet, without compromising their alliances with the United States or their close ties with the European Union. Understanding the defence and deterrence dimensions of this partnership is crucial, given regional volatility, conflicts, wars and Israel’s expanding influence. Egypt and Turkey are moving to exercise direct control over their military capabilities, preparing for potential regional contingencies. Reports indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s ambitions could extend beyond Gaza, Syria and Lebanon, while some assessments point to concerns over Egypt’s growing military strength and Turkey’s strategic ambitions in Syria. Egyptian sources told The Arab Weekly that, with the decline of Iran-backed projects and the dominance of Israel’s programmes, leveraging Turkish expertise in stealth aircraft and advanced drones is essential. Many global powers do not provide open technical access; even China, which maintains an open stance toward Egypt, remains cautious in transferring certain aircraft or defence systems, just as Turkey is with the United States. The sources added that Egyptian-Turkish military-industrial cooperation carries political objectives as well. It aims to close the chapter on previous disagreements, enabling coordinated efforts in resolving regional issues in ways that serve the interests of both parties. The initiative also signals the potential formation of a broader regional defence project, potentially involving other Arab states in collective security arrangements.
The specialised site Tactical Report, covering military affairs in the Middle East and North Africa, noted that Egypt’s interest in cooperating on the KAAN programme emerged during President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s visit to Ankara in September last year. Sisi expressed interest in the jet, expected to enter service by 2030, and discussed Turkey’s Steel Dome air defence system with Turkish officials. An Egyptian Air Force delegation subsequently visited Turkey to examine the jet prototype and production lines, giving it high marks. In May, Egyptian Chief of Staff General Ahmad Khalifa visited Ankara, marking the beginning of strengthened military ties. He toured defence companies and met senior Turkish officials, including Turkish Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Metin Gurak during the fourth session of the Egyptian-Turkish military committee, as well as Defence Minister Yasar Guler. The visit focused on expanding military cooperation in training, knowledge transfer and experience-sharing between the armed forces, with both sides expressing ambitions to broaden their partnership across multiple domains in the near future. Expectations are that a memorandum of understanding between Cairo and Ankara will be signed before year-end, formalising Egypt’s participation in the KAAN programme. The jet is designed as an air force asset with advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground combat capabilities, rapid strike potential, high manoeuvrability, radar stealth and AI-assisted systems.
This marks the first occasion Egypt and Turkey have agreed to elevate military-industrial cooperation to producing a stealth fighter with specialised specifications. Such a development could alter the balance of aerial power in the Middle East, particularly after Israel’s demonstrated dominance over Iran, backed by maximum US support, while Washington has provided limited military assistance to Cairo and Ankara. Spain has announced its collaboration with Turkey on the KAAN project, reflecting evolving political relations between Ankara and Madrid. The UAE has also expressed interest, highlighting recent advances in Turkish defence industries. Turkey’s success in attracting Egypt, Spain and the UAE to the KAAN programme represents a significant achievement for its military-industrial sector. It boosts investment in research and development, accelerates production, reduces costs, enhances global competitiveness and may create a new equilibrium in regional air power.

The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources on August 18-19/2025
The Palestinian Authority's Human 'Slaughterhouse'
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/August 18, 2025
None of these countries... [France, Canada, Australia, the UK] has demanded that the Palestinian Authority halt its human rights violations against its own people. Ending financial and administrative corruption and excluding Hamas from governance is pointless as long as the PA continues to crack down on its political rivals and impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech.
Last month, Palestinian Authority security officer Ammar Saeed Abu Thahri reportedly died while in PA custody. It remains unclear why Abu Thahri was arrested by PA security forces in the first place.
"Most of the arrests were related to freedom of expression or participation in demonstrations in solidarity with the Gaza Strip." — Palestinian human rights group Lawyers for Justice, safa.pa, July 30, 2025.
The Palestinian Authority security officers who beat political activist Nizar Banat to death in 2021 have still not been punished. Banat, an outspoken critic of the PA leadership, was beaten to death by PA security officers in Hebron.
"We have documented hundreds of cases of arrest, torture, and ill-treatment of activists and political opponents since Nizar's killing.... Those involved in most of these crimes have not been held accountable." — Lawyers for Justice, June 24, 2025.
If France, Australia, the UK and Canada really cared about the Palestinians, they should be demanding that the PA respect public freedoms and stop its crackdown on political and human rights activists.
The last thing the Middle East needs is another Arab dictatorship run by corrupt leaders whose main goal is to batter their own people while siphoning off still more European and international aid money into their own bank accounts.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) security officers who beat political activist Nizar Banat to death in 2021 have still not been punished. Banat, an outspoken critic of the PA leadership, was beaten to death by PA security officers in Hebron.
France, Canada, Australia, the UK and other Western countries that recently pledged to recognize a Palestinian state have said that their decision is "predicated" on commitments from the Palestinian Authority (PA) to undergo critical governance reforms, as well as excluding the Iran-backed Hamas terrorist group from a future Palestinian government.
None of these countries, however, has demanded that the PA halt its human rights violations against its own people. Ending financial and administrative corruption and excluding Hamas from governance is pointless as long as the PA continues to crack down on its political rivals and impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech.
The Western countries continue to ignore statements by Palestinian human rights organizations regarding the PA's violations. These countries, obsessed with Israel, turn a blind eye to Palestinians' complaints against the PA, which controls large parts of the West Bank.
According to the Arab Organization for Human Rights in Britain, the PA's torture of its own people includes beatings with cables, pulling out nails, suspension from the ceiling, flogging, kicking, electric shocks, sexual harassment and the threat of rape.
The international media also ignore the situation. Their representatives prefer stories that implicate only Israel. It is hard to remember the last time a respected newspaper or media outlet in the West reported about human rights violations committed by the Palestinian Authority against its citizens. The failure of the international community even to notice such violations plays into the hands of the PA, and allows it to continue its crackdown on public freedoms and political activists in areas under its jurisdiction.
Recently, a committee representing families of Palestinians detained by the PA complained that their sons were being subjected to "severe torture" in prisons and interrogation centers.
The committee noted in a statement that the PA security forces are using "harsh and systematic methods against detainees that threaten their lives."
This universal indifference has led to a deterioration in the health of a number of detainees, requiring their transfer to hospitals for treatment, the committee said. "Among them is political prisoner Mohammed al-Hashlamoun, who was transferred to hospital less than 48 hours after his arrest in Jericho prison."
As long ago as 2022, Human Rights Watch reported that the security forces of both Hamas (in Gaza) and the Palestinian Authority routinely taunt and threaten detainees, and use solitary confinement and beatings. These include whipping their feet, and forcing detainees into agonizing stress positions for prolonged periods, such as hoisting their arms behind their backs with cables or rope, as well as inflicting excruciating pain on critics and political opponents to elicit confessions.
The PA's notorious Jericho Prison, dubbed "The Slaughterhouse," is known as a center for extreme abuse. Suha Jbara, a mother of three, who was held in the prison on charges of "collaboration" with Israel, recounted her experience:
"They [PA security forces] took me to an unknown place.... When we entered an office, the person asked me: 'Do you know where you are?' I told him: 'I'm in the General Investigation [Department].' He replied: 'No, you are in the Jericho Slaughterhouse.' Then they took me to the Jericho Hospital for a pregnancy test, although I was undergoing menstruation."
Jbara said she was then taken back to prison, where she was blindfolded and handcuffed.
"The interrogator started threatening me. He told me that from my face he could tell that I'm a collaborator [with Israel]. He threatened to take away my custody over my children. He said he knows how to beat me without leaving signs on my body. The interrogation and beating lasted all night."
Ahmed Harish, another Palestinian who was held in Jericho's "Slaughterhouse," testified:
"For the past week, I have been beaten all over my body, my hands tied in all kinds of positions that leave my back bent or my hands hung above me, and they leave heavy objects made of iron and bricks on my legs."
Last week, the Palestinian Committee of Detainees' Families said that "the continued policy of political detention and torture constitutes a crime and a flagrant violation of Palestinian law and international human rights conventions."
In June, Palestinian human rights groups reported that Ahmed al-Safouri, a Palestinian from the West Bank's Jenin Refugee Camp, died as a result of "horrific torture," in a PA detention center. According to the groups, the death of al-Safouri "was not an isolated incident, but rather represents a stark illustration of the suffering of hundreds of political detainees [in PA prisons] who are subjected to grave violations during their arrest and interrogation."
Amnesty International quoted former Palestinian detainees in 2022 as saying that they had been whipped on their feet and repeatedly beaten with clubs.
Last month, Palestinian Authority security officer Ammar Saeed Abu Thahri reportedly died while in PA custody. It remains unclear why Abu Thahri was arrested by PA security forces in the first place. His family accused the PA security forces of torturing their son:
"We mourn our son who was betrayed by the [PA] oppressors and passed away. We hold the [PA] Military Intelligence responsible for his arrest and torture and call for the formation of a serious and impartial investigation committee to uncover the circumstances of the incident and hold all those involved accountable. This crime must not go unpunished."
The Palestinian human rights group Lawyers for Justice said that the PA security forces have stepped up their crackdown on political opponents. "We are currently monitoring the cases of 17 detainees held by the Palestinian Authority," the group revealed. "Most of the arrests were related to freedom of expression or participation in demonstrations in solidarity with the Gaza Strip."
Lawyers for Justice pointed out that Palestinian Authority security officers who beat political activist Nizar Banat to death in 2021 have still not been punished. Banat, an outspoken critic of the PA leadership, was beaten to death by PA security officers in Hebron. Although a number of officers have been formally charged, they have been released from prison, while their trial has been repeatedly delayed.
The group stated:
"The trial proceedings have remained at a standstill since the start of the court sessions in September 2021 amid unjustified procrastination and suspicions of a lack of seriousness, particularly after the defendants were released within a year of the crime. We have documented hundreds of cases of arrest, torture, and ill-treatment of activists and political opponents since Nizar's killing. Since October 2023, 22 Palestinians have been killed [by PA security forces]. Those involved in most of these crimes have not been held accountable."
If France, Australia, the UK and Canada really cared about the Palestinians, they should be demanding that the PA respect public freedoms and stop its crackdown on political and human rights activists.
The last thing the Middle East needs is another Arab dictatorship run by corrupt leaders whose main goal is to batter their own people while siphoning off still more European and international aid money into their own bank accounts.
*Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
*Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21846/palestinian-authority-slaughterhouse
© 2025 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Turkey and Syria warn Israel and Kurds against fuelling ‘chaos’ in Syria
The Arab Weekly/August 18/2025
Turkey’s foreign minister and his Syrian counterpart on Wednesday warned Israel and Kurdish groups not to stir up “chaos” in Syria and demanded an end to all external interventions aimed at destabilising the war-torn country. “Certain actors are bothered by the positive developments in Syria,” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said after talks with Syria’s Asaad al-Shibani in Ankara, referring to Israel and Kurdish YPG fighters operational in northeastern Syria. “Israel is currently one of the biggest actors in this dark picture,” he said of its ongoing military incursions since the overthrow of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad late last year. “The emergence of chaos in Syria … appears to have become a priority for Israel’s own national security,” he said. Standing next to him, Shibani also warned against efforts to foster chaos in Syria. “We’re facing new challenges that are no less dangerous than those we encountered during the years of war, foremost among them are repeated Israeli threats … through air strikes,” he said. Fidan said efforts to destabilise Syria could be clearly seen in the March bloodshed in the coastal Alawite heartland of Latakia and in the recent deadly violence that gripped the southwestern Druze-majority province of Sweida as well as in the Kurdish-dominated northeast. “The events in Latakia and Sweida and the failure to integrate the YPG (into the Syrian state) are evidence of the challenges and obstacles facing the positive process under way,” he said. Shibani said foreign actors were exacerbating the unrest within Syria. “We are also confronting multiple foreign interventions, both direct and indirect … (that) push the country toward sectarian and regional strife,” he said without giving details but warning against “any reckless attempts to exploit events here”.
During the war, Assad’s government was backed by Russia, Iran and its Lebanon-based militant ally Hezbollah. Fidan said the YPG, part of the US-backed Kurdish-led SDF but seen by Ankara as an extension of PKK militant group, remained a concern over its refusal to integrate into the Syrian state despite a March agreement to do so.
The PKK, which fought a decades-long insurgency against Ankara, is currently in the throes of disbanding as part of a peace agreement with the Turkish government.
“We have not seen any developments that indicate the organisation has eliminated the threat of armed action” nor sent home the foreign fighters in its ranks, he said.
“In an environment where Turkey’s security demands remain unmet, we have no chance of remaining calm,” he warned. The defence ministers of Turkey and Syria signed a memorandum of understanding on military training and consultancy after talks in Ankara on Wednesday, Turkey’s defence ministry said. The neighbours had been negotiating a comprehensive military cooperation agreement for months, after the ousting of Bashar al-Assad in December.

Larijani in Baghdad, others in Beirut
Karam NamaThe Arab Weekly/August 18/2025
From Baghdad to Beirut, Larijani’s visit carried a single thread in two different colours: one that reinforces the legitimacy of Iran’s presence, and another that heralds the beginning of its challenge.
In politics, visits are not measured by commemorative photos, but by the new balances they leave behind. When Ali Larijani landed in Baghdad, he knew that signing a security memorandum with Iraq would be seen in Tehran as a step towards consolidating two decades of influence. Hours later, in Beirut, he had to listen not to words of welcome, but to messages of rebuke from the head of state himself. Between the two capitals, the difference emerged between a country that legitimises Iran’s presence and another that is trying to break its grip.
In Baghdad, the secretary-general of Iran’s National Security Council sat at the official table and signed a security cooperation memorandum with National Security Adviser Qasim al-Araji, in the presence of Coordination Framework Prime Minister Mohammed Shiaa al-Sudani. The scene was political par excellence, lending double legitimacy to the memorandum at a time when Tehran is experiencing its weakest phase of regional influence.
Al-Sudani has always used a cheap excuse denying any Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs, describing it as an exaggeration, without being able to convince himself of this pretext before convincing the Iraqis! But on this day he received an interesting response from Beirut, hours after Larijani’s visit to Baghdad ended. At first glance, the scene appears to be merely a bilateral agreement between two neighbouring countries. Its headlines are about borders, combating smuggling and exchanging intelligence information. But what is not written in the text of the memorandum is the most important: granting Tehran official recognition with an Iraqi signature, legitimising its continued security presence in a country that has been its unrivalled sphere of influence for two decades.
Washington was quick to comment. US State Department spokeswoman Tami Bruce said: ‘Any security agreement that gives Iran a dominant role in Iraqi affairs undermines the stability of the region and is contrary to the interests of the Iraqi people themselves.’ This clear statement, directed more at Baghdad than at Tehran, serves as a reminder that Iraq, as a sovereign state … cannot be a conduit for a security project that serves only one party.
A few hours later, the same man was in Beirut, but the tables had turned and the tone had changed completely. He did not hear the usual words of welcome, but instead received a blunt statement from President Joseph Aoun: there is no place for weapons outside the authority of the state, and we will not allow another country to interfere in Lebanon’s sovereign decisions. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam reiterated the position even more clearly: the time for tolerating foreign interference in Lebanon’s affairs is over.
In politics, this was akin to a direct declaration of sovereignty, clarifying the difference between Lebanon as a state and Lebanon as a mini-state represented by Hezbollah for decades.
Ali Larijani is not just a political or security envoy. His intellectual background reveals the nature of his mission. He comes from a family that theorises about Iranian hegemony in the region. His father, Mirza Hashem Amoli, is one of the leading Shia religious authorities in Qom. His brother, Mohammad Javad Larijani, is a theorist of the conservative foreign policy current, whose personality blends Persian nationalist culture, Shia doctrine, and political pragmatism. His book, ‘Quotations on National Strategy,’ explains the ‘Qom, Mother of Villages’ theory, which is taught in Iranian security and intelligence institutes, with the aim of shifting the centre of the Islamic world from Mecca to the city of Qom and expanding Iranian influence through ideological discourse cloaked in political and security rhetoric.
From a broader perspective, the signing of the memorandum of understanding in Baghdad between Larijani and Al-Araji, who lived in Iran for nearly half his life as a fighter in the Badr Brigade, and is seen today as more of an Iranian employee in the Green Zone than an advisor to the Iraqi national mother, is a new episode in the consolidation of Iranian influence in Iraq. By contrast, Beirut appears to be a potential gateway to breaking one of the pillars of this influence by weakening Hezbollah and disarming it. The difference between the two capitals illustrates the difference between a state that allows the ‘Qom’ project to penetrate its security structure and another that is trying, albeit belatedly, to close the door on it. Iran skilfully manages its regional affairs through figures such as Larijani, betting on gaining time and building legitimacy from within the national institutions of states, rather than through chaos alone. What happened in Baghdad is a legitimisation of this kind. What happened in Beirut, on the other hand, is a test of the state’s ability to say ‘no’, even in the face of a regional player that combines history, ideology and politics at the same time.
From Baghdad to Beirut, Larijani’s visit carried a single thread in two different colours: one that reinforces the legitimacy of Iran’s presence, and another that heralds the beginning of its challenge. In this contradiction, the contours of the future map become clear, where the state either imposes its sovereignty or becomes a name without substance.
**Karam Nama is a London-based Iraqi writer.

Where Did Iran’s Arab Supporters Disappear?
Abdulrahman Al-Rashed/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025
A deathly silence looms over the Arab street, unmoved by the wave of dramatic events in the region. We have not seen demonstrations, protests, or sit-ins in the Arab countries, and in my view, this is the first time in seven decades or more that such displays have vanished!
What has befallen Iran is no small matter; its military losses and nuclear facilities are immense, facilities that cost billions of dollars and much blood and sweat to build. To its ballistic and nuclear losses, we can add the loss of the popular current it had cultivated across the region, from Iraq to Morocco.
When the Lebanese government took its bold decision to confiscate Hezbollah’s weapons, the response was limited to just a few dozen motorcycles roaming Beirut’s streets in protest! So what happened to the human waves, the millions who once flooded the streets at a mere gesture from the party’s leader or from Tehran? The collapse of Iranian influence is clear within Arab regions, like the collapse of Nasserism after its defeat in the 1967 war. It lost the ability to mobilize the street and resorted to relying on its socialist party members and labor unions to attend events after the masses, who once filled the squares with passion and spontaneity in response to radio appeals that dominated people’s awareness and emotions for nearly two decades, dwindled. In the wake of that defeat, a sense of shock and betrayal spread across the region, which had been waiting for the liberation of Palestine.
Iran, too, once enjoyed dominance and popular support in the region, defying attempts to block its ideas and curb its activities. It managed to raise generations of Arabs on its ideas. Tehran opened its doors and arms to extremist Sunnis, including leaders of al-Qaeda, overlooking their anti-Shiite ideology, and supported most Sunni opposition groups and movements against their governments. It built an organic, deeply coordinated relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. It organized nearly annual conferences and seminars for Arab nationalists and communists.
It spent heavily to woo Arab politicians and intellectuals; books were published and odes of praise were written in support of the Imam’s regime and in its defense. Tehran gathered Shiites, Sunnis, and Arab Christians alike – thinkers from the Gulf, Egypt, the Levant, the Maghreb, Sudan, Yemen, and Arab diaspora communities. It climbed onto many Arab media outlets to promote Khamenei’s line. At times, we could hardly understand how it managed to reconcile all these contradictions!
In Tripoli, Lebanon – a city with tensions against the Shiites of Beirut – there were Sunni groups that, since the 1980s, continued to pledge allegiance to Tehran. In Jordan, among the Muslim Brotherhood, some openly declared their affection for Tehran’s leaders. Numerous works emerged in its defense: in Egypt, for example, “Iran and Political Islam”; in Kuwait, “Iran and the West: Conflict of Interests”; in the Gulf, conferences were held under the banner of “rapprochement” between sects, celebrating the history of Abbasid Caliph Al-Nasir Li-Din Allah. All these activities might have been laudable, were it not for the fact that the intentions behind them were not purely for the sake of God Almighty, nor out of love for ending or easing sectarian strife, but rather as part of a political project of domination.
Tehran was managing elite and grassroots movements in dozens of Arab cities; protests against novels, films, negotiations, and regimes.
But in the recent wars, following the October 2023 attacks, the kind of mobilization we were used to in every confrontation faded. The first reason: people do not admire the defeated. The second: the apparatuses that used to orchestrate these gatherings have lost their connections and their resources have dried up. The Arab street venerates the victorious hero until he falls, then replaces him with another hero. Its believers have been shaken by successive defeats, just as Nasserists were shattered by the setbacks of the 1960s. The remaining challenge is to hold on to its supporters within its Shiite popular base; they are the ones most harmed and who still live the trauma of shock. With time, the Shiites of Lebanon will come to realize the truth: that they are victims of Hezbollah and Iran, that it is a burden on them rather than a support. For four decades they have borne the confrontation with Israel and the consequences of ties with Iran: economic and personal sanctions, the destruction of their areas and neighborhoods, the targeting of their remittances from Africa and the Americas, and more.

The Solo Player and Czar’s Red Carpet
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025
Vladimir Putin has the right to celebrate. Donald Trump treated him with the utmost respect. Were it not for his sound reasoning, he would have believed that the Soviet Union was still standing and that his real title was Secretary General of the Communist Party.
Trump not only repeatedly acknowledged Russia’s importance as a major power, but he acted as though the West had committed a sin in Ukraine. He had previously summoned Zelenskyy to the White House where he humiliated him. He had described the war in Ukraine as “Biden’s war”, not his war. What more could the master of the Kremlin want?
The master of the White House washed his hands clean of Ukraine’s fate, telling Zelenskyy that he should forget about the territories occupied by Russian forces. Putin likely never dreamed that he would ever hear the supposed leader of the western camp utter such statements. He did not pause at the danger of using tanks to erase international borders. He did not raise an eyebrow at the danger of altering the borders in Europe, which had witnessed the horrors of two world wars.
Trump spoke about the costs of the war and the fortunes spent by America there, saying that they have been squandered. He threw the burden of continuing the conflict on the Europeans.
It isn’t easy for the world to watch Putin as he strode down the red carpet on US soil without offering his eager host even a modest gift such as a ceasefire or truce. This czar is stingy, stubborn and cold-hearted. He is not fooled by others’ smiles or praise. Trump broke Putin’s isolation that he caused when he decided to invade Ukraine. Trump never received anything in return for this golden favor. He only received statements that stroked his massive ego. Putin said Trump was right when he claimed the war in Ukraine would never have happened had he been president.
Putin has the right to celebrate. Trump did not see the war in Ukraine as a cause worthy of being tackled according to international laws and maintaining balances of power. Rather, he saw it as a result of Ukraine, Europe and successive American administrations wronging Russia. Trump is not handling the war based on how dangerous it is, rather he is dealing with it as if he were Mother Theresa, calling for an end to funerals and destruction of infrastructure. Many in the West fear that the world will pay the price of Trump seeking a Nobel Peace Prize and readiness to stop the wars whichever way the cards fall.
Putin used several cards against the West. The first was convincing his allies and opponents that he cannot lose in Ukraine, because that would mean he would lose the Russian Federation. He adeptly used the nuclear threat, especially through the alarming statements by his shadow Dmitry Medvedev. Inside Russia, Putin successfully silenced critics of the war, and even silenced the protests of mothers mourning their sons lost in combat.
He also succeeded in exploiting China’s deep desire to weaken the US and West before it pounces on Taiwan. It is odd that Trump believes himself to be the cover, umbrella, guarantee and safety valve. It is no easy feat for him to claim that Xi Jinping had informed him that China will not attack Taiwan as long as he is president of the US. This clearly means that Taiwan’s safety hinges on Trump remaining in office. It is an odd way to approach crises, destinies and issues.
The solution was never going to be America joining the war and risk expanding the conflict. But ending the conflict by adopting the Russian narrative will deepen European fears and raise concerns about the danger of relying on America inside and outside of NATO. Trump, along with European allies, could have prepared some form of negotiations framework, instead of stripping Zelenskyy of all of his cards. But Trump is not a team player, but a soloist.
In the 1990s and early 21st Century, the question was what would happen to the Soviet Union in wake of its collapse. I posed that question to several heads of communist parties in Iraq, Sudan and Lebanon and they all replied that the world will not withstand for long the massive tilt in the West’s favor and that Russia will eventually rise to reclaim its position, possibly even taking revenge against the West.
After Putin assumed the presidency, some said that the military and intelligence service chose him for the mission to save the Russian Federation from fragmentation and take revenge against those who assassinated the Soviet Union without firing a single bullet.
In the international jungle, you have no choice but to be strong so that you don’t become the victim. In the international jungle, small and weak countries turn into tragedies. Do the powerful have the right to usurp the decisions of their weaker neighbors and to annex their territories citing tales from history? What about the United Nations and international laws? Are arsenals the only safety guarantees? Are hostile policies necessary to survive in the jungle?
They watched from afar as the czar strode down the red carpet in Alaska. Zelenskyy watched woefully, the German chancellor with concern, the master of the Elysee with confusion, and the resident of 10 Downing Street at a loss. Who knows, perhaps the Ukrainian crisis is an example that proves might is right and that it can dictate its conditions and even change maps. If only the Nobel Peace Prize committee would hurry up and grant the master of the White House its prize; maybe the solo player will then allow the concerned countries to shape their destinies.

Trump and Putin: History, Strategy, and Interests
Ahmad Mahmoud Ajaj/Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper/August 18/2025
There is a broad impression that Trump admires Putin and always finds excuses for him. Those who share this conviction point to his denial of his own intelligence services’ conclusion that Russia interfered in the presidential elections, siding with Putin instead; his failure to follow through on his threat to impose sanctions he had planned to impose; and his decision reward Putin with a summit in Alaska, not to mention his high praise for the Russian president and, most notably, his famous humiliation of Zelenskyy at the White House.
Trump wants his name to go down in history. He constantly reiterates that he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for having halted six wars in Africa and Asia, leaving only Ukraine unresolved. Observers agree that Trump is absolutely convinced that he is the ultimate dealmaker - that there is no problem he can’t solve. Accordingly, he is pulling the levers of the most powerful country in the world to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, regardless of his allies’ interests or security. No one in his administration dares to oppose him for fear they would be fired. Putin, on the other hand, is obsessed with history and Russia’s glory. He can draw from a long career in intelligence and vast experience in international relations, as he propagates a narrative of victimhood, firmly convinced that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century.”
He began his journey to address this “calamity” by occupying Chechnya. He then invaded Georgia and annexed some of its territory, and finally marched to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv before retreating from the Ukrainian resistance and its NATO-supplied weapons. No matter the obstacles, Putin’s defiance persists; he is striving to follow in the footsteps of Peter the Great, who built the Russian Empire, and Stalin, the founder of the Soviet Union. He does not see himself as any less great or resolute a leader.
These are the two frameworks through which Trump and Putin’s conceive of the world: their views of history and their respective strategies. Putin has devoted himself to expanding Russia’s borders, and he will not end his war in Ukraine without a treaty that forces the latter back into the lap of Mother Russia.
Throughout his time in power, he sought to strengthen his military, modernize Russia’s weapons of mass destruction, and has pursued the “near abroad” strategy - that is he has sought to consolidate Russia’s sphere of influence by forcing neighboring states to become part of its orbit. He also restored Russia’s international status, intervening in conflicts in Africa and the Middle East and reinvigorating ties with Latin American countries hostile to the United States. Since he has nuclear weapons and is not averse to risk, George W. Bush did not dare arm Georgia’s government, fearing Putin would topple it and ignite a world war. Obama, for his part, went so far as to ask then-President Medvedev to inform Putin that the US would be more flexible after his reelection.
Putin currently sees his friendliest American counterpart in Trump, who is domestically strong and resentful of Zelenskyy for refusing to help him incriminate the son of his rival, President Biden. Trump scolded Zelenskyy: “You have no cards,” insisting that he strike a deal with Putin before the US loses its patience.
Trump wants a deal, even an unfair deal. His goal is to close the chapter of the Ukraine war, receive a Nobel Prize, and pull Russia from China’s orbit. He knows that the American hard right culturally identifies with Russia and that US businessmen are keen on investing in Russia’s resources, particularly the rare minerals that are crucial for several key American industries. For Trump, there are only immediate interests. He does not value historical alliances because he sees the world through the lens of bilateral relations. Indeed, his vision of the world has no room for democratic values or promoting them, only gains and losses. Putin has capitalized on this mindset strategically, driving a wedge between Europe and the United States. That is why, in his remarks after the Alaska summit, he stressed Russia’s historical ties with the US, investment opportunities, his respect for Trump, and his fear that Europe would sabotage the progress they had made. Putin is well aware that the US and Europe share a strong bond, but he does not despair. At the very least, he buys time - though Trump’s impatience must also be considered, which is why he lavished praise on Trump’s negotiating skills and patience.
Putin has carved his name into Russia’s history since becoming president, while Trump dreams of a Nobel Peace Prize. The difference between the two men is that Trump thinks of himself first, putting his personal glory ahead of his country’s reputation and the interests of its allies, whereas Putin is driven by his desire to shape his country’s history. Trump wants the prize; Putin wants Russia to rise.
Putin fears Trump’s caprice and volatile character, as well as Europe’s shrewdness and capacities, and Trump knows that Europe is standing between him and his prize. Putin knows Europe is the obstacle to winning Trump over, as Europe sees a Russian victory in Ukraine as a grave threat to its security and the credibility of its union. So long as it can diplomatically stand in his way and build its own military capacity, Putin will remain diplomatically flexible with Trump. He will keep listening to him as he spars with Europe and seeks to seize additional Ukrainian territory.
The Alaska Summit exposed Trump's affection for Putin, and it underscored that he is seeking a quick resolution to the Ukrainian crisis. Indeed, the conflict has consumed much of his attention, and his reputation as a peacemaker now hinges on whether he can end it. It also showed, however, that there can be no settlement without Europe. The talks now revolve exclusively around interests and spoils, offering a lesson to anyone willing to learn: power and alliances are the guarantees, not international law.

Selected tweets for 18 August/2025
Hanin Ghaddar
Sign of the times: A few years ago, when #Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah made a speech, everybody would drop everything to watch. Today, no one really cares about what Hezbollah’s Naim Qassem says; however, they’d drop everything to watch Lebanese president’s interview @LBpresidency  a clear, honest, and strong message. For the full interview: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2025/08/18/aoun-tells-iran-no-interference-in-our-affairs-hezbollah-arms-a-lebanese-decision

Walid Abu Haya
Israel has always been, and will forever remain, a beacon of light for the Middle East and the free world. An Israeli development now offers hope for people with paralysis. A research team from Tel Aviv University has succeeded in growing a human spinal cord from stem cells. After animal trials yielded promising results, the Ministry of Health recently approved moving forward to human trials, and the researchers are optimistic. Prof. Tal Dvir, Chief Scientist at the biotech company Matricelf: “We have shown that we can treat animals with chronic injuries. More than 80% of the animals regained the ability to walk perfectly.”
Source : Ynet

Hussain Abdul-Hussain
#Hezbollah's channel is thrilled after Tom Barrack blamed #Israel for not stopping its policing of the Iran-backed militia in #Lebanon. Barrack said Lebanon voted to disarm Hezbollah (but hasn't) and Israel should stop policing, wants Israel to follow a document it didn't sign.

Jonathan Spyer
It's worth noting that should the war in Gaza conclude on Hamas's terms, with the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Strip and a kind of Hizballah-isation of the situation, with an armed Hamas element behind a puppet government, then this would represent the first occasion since 1948 that an Arab Muslim military force would have imposed a defeat on Israel and held ground by force in the area west of the Jordan River. This would be seen by the forces of political Islam and their allies on the left and the right in the west as representing a beacon lighting the way to the future, and a historic moment.

Marc Zell
Breaking: Pentagon Report Reveals: Damascus Under Control of Extremist Coalition
A new Pentagon assessment submitted to Congress exposes that the so-called “New Syrian Army” is not a unified military force but a fragile coalition of extremists, including Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and remnants of al-Qaeda.
Key takeaways: Elements of Hurras al-Din have resurfaced and gained influence inside Damascus’ new government.The U.S. is wary of strengthening the current government and instead leans toward empowering the SDF in northeast Syria. Israel is pushing to expand a “security zone” in southern Syria, close to Damascus. Congress opposes easing sanctions on Syria. Bottom line: Behind the façade of the “new army” in Damascus lies a dangerous extremist coalition—raising doubts about the stability of Syria under its current leadership.

Zéna Mansour
A militant in Jolani's militia has urged fighters to stop documenting atrocities against Syria's Druze population due to concerns over sanctions& travel restrictions, while encouraging them to persist in violence without filming and voicing hate speech against the #Druze.

Good morning, Catalonia!
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
A 10-mile run here is majestic. There is something charming about pine nut trees, the cricket noise that comes with them, and the Mediterranean in the background. Too bad the Eastern Mediterranean, with a similar breathtaking landscape, continues to suffer turbulence caused by restless populations pressing from further east.Though its connection to the Phoenicians cannot be established with certainty, it is likely that Catalonia was once a concentration of Canaanite settlements on the Iberian coast. The etymology of the word Catalan points in the direction of the Semitic word that means a defined area within a marked perimeter. K-T-R is crown in Hebrew, G-D-R is wall in Phoenician. A mix of the two is K-T-L, Kotel (Western Wall) in Hebrew and a bloc in Arabic. The name of the troublemaking Islamist Emirate Qatar is from the Aramaic word for island, K-T-R. Aramaic speakers called it Beyt Qatrayah. So Catalonia and Qatar hail etymologically from the same root. If Catalonia was once a Phoenician settlement, it could have prospered under the Carthaginian Barqa dynasty (Hanibal's family) that at the time were operating out of the Libyan coast (Tobroq). The Semitic word B-R-Q and B-R-K mean thunder and a blessing, respectively. They could have been one and the same given the association between thunder and rain, which is the blessing. In the Tunisian dialect, barka is pronounced basrsha to mean plenty.
If the Barqa dynasty were involved in Catalonia, there is a chance that they could have given their name to a settlement -- Barqa, Barka or Barsha. From this word we could have gotten Barka-lona or Barsha-lona, or Barcelona, which the locals pronounce as Bartha-lona.