English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News
& Editorials
For April 15/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.april15.26.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
They devised a
plan to give a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, ‘You must say,
“His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep
Matthew 28/11-15: “While they were going, some of the guard went
into the city and told the chief priests everything that had happened. After the
priests had assembled with the elders, they devised a plan to give a large sum
of money to the soldiers, telling them, ‘You must say, “His disciples came by
night and stole him away while we were asleep.”If this comes to the governor’s
ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.’So they took the money
and did as they were directed. And this story is still told among the Jews to
this day.”
Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related
News & Editorials published
on April 14-15/2026
Video & Text/April 13, 1975 – April 13, 2025: From Wounds to Victory,
From Wars to Liberation and Peace/Elias Bejjani/April 13/2025 (From 2025
Archives)
Israeli FM Says Keen to Reach 'Peace and Normalization' with Lebanon
Video-Link from DRM News/Israeli Ambassador To US Speaks After Rubio Israel
Lebanon Talks | DRM News | AC1F
Video-Link from Israel 24/Israeli Ambassador to the US addresses the press after
direct talks with Lebanon
US Hosts Lebanese and Israeli Envoys as Israel Presses War on Hezbollah
Video-Link from Israel 24/Israeli Ambassador to the US addresses the press after
direct talks with Lebanon
Link to a video interview with the Shiite cleric Abbas Yazbek, who was among the
early figures to join Hezbollah and later broke away from it and opposed it.
Rubio hosts Israeli, Lebanese envoys for first direct talks in decades
Rubio says direct Israel-Lebanon talks a 'historic opportunity'
Israel, Lebanon agree to direct negotiations after 'productive' talks
Lebanon's US ambassador says called for ceasefire at 'constructive' Israel talks
Israeli envoy says 'on the same side' with Lebanon after talks in US
Report: Aoun presses for ceasefire, atmosphere encouraging
Aoun hopes Israel talks 'beginning of the end' of Lebanon's suffering
17 nations urge Israel, Lebanon to seize talks 'opportunity'
US reportedly promises to press Netanyahu on ceasefire, Aoun seeks Berri cover
Israel military warns Hezbollah likely to increase attacks as talks begin
Report: Israeli envoy instructed to reject ceasefire in Lebanon talks
Israel says seeking 'peace and normalization' with Lebanon
Israel wants peace talks, but Lebanon wants truce first
Report: KSA playing stabilizing role in Lebanon, Iran open to it
France says Lebanon must be included in ceasefire, calls Israeli strikes
'intolerable'
IMF, Lebanon hold talks on up to $1 billion in rapid financing
The friendship between Lebanon and Israel is deep and strong, no one will
separate us./
Lilian Schmid/April 14 /2026
The “Lebanese Street” Warms up to Normalization with Israel/Hussain Abdul-Hussain/MID.EAST
JOURNAL | FROM MIDDLE EAST 24/April 14/2026
LACC Statement Supporting Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Lebanon’s Sovereign
Path
Rare Precedents for Lebanon-Israel Talks
Links to several important news websites
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on April 14-15/2026
US, Iran negotiation teams could return to Pakistan for high-level talks:
Sources
Trump says US-Iran talks could resume in Pakistan over next two days
Vice President Vance says US-Iran mistrust cannot be solved overnight
US Treasury says not renewing temporary Iran oil sanction easing
France, UK to Host Hormuz Talks Friday
US Begins Iran Port Blockade, Oil Prices Ease on Hopes for Dialogue
US Says Ball in Iran’s Court as Push Grows to End War
Trump turns on Meloni, says he is ‘shocked’ by Italian leader
Serbia agrees deal to produce combat drones with Israel
Germany’s Merz Urges Netanyahu to End Lebanon Fighting
IMF cuts 2026 global growth forecast on Mideast war
Gaza civil defense says toddler among 10 killed in Israeli strikes
Drone strike hit Iranian Kurds, three wounded: Exiled group
US Says Six Vessels Turned Back by Iran Port Blockade
Lavrov Blasts Efforts to ‘Contain’ Russia, China on Beijing Visit
‘I have no fear of the Trump administration:' Pope Leo XIV responds after
president calls him ‘weak'
Pope says Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization is ‘truly unacceptable’
Canada/Carney pledges collaboration, substantive debate in majority Parliament
Links to several important news websites
on April 14-15/2026
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News & Editorials published
on April 14-15/2026
Video & Text/April 13, 1975 – April 13, 2025: From Wounds to Victory, From Wars
to Liberation and Peace
Elias Bejjani/April 13/2025 (From 2025 Archives)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/04/142208/
On this very day, April 13, 1975,
Lebanon entered one of the darkest chapters in its history. What took place was
not merely the start of a civil war—it was the launch of a sinister and
calculated scheme designed to destroy Lebanon’s identity, shatter its national
unity, and transform it into a battlefield for foreign powers and their agendas.
This day marked the beginning of a period of blood and fire. Lebanon was dragged
into long, devastating conflicts that violated its sovereignty, spilled the
blood of its people, and opened the gates to foreign interventions. The state
collapsed, its institutions crumbled, and its independence was hijacked by
occupation plots, regional conspiracies, and internal betrayals.
But the most important truth remains: that dark day in Ain El-Remmaneh area was
not simply the outbreak of civil war—it was the launch of an evil masterplan to
annihilate Lebanon’s very existence, dismantle its society, and erase its unique
identity. The plotters, both domestic and foreign, believed they could engulf
our small nation. But they were met by a people of unwavering resilience and a
sacred land that cannot be desecrated.
The crisis began with the cold-blooded assassination of Lebanese citizen Joseph
Abu Aasi in Ain El-Remmaneh area and the attempted assassination of Sheikh
Pierre Gemayel, head of the Kataeb Party. This was no random incident—it was the
opening move in a deliberate conspiracy led by the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO). Backed by jihadist, leftist, Ba'athist, and Arab nationalist
movements, and aided by certain Arab regimes, the PLO aimed to turn Lebanon into
an alternative homeland for Palestinians at the expense of the Lebanese people.
Yet, the free Lebanese rose up—Christians and sovereign-minded patriots from all
sects united in resistance. Despite massacres, betrayals, and isolation, they
endured. The PLO was expelled. The project of turning Lebanon into a substitute
Palestinian homeland was defeated. And the right to national decision-making was
reclaimed by the Lebanese people. Lebanon proved then, as it does now, that it
is immune to foreign domination and cannot be ruled by the axes of political
Islam—be they Sunni, Shiite, or the demagogic left in all their branches.
With the collapse of the Palestinian scheme, the Syrian Ba'athist regime stepped
in. Under the false banner of the “Arab Deterrent Force,” President Hafez
al-Assad’s Syrian army invaded and occupied Lebanon. It spread terror, imposed a
reign of assassinations, arrests, massacres, and forced displacements. Freedoms
were crushed. The state was suffocated. And Lebanon entered a long, dark tunnel
of Ba'athist tyranny.
But Lebanon is no ordinary land—it is a divine endowment. The Syrian occupation
eventually collapsed under the weight of its crimes. The Cedar Revolution of
2005 forced Assad’s army into a humiliating retreat. Hope was rekindled that
Lebanon could rise again.
Yet that hope was short-lived. In place of the Syrian occupier came a more
insidious and dangerous one: the Iranian occupation, imposed through
Hezbollah—the Khomeinist, jihadist, terrorist militia. Cloaked in the false garb
of “resistance” and “liberating Palestine,” Hezbollah hijacked the state,
usurped the right to war and peace, and bound Lebanon to the Iranian regime’s
expansionist “Wilayat al-Faqih” project.
Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into needless wars, filled the graves of honorable
Shiites with its victims, and shattered the dreams of a generation. It severed
Lebanon’s ties with its Arab brothers and the world. On October 8, 2023, it
opened a reckless war front with Israel under direct orders from Tehran—another
war Lebanon never asked for. Thousands of lives were lost, homes destroyed, and
regions devastated. In the end, Hezbollah suffered a historic and crushing
defeat.
Now, on April 13, 2025, hope is reborn. The era of Hezbollah’s occupation and
Iranization is nearing its end. After its catastrophic failures, Hezbollah has
lost most of its leaders, strongholds, and legitimacy. Across the region, Iran’s
militias in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza are collapsing. The Assad regime has
fallen. The Iranian expansionist project is in ruins. And the clerical regime in
Tehran is now retreating, exposed and disgraced.
The Lebanese have always been a people of dignity and resistance—armed not with
weapons of destruction, but with faith, hope, and a righteous cause. Their land
is sacred. Their history is deeply rooted in the soil. Lebanon is not just a
country; it is a divine inheritance. As the Old Testament says, it is the land
of prophets, saints, and martyrs—protected by God. Those who seek to conquer it
are destined to fall, because divine justice does not sleep.
We proclaim, with pride and certainty, that we have seen this divine justice
with our own eyes. The PLO was expelled. The Syrian Ba’athists were humiliated
and driven out. The Iranian regime and its militias are crumbling. Those who
funded and abetted the occupations—whether in Yemen, Libya, or Somalia—have been
scattered and broken. But Lebanon remains, sustained by its martyrs, its
righteous people, and its unshakable faith.
To Hezbollah—the Persian, jihadist, terrorist militia—we say: your occupation
has failed. Your weapons are a curse upon you. You are not a resistance but a
mercenary militia in the service of a foreign regime. Lebanon is not yours. It
never was, and it never will be.
In conclusion: because Lebanon is a sacred endowment to God, it will be
liberated from the Iranian occupation. The Lebanese people, by God’s will, will
prevail. The future belongs to them—not to any occupier, invader, or internal
traitor. Eternal glory to our righteous martyrs who offered their lives with
faith on the altar of freedom.
Israeli
FM Says Keen to Reach 'Peace and Normalization' with Lebanon
This is Beirut/April 14/2026
Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said his country is seeking "peace and
normalization" with Lebanon, ahead of talks between officials from both nations
in Washington on Tuesday.
"We want to reach peace and normalization with the state of Lebanon... Israel
and Lebanon don't have any major disputes between them. The problem is
Hezbollah," Saar said at a press conference with visiting Czech Deputy Prime
Minister and Foreign Minister Petr Macinka.
Lebanon was pulled into the Middle East war after Hezbollah attacked Israel,
sparking an Israeli ground invasion and airstrikes, including an extremely heavy
attack on Beirut on April 8.The fighting has killed more than 2,000 people in
Lebanon and displaced over one million.
The Washington meeting, the first such talk since 1993, will be mediated by
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and include the Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors
to the United States.
Saar said Hezbollah attacked Israel on March 2 "against the will of the Lebanese
government.""The problem for Israel's security is the problem for Lebanon's
sovereignty," Saar said. "It's Hezbollah, it's the same problem. And this
problem needs to be addressed in order to move to a different phase."While
Lebanon has called for a ceasefire, Israel has rejected that proposal and
continues to insist on the disarmament of Hezbollah. Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem
has urged Lebanon to cancel the talks in Washington, reiterating his group's
rejection of direct negotiations with the neighboring country. AFP
Video-Link from DRM News/Israeli Ambassador To US
Speaks After Rubio Israel Lebanon Talks | DRM News | AC1F
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuZNxwZaiUY
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.
Yechiel Leiter spoke after meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and
Lebanese Ambassador Nada Hamden Moawad. Leiter described the talks as positive,
emphasizing unity in liberating Lebanon from Hezbollah and a long-term vision
for peace and security between Israel and Lebanon. For more details, watch our
story and subscribe to our channel, DRM News.
Israeli Ambassador To U.S. Speaks After Rubio Israel Lebanon Talks Washington
U.S. Hosts Israel Lebanon Diplomats After Rubio State Department Meeting
Israel Lebanon Envoys Speak After Rubio Led Talks In Washington Briefing
Rubio Israel Lebanon Meeting Sparks Update From Israeli Ambassador Washington
Marco Rubio, Israeli Ambassador, Yechiel Leiter, Lebanon talks, Washington DC,
Israel Lebanon relations, US State Department, diplomacy news, Middle East
conflict, Lebanese ambassador, Nada Hamadeh Moawad, ceasefire talks,
international relations, US diplomacy, Israel news, Lebanon news, peace talks,
global politics.
Video-Link from Israel 24/Israeli Ambassador to the US addresses the press after
direct talks with Lebanon
Israel 24/April 14/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/04/153634/
Ambassador’s Statement:
"Okay, good afternoon. Talks began with a statement—a very encouraging
statement—from Secretary of State Rubio. I was honored to sit around the
negotiating table with His Excellency Michelle Issa, United States Ambassador to
Lebanon, and to Her Excellency Nada Hamadi, the Lebanese Ambassador to
Washington.
We discovered today that we’re on the same side of the equation; that’s the most
positive thing we could have come away with. We are both united in liberating
Lebanon from an occupation power dominated by Iran called Hezbollah. Lebanon is
under their occupation, and we are suffering from their constant barrages of
missiles and terror attacks trying to cross our border. We talked about a number
of things and, most importantly, the vision—the long-term vision—where there’ll
be a clearly delineated border between our countries and where the only reason
we’ll need to cross each other’s territory will be in business suits to conduct
business or in bathing suits to go on vacation. We made it very clear that the
security of our civilians is not up for negotiation. That is understood by the
government of Joseph Aoun, and I must say this was a victory for sanity, for
responsibility, and for peace. The head of Hezbollah warned the government of
Lebanon yesterday not to participate in these talks, and the government of
Joseph Aoun bravely said 'no' to Hezbollah.
This is the beginning of a very strong and fortified, consistent battle against
them. They are weakened as they’ve never been, and together we’ll continue to
rid the threat of this Iranian proxy, which is so malign and so malignant in the
region.
Q&A Highlights:
On French involvement: 'We certainly don't want the French anywhere near these
negotiations. We'd like to keep the French as far away as possible... they are
not a positive influence, particularly not in Lebanon.'
On the current opportunity: 'This is the first time our two countries are
sitting together in over three decades. Let's feel the moment; let's enjoy the
moment.'
On the peace process: 'We're working on the agreement on every front—on the
security front and on the civil front—to try to achieve together a complete
peace treaty... to embark on a harmonious relationship like we have with the
other Abraham Accord countries.'
On ongoing military action: 'Israelis don't wake up in the morning and look to
fire missiles across the border. The missiles are being fired at our civilians.
That will be put a stop to. We will not allow a terror organization to
continually fire missiles into our population centers.'"
***In the video from April 14, 2026, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States
addressed the press following direct negotiations with Lebanese representatives.
He characterized the meeting as a "victory for sanity" and a historic step
toward peace.
The following are the main topics and key points discussed by the Ambassador:
1. Shared Strategic Interests
Common Ground: The Ambassador emphasized that Israel and the current Lebanese
government are now "on the same side of the equation," specifically regarding
the liberation of Lebanon from Iranian-backed influence.
Countering Hezbollah: He described Hezbollah as an "occupation power" and a
malignant proxy of Iran. He praised the Lebanese government's bravery for
participating in these talks despite threats from Hezbollah leadership.
2. Long-Term Vision for Bilateral Relations
Permanent Borders: A primary goal discussed was the establishment of a clearly
delineated and permanent border between Israel and Lebanon.
Civilian and Economic Exchange: The Ambassador shared a vision where the only
reasons to cross the border would be for business or tourism. He famously
remarked that people should be able to cross in "business suits to conduct
business or in bathing suits to go on vacation" at each other's beaches.
3. Security and Military Objectives
Non-Negotiable Security: He asserted that the security of Israeli civilians is
not up for negotiation. He maintained that military action continues because of
ongoing missile fire from terror organizations into Israeli population centers.
Degrading Proxies: He argued that the current opportunity for peace only exists
because the military has successfully degraded Hezbollah’s capabilities, which
in turn empowered the Lebanese government to take these bold diplomatic steps.
4. Regional Diplomacy
Role of International Partners: He expressed strong support for the mediation
efforts of the United States (mentioning Secretary of State Rubio and Ambassador
Michelle Issa) but explicitly stated that Israel does not want French
involvement in these specific negotiations.
Iran Delinkage: A major theme was the necessity of "complete delinkage" between
Lebanon and Iran to ensure regional stability.
Peace Treaty Aspirations: The Ambassador noted that once security issues are
resolved, the goal is to move toward a comprehensive peace treaty similar to the
Abraham Accords.
US Hosts
Lebanese and Israeli Envoys as Israel Presses War on Hezbollah
Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
Lebanese and Israeli envoys met in Washington on Tuesday as Israel pressed its
war on Iran-backed Hezbollah, a diplomatic milestone overshadowed by conflicting
agendas with Israel ruling out discussion of a ceasefire and demanding Beirut
disarm the group.
The meeting comes at a critical juncture in the crisis in the Middle East, a
week into a fragile ceasefire between the United States, Israel and Iran. Iran
says Israel's campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon must be included in any
agreement to end the wider war, complicating talks mediated by Pakistan aimed at
averting further economic fallout. The conflict has snared global energy supply
and spiked oil prices, piling pressure on US President Donald Trump to find an
off-ramp. In a sign Washington wants to see progress in the talks, Trump's top
diplomat and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio appeared at the start of the
meeting alongside the Israeli ambassador to the US, Yechiel Leiter, and his
Lebanese counterpart, Nada Hamadeh Moawad. State Department Counselor Michael
Needham, US ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, and US ambassador to
Lebanon Michel Issa, a personal friend of Trump, were also participating. It
marks a rare encounter between representatives of governments that have
remained technically in a state of war since Israel was established in 1948.
LEBANON SEEKS CEASEFIRE
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said in a statement on X as the meeting started
that he hoped it would "mark the beginning of ending the suffering of the
Lebanese people in general, and the southerners in particular." "The only
solution lies in the Lebanese army re-deploying up to the internationally
recognized border, and so being solely responsible for the security of the area
and the safety of its residents, without the partnership of any other party,"
Aoun added. The Lebanese government led by Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam
has called for negotiations with Israel despite objections from Hezbollah,
reflecting worsening tensions between the group and its opponents. Hezbollah
opened fire in support of Tehran on March 2, sparking an Israeli offensive that
has killed more than 2,000 people and forced 1.2 million from their homes,
according to Lebanese authorities. Lebanese officials have said Moawad only has
authority to discuss a ceasefire in Tuesday's meeting. But Israeli government
spokesperson Shosh Bedrosian said Israel would not discuss a ceasefire. Israeli
Foreign Minister Gideon Saar told reporters in Jerusalem ahead of the meeting
that talks would focus on the disarmament of Hezbollah, which he said must take
place before Israel and Lebanon could sign any peace agreement and normalize
relations. He said Hezbollah was a problem for Israel's security and Lebanon's
sovereignty "and this problem needs to be addressed in order to move to a
different phase." "We want to reach peace and normalization with the state
of Lebanon," he said. The Lebanese state has been seeking to disarm Hezbollah
peacefully since a war between the group and Israel in 2024. Any move by Lebanon
to disarm it by force risks igniting conflict in a country shattered by civil
war from 1975 to 1990. Moves against Hezbollah by a Western-backed government in
2008 prompted armed clashes. The current government banned Hezbollah's military
wing after it opened fire on Israel last month.
'AT WAR WITH HEZBOLLAH, NOT LEBANON'
Israel and the US have said the campaign against Hezbollah was not part of the
Iran-US ceasefire, though Pakistan's prime minister had said the truce would
include Lebanon, as Iran had demanded. While Israel has pressed attacks in
Lebanon, it has launched no airstrikes in Beirut since last Wednesday, when it
pounded the capital during a 10-minute barrage that killed hundreds of people
across Lebanon. The following day, US President Donald Trump, in an interview
with NBC News, said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had told him he
would "low-key it" in Lebanon. A US State Department official said that Israel
was at war with Hezbollah, not Lebanon, and so there was no reason they should
not talk, describing the talks as direct, high-level and the first of their kind
since 1993. The conversation would "scope the ongoing dialogue about how to
ensure the long-term security of Israel's northern border and to support the
Government of Lebanon's determination to reclaim full sovereignty over its
territory and political life". Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem on Monday
called on the government to cancel the meeting, saying Hezbollah would continue
to confront Israeli attacks on Lebanon. In Lebanon, the dead include 252 women
and 166 children, the health ministry says. Sources familiar with the matter
said on March 27 that more than 400 Hezbollah fighters have been killed. Since
March 2, 13 Israeli soldiers have been killed in Lebanon, while Hezbollah
attacks have killed two Israeli civilians.
'SEIZE THIS OPPORTUNITY'
Foreign ministers from 17 countries, including the UK, Tuesday urged Israel and
Lebanon to "seize this opportunity" in a statement ahead of the talks in
Washington. Britain's foreign ministry posted the ministers' joint statement
saying "direct negotiations can pave the way to bring lasting security for
Lebanon and Israel as well as the region". The statement called "upon all
parties to urgently deescalate and seize the opportunity offered by the
ceasefire between the United States and Iran". It was signed by ministers from
Britain and Australia and European countries such as France, Belgium, the
Netherlands and Spain, but not Germany, Austria, Hungary or Italy. The statement
said that signatories "condemn in the strongest terms" both attacks by Hezbollah
on Israel and "massive Israeli strikes on Lebanon". The countries said they
welcomed the initiative by President Aoun to open direct talks and were "ready
to support" discussions.
Video-Link from Israel
24/Israeli Ambassador to the US addresses the press after direct talks with
Lebanon
Israel 24/April 14/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/04/153634/
Ambassador’s Statement:
"Okay, good afternoon. Talks began with a statement—a very encouraging
statement—from Secretary of State Rubio. I was honored to sit around the
negotiating table with His Excellency Michelle Issa, United States Ambassador to
Lebanon, and to Her Excellency Nada Hamadi, the Lebanese Ambassador to
Washington.
We discovered today that we’re on the same side of the equation; that’s the most
positive thing we could have come away with. We are both united in liberating
Lebanon from an occupation power dominated by Iran called Hezbollah. Lebanon is
under their occupation, and we are suffering from their constant barrages of
missiles and terror attacks trying to cross our border. We talked about a number
of things and, most importantly, the vision—the long-term vision—where there’ll
be a clearly delineated border between our countries and where the only reason
we’ll need to cross each other’s territory will be in business suits to conduct
business or in bathing suits to go on vacation. We made it very clear that the
security of our civilians is not up for negotiation. That is understood by the
government of Joseph Aoun, and I must say this was a victory for sanity, for
responsibility, and for peace. The head of Hezbollah warned the government of
Lebanon yesterday not to participate in these talks, and the government of
Joseph Aoun bravely said 'no' to Hezbollah.
This is the beginning of a very strong and fortified, consistent battle against
them. They are weakened as they’ve never been, and together we’ll continue to
rid the threat of this Iranian proxy, which is so malign and so malignant in the
region.
Q&A Highlights:
On French involvement: 'We certainly don't want the French anywhere near these
negotiations. We'd like to keep the French as far away as possible... they are
not a positive influence, particularly not in Lebanon.'
On the current opportunity: 'This is the first time our two countries are
sitting together in over three decades. Let's feel the moment; let's enjoy the
moment.'
On the peace process: 'We're working on the agreement on every front—on the
security front and on the civil front—to try to achieve together a complete
peace treaty... to embark on a harmonious relationship like we have with the
other Abraham Accord countries.'
On ongoing military action: 'Israelis don't wake up in the morning and look to
fire missiles across the border. The missiles are being fired at our civilians.
That will be put a stop to. We will not allow a terror organization to
continually fire missiles into our population centers.'"
***In the video from April 14, 2026, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States
addressed the press following direct negotiations with Lebanese representatives.
He characterized the meeting as a "victory for sanity" and a historic step
toward peace.
The following are the main topics and key points discussed by the Ambassador:
1. Shared Strategic Interests
Common Ground: The Ambassador emphasized that Israel and the current Lebanese
government are now "on the same side of the equation," specifically regarding
the liberation of Lebanon from Iranian-backed influence.
Countering Hezbollah: He described Hezbollah as an "occupation power" and a
malignant proxy of Iran. He praised the Lebanese government's bravery for
participating in these talks despite threats from Hezbollah leadership.
2. Long-Term Vision for Bilateral Relations
Permanent Borders: A primary goal discussed was the establishment of a clearly
delineated and permanent border between Israel and Lebanon.
Civilian and Economic Exchange: The Ambassador shared a vision where the only
reasons to cross the border would be for business or tourism. He famously
remarked that people should be able to cross in "business suits to conduct
business or in bathing suits to go on vacation" at each other's beaches.
3. Security and Military Objectives
Non-Negotiable Security: He asserted that the security of Israeli civilians is
not up for negotiation. He maintained that military action continues because of
ongoing missile fire from terror organizations into Israeli population centers.
Degrading Proxies: He argued that the current opportunity for peace only exists
because the military has successfully degraded Hezbollah’s capabilities, which
in turn empowered the Lebanese government to take these bold diplomatic steps.
4. Regional Diplomacy
Role of International Partners: He expressed strong support for the mediation
efforts of the United States (mentioning Secretary of State Rubio and Ambassador
Michelle Issa) but explicitly stated that Israel does not want French
involvement in these specific negotiations.
Iran Delinkage: A major theme was the necessity of "complete delinkage" between
Lebanon and Iran to ensure regional stability.
Peace Treaty Aspirations: The Ambassador noted that once security issues are
resolved, the goal is to move toward a comprehensive peace treaty similar to the
Abraham Accords.
Link to a video interview
with the Shiite cleric Abbas Yazbek, who was among the early figures to join
Hezbollah and later broke away from it and opposed it.
It is strongly recommend to watch this interview because it recounts the story
of the formation of Hezbollah—from beginning to end—describing it as an
Iranian-backed, corrupt, and mafia-like organization. It also explains, with
what are presented as supporting evidence, the changes the party went through
and how it eventually became merely a tool of crime, trafficking in illicit
activities, and terrorism in the hands of the Persian mullahs—portrayed as a
hostile force toward Lebanon and toward the Shiites of Lebanon, whom it is
accused of controlling and exploiting.
The interview was conducted by journalist Fadi Shehwan on YouTube.
April 14, 2026
Main Topics and Axes of the Interview
Summary, translation and compilation by Elias Bejjani, publisher of the LCCC
website
April 14, 2026
1) The identity of Hezbollah and its relationship with Iran
Abbas Yazbek presents Hezbollah as being organically linked to Iran rather than
an independent Lebanese movement.
He argues that its key decisions are tied to Iran’s regional project.
He believes strongly that Hezbollah functions as a “military faction” serving
external Iranian policies.
2) Using Lebanon as a bargaining card in regional conflicts
He suggests that Lebanon is being used as a negotiation arena and bargaining
chip for Iran.
He criticizes dragging the Lebanon into wars or conflicts that do not serve the
interests of the Lebanese people.
He says this has led to major humanitarian and economic crises.
3) Criticism of the concept of “Wilayat al-Faqih” (Guardianship of the Jurist)
He considers this concept:
Foreign to the history of traditional Shiism.
A modern political experiment imposed for political purposes.
He describes it as a major cause of the region’s crises and the failure of
systems associated with it.
4) Accusing Hezbollah of ignoring the suffering of the Lebanese people and
particulat the Shiites.
He says that Hezbollah, Does not prioritize the interests of the Lebanese
people.
Justifies its actions through narratives he describes as “misleading.”He links
this to crises such as displacement and economic pressure.
5) The Shiite community and internal opposition
He points to the existence of opposition within the Shiite community toward
Hezbollah.
He criticizes the idea that the Hezbollah monopolizes representation of the
sect.
He suggests that many in many domains and on all levels Shiites have become
harmed by Hezbollah's policies.
6) Repression and the use of force
He warns that regimes linked to Iran may use violence against their own people
in order to maintain power.
He says any internal protest may be met with force.
7) Narratives of war and their justifications
He criticizes the justifications used for entering wars.
He believes such narratives are used to cover: Internal crises and catastrophic
consequences for civilians.
8) The future of Lebanon
He suggests that continuing on this path:
Obstructs the establishment of a strong state
Prevents economic and political stability.
Important note:
The interview reflects an oppositional viewpoint within the Shiite environment
despite repression, violence, and marginalization by Hezbollah against its
opponents and partuculat the Shiites.
Who is Abbas Yazbek?
He is a Lebanese Shiite cleric from the Bekaa region.
In his early years, he was close to Hezbollah and participated in the
intellectual environment that accompanied its emergence in the 1980s. He is
considered one of the religious voices who witnessed the Hezbollah's founding
phase, but he later became a critic and opponent of its policies.
Why did he oppose Hezbollah?
According to his statements and interviews: He criticized Hezbollah connection
to Iran’s political project and argues that it takes precedence over Lebanon’s
national interests.
He rejected the political interpretation of the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih.
He criticized Hezbollah's involvement in regional conflicts (such as Syria).
He argues that the Hezbollah no longer represents all Shiites in Lebanon.
What kind of “persecution” or pressure does he say he faced?
1) Religious and media marginalization
Restrictions or prevention of his appearances on religious and media platforms
within the party’s supportive environment.
Exclusion from institutions or activities associated with Hezbollah.
2) Social pressure
Exposure to criticism and smear campaigns from supporters of Hezbollah.
Restrictions within his local environment, particularly in areas under
Hezbollah's influence.
3) Indirect threats
In some interviews he referred to intimidation or indirect threats because of
his positions.
These claims are documented in clear legal cases.
4) Isolation within the Shiite community
His transformation from a figure close to Hezbollah into an opposing voice
within the same sect placed him in a sensitive position.
Loss of popular support among Hezbollah's supporters.
Conclusion
Abbas Yazbek is brave Shiite Lebanese figure who began within Hezbollah’s
environment but later became an opponent of it after finding its Iranian
Schemes. He says he paid the price for this shift through social and media
pressure, and possibly indirect security pressure.
Rubio hosts Israeli,
Lebanese envoys for first direct talks in decades
Agence France Presse/15 April/2026
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors
in Washington on Tuesday for the first direct peace talks between the two sides
in decades. Rubio is mediating the talks between
Israeli envoy Yechiel Leiter and Lebanon's Nada Hamadeh Moawad, which began
around 1500 GMT. U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa and an aide to Rubio
also took part in the meeting. Al-Jadeed television
said the Lebanese and Israeli envoys did not shake hands.
Hezbollah, which is battling Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, has
called for the talks to be scrapped, saying it is opposed to the notion of
"direct" negotiations. Rubio urged Israel and Lebanon to seize a "historic
opportunity" for peace as talks started. The United States is pressing for a
halt to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, fearing it could derail the
two-week ceasefire in Washington's war with Iran after talks with Tehran in
Pakistan failed to achieve a breakthrough. Lebanon was pulled into the broader
conflict when Hezbollah attacked Israel in support of its backer Iran, sparking
an Israeli ground invasion and strikes -- including an extremely heavy attack on
Beirut on April 8 -- that have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced over
one million. Tuesday's meeting in Washington is the first high-level, direct
talks since 1993. Expectations of any major breakthroughs are low, with
Hezbollah's leader Naim Qassem calling for the talks to be scrapped before they
even began, describing them as "futile".Shortly after the talks began, Hezbollah
said it had launched "simultaneous rocket salvos" at 13 northern Israeli towns.
Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Israel was seeking "peace and
normalization" with Lebanon. But he insisted that Hezbollah was the "problem",
and that it needed to be addressed in order to move to a "different phase".
The Israeli military had previously warned it expected a rise in attacks
by Hezbollah as the talks kicked off. Foreign ministers from 17 countries,
including Britain and France, urged both countries to seize the chance to bring
lasting security to the region.
Rubio says direct Israel-Lebanon talks a 'historic
opportunity'
Agence France Presse/15 April/2026
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Tuesday for Israel and Lebanon to
seize a "historic opportunity" for peace as the first direct talks in decades
between the two sides got underway in Washington. "This is a historic
opportunity. We understand we're working against decades of history and the
complexities that have led us to this unique moment and the opportunity here,"
Rubio said at the State Department as he welcomed the ambassadors of the two
sides. "The hope today is that we can outline a framework upon which a current
and lasting peace can be developed," he added. Hezbollah, which is battling
Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, had overnight called for the talks to be
scrapped, describing them as "futile."The Israeli military warned Tuesday that
it expected a rise in attacks by Hezbollah targeting Israel's north as the talks
were being held. Lebanon was pulled into the region-wide Iran war on March 2
after Hezbollah attacked Israel. Since then Israeli strikes -- including an
extremely heavy attack on Beirut on April 8 -- have killed more than 2,000
people and displaced more than one million, despite international calls for a
ceasefire. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Saturday that "we want
the dismantling of Hezbollah's weapons, and we want a real peace agreement that
will last for generations." On the Lebanese side, President Joseph Aoun said
Monday he hoped the Washington talks will yield "an agreement...on a ceasefire
in Lebanon, with the aim of starting direct negotiations between Lebanon and
Israel." President Donald Trump's administration insists on the disarmament of
Hezbollah, but also respect for Lebanon's territorial integrity and sovereignty,
while simultaneously upholding Israel's perceived rights -- positions that
appear difficult to reconcile. A former Israeli defense official told
journalists on condition of anonymity Monday that it would take "a lot of
imagination and optimism to think" that the issues between Israel and Lebanon
can be solved in Washington Tuesday, adding that "expectations are low."
Israel, Lebanon agree to direct negotiations after
'productive' talks
Agence France Presse/15 April/2026
Israel and Lebanon agreed to hold direct negotiations after "productive
discussions" between the two sides in Washington, the United States said on
Tuesday. "The participants held productive discussions on steps toward launching
direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon," State Department spokesperson
Tommy Pigott said in a statement, adding: "All sides agreed to launch direct
negotiations at a mutually agreed time and venue."
Below is the full text of the statement:
"Meeting between the Governments of United States, Lebanon, and Israel
The U.S. Department of State convened a trilateral meeting on April 14, 2026,
with the participation of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Counselor Michael
Needham, United States Ambassador to Lebanon Issa, Ambassador of Israel to the
United States Yechiel Leiter, the Ambassador of Lebanon to the United States
Nada Hamadeh Moawad. This meeting marked the first
major high-level engagement between the governments of Israel and Lebanon since
1993. The participants held productive discussions on steps toward launching
direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon.
The United States congratulated the two countries on this historic milestone and
expressed its support for further talks, and for the Government of Lebanon's
plans to restore the monopoly of force and to end Iran's overbearing influence.
The United States expressed its hope that talks can exceed the scope of the 2024
agreement and bring about a comprehensive peace deal. The United States
expressed its support for Israel's right to defend itself from Hizballah's
continued attacks. The United States affirmed that any agreement to cease
hostilities must be reached between the two governments, brokered by the United
States, and not through any separate track. The United States underscored that
these negotiations have the potential to unlock significant reconstruction
assistance and economic recovery for Lebanon and expand investment opportunities
for both countries.
The State of Israel expressed its support for disarming all non-state terror
groups and dismantle all terror infrastructure in Lebanon and expressed its
commitment to working with the Government of Lebanon to achieve that goal to
ensure security for the people of both countries. Israel expressed its
commitment to engage in direct negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues
and achieve a durable peace that will strengthen security, stability and
prosperity in the region. The State of Lebanon reaffirmed the urgent need for
the full implementation of the cessation of hostilities announcement of November
2024, underscoring the principles of territorial integrity and full state
sovereignty, while calling for a ceasefire and concrete measures to address and
alleviate the severe humanitarian crisis that the country continues to endure as
a result of the ongoing conflict. All sides agreed to launch direct negotiations
at a mutually agreed time and venue."
Lebanon's US ambassador says called for ceasefire at 'constructive' Israel talks
Agence France Presse/15 April/2026
Lebanon's ambassador to the United States Nada Hamadeh Moawad called for a
ceasefire during "constructive" talks on Tuesday with Israeli officials in
Washington, she said in a statement. The "preparatory meeting was constructive,"
the envoy's statement said, adding that she "called for a ceasefire" and the
return of displaced people to their homes, and also emphasized "the full
sovereignty of the state" over all Lebanese territory.
Israeli envoy says 'on the same side' with Lebanon after talks in US
Agence France Presse//15 April/2026
Direct talks between Israel and Lebanon concluded in Washington on Tuesday, with
Israel's envoy hailing a "wonderful exchange" and saying the two countries are
"on the same side" in opposing Hezbollah. "We enjoyed it together. We had a
wonderful exchange of over two hours," Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter told
reporters following the talks. "We discovered today
that we're on the same side," he said, adding: "We are both united in liberating
Lebanon from (an) occupation power dominated by Iran called Hezbollah."
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio -- who mediated the talks -- had
earlier urged the two countries to seize a "historic opportunity" for peace. "We
understand we're working against decades of history and the complexities that
have led us to this unique moment and the opportunity here," Rubio said at the
State Department as he welcomed the ambassadors of the two countries. "The hope
today is that we can outline a framework upon which a current and lasting peace
can be developed," he added. But the prospect of an easy agreement appear slim,
especially as Hezbollah -- which is battling Israeli forces in southern Lebanon
-- opposed the talks and called for them to be scrapped before they even began.
Hezbollah said it had launched "simultaneous rocket salvos" at 13
northern Israeli towns shortly after the start of the discussions, following an
Israeli warning of a rise in attacks during the talks. Lebanon was pulled into
the region-wide Iran war on March 2 after Hezbollah attacked Israel. Since then
Israeli strikes -- including an extremely heavy attack on Beirut on April 8 --
have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced more than one million, despite
international calls for a ceasefire. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
said Saturday that "we want the dismantling of Hezbollah's weapons, and we want
a real peace agreement that will last for generations." On the Lebanese side,
President Joseph Aoun said Monday he hoped the Washington talks will yield "an
agreement...on a ceasefire in Lebanon, with the aim of starting direct
negotiations between Lebanon and Israel."President Donald Trump's administration
insists on the disarmament of Hezbollah, but also respect for Lebanon's
territorial integrity and sovereignty, while simultaneously upholding Israel's
demands -- positions that appear difficult to reconcile. A former Israeli
defense official told journalists on condition of anonymity Monday that it would
take "a lot of imagination and optimism to think" that the issues between Israel
and Lebanon can be solved in Washington Tuesday, adding that "expectations are
low."
Report: Aoun presses for ceasefire, atmosphere encouraging
Naharnet/15 April/2026
Tuesday's talks between Lebanon and Israel will be "open and direct, not merely
technical or formal, and will address the security of Israel's northern border,"
U.S. State Department sources told MTV. "However, the core U.S. objective goes
beyond this, reaching a fundamental question: Is the Lebanese state truly ready
to restore its full sovereignty?" the sources asked. MTV also reported that
President Joseph Aoun continued his contacts with those involved in the
negotiations until the early hours of morning, with an informed source
describing the U.S. atmosphere regarding support for Lebanon's ceasefire request
as "encouraging." Finance Minister Yassine Jaber, who is close to Speaker Nabih
Berri, meanwhile told Al-Jadeed television that today's meeting in Washington is
"a gateway to achieving a ceasefire, which is a priority." Lebanese official
sources told LBCI on Tuesday that the U.S. side is showing "great understanding
of Lebanon's position," as to the talks with Israel, noting that "it raised its
level of representation at the meeting with the Israeli side to that of the
Secretary of State, reflecting the seriousness of the United States in dealing
with the Lebanese issue." "Today's meeting in Washington is dedicated to
discussing a ceasefire and the results of today's meeting will not be final
because this meeting is part of a long negotiation process," the sources said.
They also indicated that "we cannot determine what topics might be raised at the
meeting because we are facing a direct meeting between the two parties."
"But as the Lebanese side, we leave the discussion of other issues that go
beyond the ceasefire to the larger delegations that will manage the negotiations
in the next phase," the sources added.
Aoun hopes Israel talks 'beginning of the end' of Lebanon's
suffering
Agence France Presse/15 April/2026
President Joseph Aoun expressed hope that direct talks on Tuesday in Washington
with Israel would lead to an end of the country's suffering after war erupted
again between Israel and Hezbollah last month. "I hope that the meeting in
Washington... will mark the beginning of the end of the suffering of the
Lebanese people in general, and those in the south in particular," Aoun said in
a statement, adding that "stability will not return to the south if Israel
continues to occupy its lands." "The only solution lies in the Lebanese Army
re-deploying up to the internationally recognized border, and so being solely
responsible for the security of the area and the safety of its residents,
without the partnership of any other party," Aoun added.
17 nations urge Israel, Lebanon to seize talks 'opportunity'
Agence France Presse/15 April/2026
Foreign ministers from 17 countries, including the UK, Tuesday urged Israel and
Lebanon to "seize this opportunity" in a statement ahead of U.S.-mediated talks
between the two sides in Washington. Britain's foreign ministry posted the
ministers' joint statement saying "direct negotiations can pave the way to bring
lasting security for Lebanon and Israel as well as the region.".l. The statement
called "upon all parties to urgently deescalate and seize the opportunity
offered by the ceasefire between the United States and Iran."It was signed by
ministers from Britain and Australia and European countries such as France,
Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, but not Germany, Austria, Hungary or Italy.
Israel and Lebanon were set to hold the first direct talks in decades between
the warring neighbors, mediated by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Lebanon
was pulled into the region-wide Iran war on March 2 after Hezbollah attacked
Israel. Since then Israeli strikes -- including an extremely heavy attack on
Beirut on April 8 -- have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced more than
one million. The statement said that signatories "condemn in the strongest
terms" both attacks by Hezbollah on Israel and "massive Israeli strikes on
Lebanon."
The countries said they welcomed the initiative by President Joseph Aoun to open
direct talks and were "ready to support" discussions.
US reportedly promises to press Netanyahu on ceasefire,
Aoun seeks Berri cover
Naharnet/15 April/2026
Lebanon responded positively to the US administration's request for a talks'
preparatory meeting between the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors after receiving
a pledge from the U.S. to pressure Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to agree to a
ceasefire, a Lebanese ministerial source said. The source told Asharq al-Awsat
newspaper that Tuesday's meeting would discuss "a single item on its agenda,
limited to reaching a truce; without which it is impossible to move to the
second phase of launching direct negotiations between the two countries under
U.S. auspices." The source affirmed that President Joseph Aoun "will not deviate
one iota from his initiative to invite Israel to direct negotiations, but only
on the basis of its prior agreement to a truce.""This is what he conveyed to
Lebanese Ambassador to the U.S. Nada Mouawad and said to the U.S.
administration, which promised to pressure Netanyahu for this purpose," the
source added. The source said that "Aoun spoke at length last Friday night with
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, and they agreed that negotiations remain
suspended unless preceded by a ceasefire."The source noted Berri's satisfaction
with what he heard from Aoun regarding linking direct negotiations to a
ceasefire encompassing the South, not just Beirut and its southern suburbs. In
response to a question, the source confirmed that "obligating Israel to a truce
increases communication between Aoun and Berri to prepare the ground for the
start of negotiations with a Lebanese delegation headed by former Ambassador
Simon Karam."The source said that Berri had "expressed his understanding of the
call for negotiations and had never previously registered his objection to the
initiative launched in this regard."The source added that it is necessary to
respond to Berri's precondition of a ceasefire as "an entry point for a positive
engagement with Aoun's invitation, especially since he did not attack it, unlike
his ally Hezbollah." The source emphasized that "it is impossible to begin
negotiations without Shiite backing commensurate with the political presence
enjoyed by the Amal Movement which is headed by Berri."
Israel military warns Hezbollah likely to increase attacks
as talks begin
Agence France Presse/15 April/2026
The Israeli military warned Tuesday it expected a rise in attacks by Hezbollah
targeting Israel's north, as Washington hosted Israeli and Lebanese officials
for their first direct talks in decades. "Following a situational assessment,
and as part of recent developments, an increase in fire from Lebanon is
possible, likely targeting northern Israel," the military said.Israeli forces
and Hezbollah are currently engaged in close-quarters fighting in southern
Lebanon, after the group launched attacks on Israel in response to joint
U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28.
Report: Israeli envoy instructed to reject ceasefire in
Lebanon talks
Naharnet/15 April/2026
Israel's ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, has been instructed to reject
any ceasefire request while negotiations with Lebanon continue, Israeli
newspaper Haaretz reported Tuesday, citing sourcesز The report added that the
ambassador will emphasize the continuation of the military operation to disarm
Hezbollah during the negotiations with Lebanon that will begin today in
Washington.
Israel says seeking 'peace and normalization' with Lebanon
Associated Press/15 April/2026
Lebanon and Israel are set to hold the first direct diplomatic talks in decades
on Tuesday in Washington following more than a month of war between Israel and
the Hezbollah militant group that has rocked the tiny Mediterranean country.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will take part in the talks in Washington
with Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter and Lebanese Ambassador to
the U.S. Nada Hamadeh Moawad. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar said Tuesday
that Israel is seeking "peace and normalization" with Lebanon. "We want to reach
peace and normalization with the state of Lebanon... Israel and Lebanon don't
have any major disputes between them. The problem is Hezbollah," Saar said at a
press conference. At least 2,089 people have been killed in Israeli strikes in
Lebanon, the Health Ministry said, among them 252 women, 166 children and 88
medical workers, while 6,762 others were wounded. More than 1 million people are
displaced. The Lebanese government hopes the talks
will pave the way to an end to the war. While Iran has set ending the wars in
Lebanon and the region as a condition for talks with the United States, Lebanon
insists on representing itself. Hezbollah and critics are skeptical and believe
Lebanon's government in Beirut has no leverage and should take advantage of the
position of Iran, the group's key ally and patron. The Israeli military
continues an invasion into southern Lebanon, which some Israeli officials have
said aims to create a depopulated "security zone" from the border to the Litani
River, some 30 kilometers. Iran-backed Hezbollah, though weakened in its last
war with Israel that ended in November 2024, still fires drones, rockets and
artillery daily into northern Israel and on ground troops inside Lebanon.
The Israeli and Lebanese governments are meeting to discuss ways to
ensure long-term security on Israel's northern border and support for Lebanon
seeking to take control of its territory and political future from Iran-backed
Hezbollah, a U.S. State Department official said. They will be the first talks
between the two since 1993, according to the official, who was not authorized to
comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Lebanon's top political authorities, critical of Hezbollah's decision to fire
rockets towards Israel on March 2 in solidarity with Iran, quickly proposed
direct talks in a bid to stop the escalation, hoping that Israel would not
launch its ground invasion.
Israel did not respond positively until last week, after it launched 100 strikes
across the country, including in the heart of the Lebanese capital.
Beirut wants a truce as a prerequisite to talks, similar to
Pakistan-brokered negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. "Israel's destruction
of Lebanese territories is not the solution, nor will it yield any results,"
said President Joseph Aoun Monday, who came to power vowing to disarm non-state
groups including Hezbollah. "Diplomatic solutions have consistently proven to be
the most effective means of resolving armed conflicts globally." "We will not
discuss a ceasefire with Hezbollah, which continues to carry out indiscriminate
attacks against Israel and our civilians," Shosh Bedrosian, a spokeswoman for
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Monday. Hezbollah and its
supporters have been critical, calling it a free concession to Israel.
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem delivered a fiery speech calling
on Lebanon to cancel the talks. Hezbollah wants a return to the 2024 agreement
under which talks were conducted indirectly with the U.S., France and the United
Nations peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon as mediators. Israel has
pressed ahead with its air and ground campaign since last week’s ceasefire in
Iran, insisting that it doesn't apply to fighting in Lebanon. It has, however,
halted strikes in the country's capital since April 8, after a deadly
bombardment that hit several crowded commercial and residential areas in central
Beirut. It sparked an international outcry and threats by Iran that it would end
the ceasefire. After more than a year of near-daily
strikes in southern Lebanon, Israel escalated its offensive in the early days of
the war following Hezbollah launching rockets into Israel. The fighting has
carved a path of destruction from agricultural towns near the border to Beirut,
killing more than 2,000 people and displacing in excess of 1 million others,
according to Lebanese authorities. The talks are expected to be preliminary,
focused on setting parameters rather than resolving core issues. Lebanese
officials have pushed for a ceasefire, while Israel has framed the negotiations
around Hezbollah’s disarmament and a potential peace deal, without publicly
committing to halting hostilities or withdrawing its forces. Israel wants
Lebanon’s government to assume responsibility for disarming Hezbollah, much like
was envisaged in a November 2024 ceasefire. But the militant group has survived
efforts to curb its strength for decades and said on Monday that it won't abide
by any agreements that may result from the talks.
Israel wants peace talks, but Lebanon wants truce first
Naharnet/15 April/2026
Lebanese Ambassador to the U.S. Nada Hamadeh Moawad will prioritize a single
demand as Lebanon and Israel convene for their first direct diplomatic talks in
decades this Tuesday in Washington: an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire.
Hezbollah and ally Amal have refused negotiations under fire and Hezbollah
leader Sheikh Naim Qassem has called on Lebanon to cancel the talks, describing
them as "futile," while Israel framed the negotiations around Hezbollah’s
disarmament and a potential peace deal, without publicly committing to halting
hostilities or withdrawing its forces from south Lebanon. It said it will not
discuss a ceasefire with Hezbollah in Washington on Tuesday. Presidential
sources told An-Nahar newspaper on Tuesday that Lebanon views a truce as a
prerequisite for negotiations, maintaining that only a cessation of hostilities
can pave the way for peace talks.
An-Nahar said former Ambassador Simon Karam will convey Lebanon's demands to
Israel, but it was not clear if Karam will take part in the talks Tuesday. The
demands are a long-term ceasefire, a border demarcation and Israel's withdrawal
from south Lebanon, the return of Lebanese prisoners, and the "containment" of
Hezbollah's weapons instead of a full disarmament by force. An-Nahar said the
group's weapons would be contained within specific areas that do not threaten
Israel’s security.
Report: KSA playing stabilizing role in Lebanon, Iran open to it
Naharnet/15 April/2026
Iran has become more open and positive towards the Saudi role in Lebanon,
viewing it as a stabilizing factor, diplomatic sources told Al-Jadeed TV. While
noting expectations of a Saudi initiative following today's Washington meeting
between Lebanon and Israel, the sources revealed that the Saudi special envoy to
Lebanon intensified communication with Ain el-Tineh in recent days and has
served as a guarantee for internal calm.
France says Lebanon must be included in ceasefire, calls
Israeli strikes 'intolerable'
Associated Press/15 April/2026
French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot reaffirmed Tuesday that Lebanon
must be included in the initial ceasefire agreement. "The ceasefire must
absolutely include Lebanon, which under no circumstances can be the scapegoat of
the Israeli government," Barrot said on French radio RFI. Israel’s strikes on
Lebanon are "intolerable," he said, because they undermine the ceasefire reached
between the United States and Iran and because it strengthens militant group
Hezbollah. "Destroying Lebanon, targeting the Lebanese state, does not weaken
Hezbollah — quite the opposite, it strengthens it," Barrot said.
IMF, Lebanon hold talks on up to $1 billion in rapid
financing
Reuters/15 April/2026
The International Monetary Fund and Lebanon are discussing options for providing
fast-track assistance to help the country absorb the impact of the Middle East
war, according to people familiar with the matter. The conversations are focused
on some type of financing instrument that would give Lebanon access to between
$800 million and $1 billion, one of the people said, asking not to be identified
because the talks are private. The money would be earmarked for budget support
and humanitarian response, the people said.
“IMF staff is closely engaged with the Lebanese authorities, including on key
economic crisis management issues to mitigate the impact on the economy,” an IMF
spokesperson said.
“Discussions are ongoing on a comprehensive reform program that could be
supported by an IMF arrangement.”A spokesperson from Lebanon’s finance ministry
didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The IMF has a tool known as
the Rapid Financing Instrument that’s available for countries with urgent
balance of payments needs. But Lebanon wouldn’t be able to have direct access to
this kind of credit because it’s in default on its debt, one of the people said.
In March 2020, Lebanon defaulted on some $30 billion of international debt - one
episode in a series of financial and political crises to hit the country, whose
economy has shrunk by about one-third over the past decade, according to IMF
figures. Now it’s deeply embroiled in the regional conflict that began when the
US and Israel attacked Iran in February. Israeli forces occupy a swath of
southern Lebanon and have carried out bombing raids across the country, saying
they target the Hezbollah militia that’s a key ally of Iran. Lebanon resumed
negotiations for a broader financing program with the Washington-based IMF under
the US-backed government of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who took office early
last year. But with the country among the worst-hit by the current Mideast
conflict, shorter-term financing is now the main focus of talks.
The friendship between Lebanon
and Israel is deep and strong, no one will separate us.
Lilian Schmid/April 14 /2026
1. A Relationship Rooted in Shared Geography and Culture
The Phoenicians centred in Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos, were the ancestors of
today’s Lebanese people. They lived along the same coastline and interacted
constantly with ancient Israel.
- They were northwestern neighbours whose culture continued the earlier
Canaanite world.
- Their societies influenced each other in language, art, architecture, and
religious symbolism.
2. A Golden Age of Cooperation
The Bible and archaeology both show a period of strong alliance, especially
during the reigns of Kings David and Solomon.
- King Hiram of Tyre supplied cedar wood and craftsmen for Solomon’s Temple one
of the most famous acts of ancient cooperation.
- Trade between the two peoples was extensive: timber, luxury goods, metals,
agriculture, and maritime expertise flowed between them.
- Their partnership allowed both civilizations to flourish at the same time.
3. Shared Spiritual and Cultural Threads
Although their religions were distinct, they shared:
- overlapping Semitic roots
This created a cultural familiarity that made cooperation natural.
4. A Relationship That Evolved Over Time
Archaeology shows periods of tension too especially in the 9th–8th centuries BCE
but even then, ties remained strong enough for:
- shifting alliances,
- and continued trade.
Even in conflict, the two societies were intertwined.
5. A Legacy That Still Echoes Today
The ancient friendship between Lebanon and Israel is not a myth it is a
documented historical reality.
It shows that:
- these lands once shared mutual respect,
- deep cultural exchange,
and long-standing economic partnership.
It is a reminder that the story of the region is not only one of conflict, but
also of collaboration, creativity, and shared destiny.
God bless
Lilian
The “Lebanese Street” Warms up to
Normalization with Israel
Hussain Abdul-Hussain/MID.EAST
JOURNAL | FROM MIDDLE EAST 24/April 14/2026
https://www.mideastjournal.org/post/the-lebanese-street-warms-up-to-normalization-with-israel
A surprising poll offers real hope for normalization between Lebanon and
Israel. Conducted by an anti-Western, anti-Israel website with a sample of 500
respondents, the survey found that only 42 percent of Lebanese oppose peace with
Israel. Thirty-two percent support normalization, while 25 percent remain
undecided. Imperfect as the poll may be, these numbers are remarkably
encouraging for advocates of Lebanese-Israeli peace.
The poll comes amid active hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, a Lebanese
law that criminalizes any contact between Lebanese citizens and Israelis, and
relentless harassment and bullying by Hezbollah. In this environment of social
shaming, fear, intimidation and legal prohibition, one might expect
near-universal opposition to peace. Yet opponents of normalization with Israel
barely clear 40 percent.
Even more telling is the breakdown among Lebanon’s Shia community, long assumed
to be Hezbollah’s most loyal base and staunch opponents of Israel. According to
the survey, Shia opposition to Lebanon’s peace with Israel stands at around 60
percent, far from unanimous.
This finding squares with a Gallup poll from Summer 2025, which showed that 27
percent of Shia respondents wanted Hezbollah disarmed. Lebanon’s Shia are simply
not a monolithic bloc that supports endless confrontation with Israel.
The finding also substantiates the argument that the “Palestinian cause” has
always been a Sunni Arab issue, not a Shia one, especially not the Shia of
Lebanon, who suffered heavy losses during the days of Palestinian dominance in
Lebanon. So much so that, in 1985, the Amal Movement, then the main Lebanese
Shia militia, imposed a siege on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and fought
bitter wars with them.
The poll offers hope for peace advocates. The twenty-five percent who are
undecided represent a winnable constituency. If Lebanese peace supporters were
ever granted the basic freedom of expression to openly campaign for
normalization, without fear of assassination or intimidation, that undecided
bloc could easily tip the scales toward a pro-peace majority.
The potential grows even larger if Lebanon’s sectarian chiefs were pressured
into supporting peace with Israel. At the risk of suffering U.S. sanctions on
their big fat accounts stashed away in secret Swiss banks, these sectarian
oligarchs can be goaded to support normalization with Israel. Should they decide
to do so, popular support for peace with Israel could sail past 50 percent with
relative ease.
Lebanese public opinion, it turns out, is far more diverse and pragmatic than
the region’s conflict entrepreneurs would have us believe.
Yet realizing this potential requires serious heavy lifting. Lebanon’s peace
advocates need breathing room. They require foreign-backed guarantees of freedom
of expression and the rule of law strong enough to prevent Hezbollah from
killing not only the idea of peace but its supporters as well. Without
protection from Tehran’s local proxy, the voices calling for normalization will
remain marginalized or silenced.
Western observers, particularly those on the left, seem blind to these
indigenous sentiments. Outlets like The New York Times and CNN, along with
European leaders such as France’s Emmanuel Macron and Spain’s Pedro Sánchez,
often frame the region in ways that suggest they would prefer Lebanon remain
under the thumb of Iran rather than live at peace with Israel. They appear more
comfortable with a narrative of perpetual resistance than with the messy reality
of what actual Lebanese people want.
The Lebanese people and crucially their elected government have signaled a
desire to decouple their country’s future from the Iranian axis. They want to
pursue their own path toward peace with Israel, independently of broader
regional tracks dictated by Tehran or Arab capitals. This is not what many
Western elites seem to advocate for.
Indigenous Middle Easterners, it turns out, often desire different things than
what well-meaning (or not) Western analysts prescribe for them.
The poll, despite its limitations, boosts hopes for Lebanese normalization with
Israel.
But hope alone is insufficient. It must be matched by concrete support for free
speech, political pluralism, and the protection of those brave enough to speak
out for peace. The numbers are there. The question is whether Lebanon’s friends
in the West, in the region, and within the country itself will help create the
conditions necessary for that silent pro-peace sentiment to finally find its
voice.
**Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at The Foundation for the Defense
of Democracies (FDD) and the author of The Arab Case for Israel. He is a senior
contributor with MiddleEast24.
LACC
Statement Supporting Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Lebanon’s Sovereign Path
Washington, D.C. | April 12, 2026
The Lebanese American Coordinating Committee (LACC), on behalf of its member
organizations and the broader Lebanese American community, expresses its full
support for Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and his cabinet as they undertake a
historic effort to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty and place the country on a path
toward stability and peace.
Since taking office, Prime Minister Salam has taken unprecedented and
consequential steps to reassert state authority. He has banned Hezbollah’s
military and security activities, affirmed that decisions of war and peace rest
exclusively with the Lebanese state, initiated measures to ensure that all
weapons fall under the authority of the Lebanese Armed Forces, prohibited the
activities of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and moved to
remove operatives present in Lebanon illegally, and declared the Iranian
ambassador persona non grata in response to continued interference in Lebanon’s
internal affairs. In parallel, he has stated clearly that Lebanon was drawn into
the current conflict by Hezbollah acting outside the authority of the state and
in alignment with Iranian direction.
The LACC strongly condemns Hezbollah’s continued defiance of these state
decisions. In recent weeks, Hezbollah officials have issued explicit threats to
bring down the Salam government should it move forward with enforcing the ban on
its military activities, warning of “serious consequences” for any attempt to
disarm the group. At the same time, Hezbollah and its affiliates have escalated
efforts to intimidate Lebanese officials, journalists, and political actors
through accusations of treason, organized pressure campaigns, and demonstrations
designed to signal coercive power.
These actions are not isolated. They constitute a deliberate attempt to obstruct
the reassertion of state authority and to deter Lebanese institutions from
acting. They confirm that Hezbollah operates outside the framework of the
Lebanese state and remains prepared to destabilize Lebanon in service of
external interests.
The LACC also supports the Lebanese government’s willingness to engage in direct
negotiations with Israel, a development not seen in decades. We commend the
United States for facilitating and hosting these discussions and urge sustained
American engagement to support a durable outcome.
Any diplomatic process must be grounded in clear and enforceable principles:
A sustained ceasefire
The full disarmament of Hezbollah and all non-state armed actors
The removal of all foreign military presence, including IRGC elements
The full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory
The return of detainees and respect for humanitarian obligations
Full adherence to Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including
under UN Security Council Resolution 1701
The LACC further calls for the immediate implementation of a comprehensive
national enforcement strategy, including:
A time-bound plan to dismantle all unauthorized weapons networks
Expanded operational authority for the Lebanese Armed Forces across all
territory
Legal and financial measures targeting illicit financing, smuggling, and
parallel structures sustaining armed groups
International support, particularly from the United States and partners, tied to
measurable implementation benchmarks
A firm and sustained policy of rejecting all external interference in Lebanon’s
sovereign affairs
Lebanon stands at a decisive moment. The steps taken by Prime Minister Salam
represent a clear break from past ambiguity and a commitment to restoring the
authority of the state.
The LACC and the Lebanese American community stand firmly behind this effort. We
call on U.S. policymakers, international partners, and all Lebanese stakeholders
to rally behind this historic opportunity and ensure the full restoration of
Lebanon’s sovereignty and the realization of lasting peace in the region.
Rare
Precedents for Lebanon-Israel Talks
Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
There are few precedents for the direct talks between Lebanese and Israeli
officials that began in Washington on Tuesday.
1949, Fragile armistice -
The first Arab-Israeli war began on May 15, 1948, the day after the declaration
of the establishment of the State of Israel.
Five countries -- Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq -- had rejected a UN
plan adopted in November 1947 to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states
and went to war against the new state. In 1949, Israel and neighboring countries
signed armistice agreements, but they collapsed with the start of the 1967
Arab-Israeli War.
1983, Unimplemented agreement -
Israel invaded Lebanon on June 6, 1982, in an operation it dubbed "Peace for
Galilee" that was initially aimed at expelling Palestinian fighters, but which
resulted in a nearly 18-year Israeli occupation. On May 17, 1983, Lebanon and
Israel signed an agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon
after four-and-a-half months of direct talks with US participation. The deal was
scrapped less than a year later, in March 1984, under pressure from Syria and
its allies in Lebanon.
1991-93, Washington talks -
A series of bilateral negotiations between Israel and Syria, Lebanon, and a
joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation was launched in late 1991, following the
Madrid conference on Middle East peace. Ten rounds of bilateral talks were held
in Washington over 20 months until 1993, but failed to produce results.
- 2022, Maritime border deal -
After years of US mediation, Lebanon and Israel reached an agreement on October
27, 2022, which demarcated their maritime border and set the terms for sharing
offshore gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean. There was no direct contact
between the two sides, with the deal formalized through separate exchanges of
letters with the United States.
2024, Fragile ceasefire -
A November 2024 ceasefire sought to end more than a year of fresh hostilities
between Israel and Hezbollah, but Israeli forces kept up strikes in Lebanon,
saying they aimed to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its capabilities. In
December 2025, civilian officials for the first time joined Lebanese and Israeli
military representatives in ceasefire-monitoring meetings in southern Lebanon,
led by the US and also involving France and the United Nations peacekeeping
force. The talks marked the first direct discussions between the two sides in
decades.
Links to several
important news websites
National News Agency (Lebanon)
https://www.nna-leb.gov.lb/ar
Nidaa Al Watan
https://www.nidaalwatan.com/
MTV Lebanon
https://www.mtv.com.lb/
Voice of Lebanon
https://www.vdl.me/
Asas Media
https://asasmedia.com/
Naharnet
https://www.naharnet.com/
Al Markazia News Agency
https://almarkazia.com/ar
LBCI (English)
https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/en
LBCI (Arabic)
https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/ar
Janoubia Website
https://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/ar
Kataeb Party Official Website
https://www.kataeb.org
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on April 14-15/2026
US, Iran negotiation teams could return to Pakistan for high-level talks:
Sources
Reuters/14 April/2026
Negotiating teams from the US and Iran could return to Pakistan later this week
to resume negotiations to end the war in the Gulf, Pakistani and Iranian
officials said on Tuesday, days after the first peace talks ended without a
breakthrough.
There was no immediate confirmation from US officials about the plans, which the
Iranian and Pakistani officials discussed on condition of anonymity. A source
who has been involved in the talks said a proposal had been sent to Washington
and Tehran for the delegations to return to Islamabad to resume discussions. No
date had yet been decided but both countries could return as early as the end of
this week. An official at the Iranian embassy in Islamabad said: “The coming
rounds of talks can come sometime later this week or earlier next week. But
nothing is finalized as of now.”
Iran’s IRNA news agency cited a diplomatic source as saying that Iran and
Pakistan continue the exchange of messages, but that there no information yet on
any agreement to hold next round of peace talks. Earlier, a senior Iranian
source told Reuters: “No firm date has been set, with the delegations keeping
Friday through Sunday open.” A senior Pakistani official said Islamabad had
reached out to Iran “and we got a positive response that they will be open to a
second round of talks.”The official and a second Pakistani source said Islamabad
was communicating with both sides about the timing of the next round, and the
meeting would be likely to take place over the coming weekend. Last weekend’s
meeting in Pakistan’s capital to resolve the conflict between the US and Iran,
held four days after the announcement of a ceasefire, reached no breakthrough.
It was the first direct encounter between US and Iranian officials in more than
a decade, and the most senior engagement since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Pakistan’s foreign ministry, military and prime minister’s office did not
respond to a Reuters request for comment. The White House also did not
immediately respond to a request for comment. US Vice President JD Vance and
Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf led their respective
delegations in the last round of talks. Issues under contention include the
Strait of Hormuz, a major transit point for global energy supplies that Iran has
effectively blocked but the US has vowed to reopen, as well as Iran’s nuclear
program and international sanctions on Tehran. Vance told reporters after the
talks ended: “We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of
understanding that is our final and best offer.”“We’ll see if the Iranians
accept it.”
Trump says US-Iran talks could resume in Pakistan over next two days
Reuters/14 April/2026
Talks to end the Iran war could resume in Pakistan over the next two days, US
President Donald Trump said on Tuesday, after the collapse of weekend
negotiations prompted Washington to impose a blockade on Iranian ports.
Regional, Pakistani and Iranian officials also said negotiating teams from the
US and Iran could return to Pakistan later this week, though one senior Iranian
source said no date had been set. “You should stay there, really, because
something could be happening over the next two days, and we’re more inclined to
go there,” Trump was quoted as saying in an interview with the New York Post.
While the US blockade drew angry rhetoric from Tehran, signs that diplomatic
engagement might continue helped calm oil markets, pushing benchmark prices
below $100 on Tuesday. The highest-level talks between the two adversaries since
the 1979 Islamic Revolution ended in Islamabad without a breakthrough, raising
doubts over the survival of a two-week ceasefire that still has a week to run.
Since the United States and Israel began the war on February 28, Iran
effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz to nearly all vessels except its own,
saying passage would be permitted only under Iranian control and subject to a
fee. Nearly a fifth of global oil and gas supplies previously flowed through the
narrow waterway, making the fallout widespread. In a countermeasure, the US
military said it began blocking shipping traffic in and out of Iran’s ports on
Monday. Tehran has threatened to hit naval ships going through the strait and to
retaliate against its Gulf neighbors’ ports.
IMF cuts growth outlook
US Central Command said the blockade of Iranian ports involved more than 10,000
US military personnel, more than a dozen warships and dozens of aircraft.
“During the first 24 hours, no ships made it past the US blockade and 6 merchant
vessels complied with direction from US forces to turn around to re-enter an
Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman,” CENTCOM said in a statement posted on X.
Shipping data showed the blockade had made little difference to Strait of Hormuz
traffic on Tuesday, with at least eight ships crossing the waterway. The latest
standoff has further clouded the outlook for global energy security and the
supply of goods that rely on petroleum. On Tuesday, the International Monetary
Fund cut its growth outlook and said the global economy would teeter on the
brink of recession if the conflict worsens and oil stays above $100 per barrel
into 2027. The International Energy Agency slashed its forecasts for global oil
supply and demand growth, saying both are now expected to fall from 2025 levels.
The US’ NATO allies including Britain and France said they would not be drawn
into the conflict by taking part in the blockade, although they have offered to
help safeguard the strait by drawing together a defensive multilateral mission
to assist when an agreement is in place. China, the main buyer of Iranian oil,
said the US blockade was “dangerous and irresponsible” and would only aggravate
tensions.
Proposal for 20-year suspension of nuclear activity
US Vice President JD Vance, who led Washington’s delegation in Pakistan, has
said Trump was adamant that any enriched nuclear material must be removed from
Iran and a mechanism be established to verify that Iran is not developing
nuclear weapons. A source briefed on the matter confirmed reports that the US
had proposed a 20-year suspension of all nuclear activity by Iran “with all
sorts of restrictions.”Two Iranian sources said Iran had rejected the proposal,
suggesting a halt of just three to five years. One source involved in the
negotiations in Pakistan said backchannel talks since the weekend had produced
good progress in closing the gap on the nuclear issue, bringing the two sides
closer to a deal that could be put forward at a new round of talks. Complicating
Pakistan’s mediation efforts, Israel has continued targeting Iran-backed
Hezbollah in Lebanon. Israel and the United States say that campaign is not
covered by the ceasefire, while Iran has insisted it is. Israeli and Lebanese
envoys were to meet in Washington on Tuesday in a rare encounter also expected
to be attended by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Lebanon’s government has
sought negotiations with Israel despite objections from Hezbollah.Israel killed
more than 350 people in Lebanon in the war’s worst strikes hours after the Iran
ceasefire was announced last week, but later said it was willing to discuss a
separate ceasefire with the Lebanese government. Regarding Iran, Israeli Foreign
Minister Gideon Saar told reporters in Jerusalem on Tuesday: “We will never
allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons ... The enriched materials must be removed
from Iran.” With the war unpopular at home and rising energy prices causing
political blowback, Trump paused the US-Israeli bombing campaign last week after
threatening to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” unless it reopened the
strait. The ceasefire has largely held over its first week despite sharp
rhetoric from both sides. An Iranian military spokesperson called any US
restrictions on international shipping “piracy,” while Trump said that Iran’s
navy had been “completely obliterated” and that only a small number of
“fast-attack ships” remained.
“Warning: If any of these ships come anywhere close to our BLOCKADE, they will
be immediately ELIMINATED,” Trump wrote on social media.
Vice President Vance says US-Iran mistrust cannot be solved overnight
Reuters/15 April ,2026
US Vice President JD Vance said on Tuesday there was a lot of mistrust between
Washington and Tehran that cannot be resolved overnight but he added that
Iranian negotiators wanted to make a deal and that he felt “very good about
where we are.” Talks to end the Iran war could resume in Pakistan over the next
two days, President Donald Trump said on Tuesday, after the collapse of weekend
negotiations prompted Washington to impose a blockade on Iranian ports. A
fragile two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran still has a week to run.
Vance was involved in the talks last weekend in Pakistan. “There is a lot of, of
course, mistrust between Iran and the United States of America. You are not
going to solve that problem overnight,” Vance said during a Turning Point USA
event. Iranian negotiators wanted to make a deal, he said. “I feel very good
about where we are,” Vance added. The Iran war began when the US and Israel
attacked Iran on February 28. Iran responded with its own strikes on Israel and
Gulf states that host US bases. US-Israeli strikes on Iran and Israeli attacks
in Lebanon have killed thousands and displaced millions.
US Treasury says not renewing temporary Iran oil sanction
easing
AFP, Washington/14 April/2026
The US Treasury Department said Tuesday it does not plan to renew a temporary
easing of sanctions on Iranian oil that aimed to ease war-related supply shocks.
“The short-term authorization permitting the sale of Iranian oil already
stranded at sea is set to expire in a few days and will not be renewed,” the
Treasury Department said in a statement. The initial authorization allowed for
the delivery and sale of Iranian crude and other petroleum products loaded onto
ships before March 20, and was to last through April 19. The Treasury Department
added that it is “maintaining maximum pressure” on Tehran.
The temporary easing on Iranian oil previously was part of a series of measures
launched by the Trump administration to quell skyrocketing energy prices
following the start of the war on February 28, including a similar easing of
sanctions on Russian oil at sea. Iran, in response to the US-Israeli attacks,
effectively blocked the flow of vessels through the critical Strait of Hormuz,
through which one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies flow. While the United
States and Iran have agreed to a two-week ceasefire, recent talks in Pakistan
failed to achieve a breakthrough, and President Donald Trump subsequently
ordered a blockade of Iranian ports to increase pressure on Tehran.
US stops 6 ships from sailing out of Iranian ports during first 24 hours of
blockade
AFP/14 April/2026
The US military said Tuesday that it successfully stopped six ships from sailing
out of Iranian ports during the first 24 hours of a naval blockade against Iran.
Central Command (CENTCOM) – which is responsible for American forces in the
Middle East – said more than 10,000 US troops, over a dozen warships, and dozens
of aircraft are taking part in the mission. “During the first 24 hours, no ships
made it past the US blockade and six merchant vessels complied with direction
from US forces to turn around to re-enter an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman,”
CENTCOM said in a post on X. “The blockade is being enforced impartially against
vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas,
including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman,” it added. But
despite CENTCOM’s assertion that no vessels made it through the blockade,
tracking information from maritime data provider Kpler showed at least two ships
sailing from Iranian ports crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Monday. Tehran’s
forces effectively closed the strait after the start of the US-Israeli air
campaign against Iran on February 28, and the US on Sunday announced its own
blockade after peace talks with Iran failed.
France, UK to
Host Hormuz Talks Friday
Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
France and Britain will co-host a video conference Friday of countries ready to
contribute to a "purely defensive mission" to secure the Strait of Hormuz, the
French president's office said. President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime
Minister Keir Starmer will co-chair the meeting to discuss a plan to "restore
freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz when security conditions allow",
it said on Tuesday. A spokesman for the British prime minister's office said:
"The summit will advance work towards a coordinated, independent, multinational
plan to safeguard international shipping once the conflict ends." US-Israeli
strikes on Iran in late February sparked a region-wide war and brought traffic
through the Strait of Hormuz to a near standstill, blocking a key route for
global oil and gas shipments. Iran and the United States last week agreed to a
two-week cessation of hostilities, but ceasefire talks between the warring sides
in Pakistan over the weekend ended in failure. US President Donald Trump
responded by ordering his navy to carry out a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz
starting Monday.
US Begins Iran
Port Blockade, Oil Prices Ease on Hopes for Dialogue
Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
The US military began a blockade of Iran's ports, angering Tehran and adding
uncertainty around the crucial waterway, although hopes for dialogue to end the
war provided some relief to oil markets where benchmark prices fell below $100
on Tuesday. After a breakdown of weekend talks in Islamabad between the two
adversaries, a US official said there was continued engagement and forward
motion on trying to get to an agreement. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif
also said efforts were still under way to resolve the conflict. US President
Donald Trump said Iran had been in touch on Monday and wanted to make a deal but
that he would not sanction any agreement allowing Tehran to have a nuclear
weapon. Since the United States and Israel began the war on February 28, Iran
effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz to all vessels except its own, saying
passage would be permitted only under Iranian control and subject to a fee. The
fallout has been widespread, since nearly a fifth of the world's oil and gas
supplies flowed through the narrow waterway before the start of the conflict.
Trump has said Washington would block Iranian vessels and any ships that paid
such tolls and that any Iranian "fast-attack" ships that went near the blockade
would be eliminated. Tehran has threatened to hit naval ships going through
the strait and to retaliate against its Gulf neighbors. Shipping data on LSEG
showed Chinese-owned oil-and-chemicals tanker Rich Starry passed through the
strait on Tuesday - the first since the US blockade began at 10 a.m. EDT (1400
GMT) on Monday. The vessel, which departed Sharjah anchorage off the coast of
Dubai on Monday heading for China, had earlier turned back minutes after
approaching the strait. The US's blockade has further clouded the outlook for
global energy security and the supply of a vast array of goods that relies on
petroleum, and has little, if any, international backing. NATO allies including
Britain and France said they would not be drawn into the conflict by taking part
in the blockade, stressing instead the need to reopen the waterway. Despite the
breakdown of talks between the US and Iran on Sunday, Vice President JD Vance,
who led the US delegation, told Fox News on Monday the US "made a lot of
progress" by communicating to Tehran where the US "could make some
accommodation" and where it would remain inflexible. He said Trump was adamant
that any enriched nuclear material must be removed from Iran and a mechanism
must be established to verify that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
Tehran "moved in our direction, which is why I think we would say that we had
some good signs, but they didn't move far enough," Vance said, without
disclosing details.
CEASEFIRE UNDER STRAIN
The ceasefire that halted six weeks of US-Israeli airstrikes and retaliatory
fire from Iran across the Gulf looked in jeopardy, with only a week left to run.
The US military's Central Command said the blockade would be "enforced
impartially against vessels of all nations" entering or leaving Iranian ports in
the Gulf and Gulf of Oman. It would not impede neutral transit passage through
the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian destinations, it said in a note to
seafarers seen by Reuters. An Iranian military spokesperson called any US
restrictions on international shipping "piracy," warning that if Iranian ports
were threatened, no port in the Gulf or Gulf of Oman would be secure. Any
military vessels approaching the strait would violate the ceasefire, Iran's
Revolutionary Guards said. Trump said Iran's navy had been "completely
obliterated" during the war, adding that only a small number of "fast-attack
ships" remained. "Warning: If any of these ships come anywhere close to our
BLOCKADE, they will be immediately ELIMINATED, using the same system of kill
that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea. It is quick and brutal,"
Trump said on social media. He was apparently referring to the US strikes
carried out against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. The
strikes, which began in September, killed more than 160 people. The US military
has not provided evidence that the vessels were ferrying drugs.
LEBANON FACES ATTACKS
With the war unpopular at home and rising energy prices causing political
blowback, Trump paused the US-Israeli bombing campaign last week after
threatening to destroy Iran's "whole civilization" unless it reopened the
strait. Israel has continued to bombard Lebanon and on Monday troops launched an
attack it said was intended to seize a key south Lebanon town from Iran-backed
Hezbollah.The Israeli military said on Tuesday that an Israeli soldier was
killed and three reservists were wounded during combat in southern Lebanon.
Israel and the US have said the campaign against Hezbollah was not part of the
ceasefire, while Iran has insisted it is.
US Says Ball in Iran’s Court as Push Grows to End War
Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
The United States said "the ball is in the Iranian court" on ending the Middle
East war, as diplomats accelerated efforts on Tuesday towards a new round of
peace talks after weekend negotiations failed to produce a deal. US Vice
President JD Vance had left talks hosted by Pakistan on Sunday, saying he had
handed Tehran the "final and best offer". Iran has blamed Washington for making
maximalist demands, but its leaders have in the last hours not dismissed efforts
by world leaders to get both sides back to the negotiating table. Crucially, a
fragile two-week truce agreed last Wednesday to give time to find a lasting
ceasefire remained in place, even though a US naval blockade of Iranian ports
began at the Strait of Hormuz, which had been effectively closed by Tehran. The
standoff at the strait, through which one-fifth of global oil transits, failed
to dampen optimism at global markets, with Asian equities rallying while oil
continued a downward slide. President Donald Trump insisted Iranian
representatives had called Washington since a US delegation returned
empty-handed from negotiations in Islamabad. "I can tell you that we've been
called by the other side. They'd like to make a deal. Very badly, very badly,"
Trump told reporters outside the Oval Office. Diplomatic efforts were also
accelerating elsewhere, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov landing in
Beijing on Tuesday, hours after Iran's state news agency reported that he had
spoken about the crisis in a phone call with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Abbas
Araghchi. Moscow has offered to hold Iran's enriched uranium safely as part of
any deal. Trump has insisted that an agreement must include stopping Iran from
ever getting its hands on a nuclear weapon, having launched the war under the
pretext that Tehran was developing an atomic bomb -- which it denies. During
weekend talks, the United States reportedly sought a 20-year suspension of
Iran's uranium enrichment program, according to media reports on Monday. Iran in
turn proposed to suspend its nuclear activity for five years, which US officials
rejected, according to The New York Times.
'Full efforts' underway -
Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said on Monday that "full efforts are
underway" to reach an agreement to stop the fighting and that US-Iran ceasefire
was "holding". Iranian state TV reported on Monday that Tehran "will continue to
talk only within the framework of international law" in a phone call to his
French counterpart Emmanuel Macron. "We have clearly announced the terms of the
ceasefire and we will adhere to it," Pezeshkian said, according to IRIB. "I
really think the ball is in the Iranian court, because we put a lot on the
table. We actually made very clear what our red lines were," Vance said in an
interview with Fox News on Monday. Washington has "no flexibility" on US control
of Iran's enriched uranium, and a verification mechanism to ensure it does not
develop a nuclear weapon in the future. "It's one thing for the Iranians to say
that they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. It's another thing for us to
put in place the mechanism to ensure that's not going to happen," Vance said.
Meanwhile, Araghchi blamed the United States for the impasse in the talks.
"Unfortunately, we witnessed the continued excessive demands of the American
side in the negotiations, which led to the failure to achieve a result," his
ministry quoted him as saying.
Freedom of navigation -
The push for new talks came as a US naval blockade began around Iranian ports,
an action announced by Trump on Sunday and slammed by Iran as a "grave violation
of its sovereignty". Iran had already closed the Strait of Hormuz to what it
regards as enemy shipping, allowing only vessels serving countries it deems
friendly -- such as China -- to cross. With his blockade of Iranian ports, the
US president was trying to starve Iran of funds but also pressure Beijing, the
biggest buyer of Iranian oil, to lean on Tehran to reopen Hormuz, according to
analysts. In a social media post, Trump said the bulk of Iran's navy had already
been destroyed during the war, but that if any of what he said were Tehran's few
remaining "fast attack ships" approach the blockade "they will be immediately
ELIMINATED."
Qatari Foreign Minister and Premier Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani
urged both sides to guarantee freedom of navigation and refrain from using
maritime routes "as a tool for pressure," encouraging Tehran and Washington to
remain in touch with mediators.
Beijing criticized the blockade, with foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun
emphasizing the strait's importance to trade and saying that "maintaining its
security, stability, and unimpeded flow is in the common interest of the
international community."
UN chief Antonio Guterres also called for freedom of navigation to be respected
and pointed to the 20,000 mariners trapped in the Gulf. US Central Command said
the blockade included "vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian
ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and
Gulf of Oman."US forces would not impede vessels transiting the strait to and
from non-Iranian ports, it added. Iran's military command issued a statement
branding the blockade an act of piracy, and warned that if the security of its
harbors "is threatened, no port in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea will be
safe". French President Emmanuel Macron said that France and Britain would host
a conference with countries prepared to join a "peaceful multinational mission"
to secure the strait, but it would be "strictly defensive" and only operational
once circumstances permit.
Trump
turns on Meloni, says he is ‘shocked’ by Italian leader
Reuters/14 April/2026
US President Donald Trump told an Italian newspaper on Tuesday he was “shocked”
by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and had expected her to be more courageous,
delivering a blunt public rebuke to one of his closest European allies. Meloni
had been a vociferous supporter of Trump, but she has criticized his decision to
go to war with Iran, and on Monday, denounced his weekend criticism of Pope Leo
as “unacceptable.”Trump responded in an interview with Corriere della Sera,
saying Meloni was “very different from what I thought” and denouncing her for
refusing to help re-open the Strait of Hormuz, which has been blocked by
Iran.“I’m shocked by her. I thought she had courage. I was wrong,” he is quoted
as saying in the Italian-language article posted online. The White House
declined to comment on the reported quotes. Meloni’s office also declined to
comment.
The criticism marks a dramatic change in tone toward Meloni, who was the only
European leader to attend the president’s inauguration in 2025. Only last month
he told Corriere della Sera that Meloni was “a great leader,” but on Tuesday he
accused her of failing to back US efforts over energy security and Iran, and
said Italy wanted America “to do the job for her.”Asked about her condemnation
of his comments on Pope Leo, he said: “She is the one who is unacceptable,
because she does not care whether Iran has a nuclear weapon and would blow Italy
up in two minutes if it had the chance.” Meloni had hoped that her close
relationship with the US president would strengthen her standing at home and
abroad, but instead it risks becoming a political liability. Some 66 percent of
Italians now hold a negative view of the US leader and pollsters say Meloni’s
ties to the White House may have contributed to her defeat last month in a
referendum on judicial reform. The war in Iran has pushed up energy prices in
Italy, which is heavily dependent on oil and gas imports. “They (Italy) pay the
highest energy costs in the world and are not even ready to fight for the Strait
of Hormuz... They depend on Donald Trump to keep it open,” Trump said.
Serbia
agrees deal to produce combat drones with Israel
The Associated Press/14 April/2026
Serbia will jointly make combat drones with Israel, populist President
Aleksandar Vucic was reported as saying on Tuesday, as the Balkan country seeks
to boost its military and weapons production. Vucic said that “we will have the
best drones in this part of the world,” according to the Tanjug news agency. He
added that the drones won’t be cheap but will be highly efficient in destroying
armored vehicles the report said. Vucic didn’t specify details of the future
production, according to the report. “We don’t know how to make drones as Israel
does,” he said. “I am proud of that (plan,) we will do it together, it will be
half-half, 50-50.”Serbia said, “will get innovation and (educate) our people who
will be able to do it in the future,” Vucic said. The Balkan country’s
Yugoimport SDPR state arms producer will open a drone plant with Elbit Systems,
according to Serbia’s BIRN news service. The report said the Israeli company
will own 51 percent of the future plant. Vucic’s government has sought to
strengthen its military. Serbia ordered 12 French-made Rafale jets in 2024 in
bid to modernize its fleet. Belgrade has also acquired military equipment from
China and Russia as it maintains close ties also with Beijing and Moscow despite
formally seeking membership in the European Union. Serbia has pledged to stay
out of NATO which bombed the country in 1999 to stop a war in Kosovo following a
decade of wars in the volatile Balkan region.
Germany’s Merz Urges Netanyahu to End Lebanon Fighting
Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
on Monday to end fighting in southern Lebanon and engage in direct peace talks
with the Lebanese government, a spokesman said. Merz also expressed his "grave
concern" about developments in the Palestinian territories in a telephone
conversation with Netanyahu and demanded that there "must be no de facto partial
annexation of the West Bank", the German government spokesman said. The
spokesman said Merz offered Germany's continuing support for efforts "to reach a
diplomatic understanding between the United States and Iran" in the war launched
by Israel and the US on February 28. Merz initially welcomed the US-Israeli
attacks, but has shifted to alarm as the potential global economic fallout
became more serious and Iranian retaliatory strikes against Gulf states
threatened to turn the conflict into a regional war. On Monday, Merz told
Netanyahu that "Germany is prepared to contribute to ensuring freedom of
navigation in the Strait of Hormuz" -- but only following the "cessation of
hostilities" and "provided the necessary conditions are met", according to the
spokesman's summary of the conversation. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz
-- a crucial waterway for about 20 percent of the world's oil supplies before
the war -- has been largely halted by Iranian threats to strike tankers. US
President Donald Trump has declared a partial naval blockade of the strait after
negotiations with Iran over the weekend broke down.
IMF cuts 2026 global growth forecast on Mideast war
AFP/14 April/2026
The IMF cut its 2026 global growth projection Tuesday, warning that the world
economy could be “thrown off course” by war in the Middle East – as the conflict
roils commodity markets and sparks higher prices. The global economy is set to
grow by 3.1 percent this year, said the International Monetary Fund in its World
Economic Outlook report, released during its spring meetings in Washington. This
is down from 3.3 percent forecast in January before hostilities erupted February
28 with US-Israeli strikes against Iran that prompted Tehran’s retaliation and
sparked a broader conflict in the region. “We were planning to upgrade growth
for 2026 to 3.4 percent” if not for the war, IMF chief economist Pierre-Olivier
Gourinchas told AFP. Prices of oil, gas and fertilizers have surged, as Iran
virtually blocked traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping waterway.
US President Donald Trump has also ordered a naval blockade around Iran’s ports.
The IMF expects higher inflation this year at 4.4 percent, 0.6 percentage points
above its January forecast.
Still the impact of oil shortages could be worse.
Compared to the oil shocks of the 1970s, “the global economy is much less oil
dependent now than it was back then,” Gourinchas said at a Tuesday press
conference. “There are many other sources of energy, renewables, nuclear and
other things, and also the global economy has become much more efficient in
terms of how much it needs oil to produce GDP,” he said. “That’s a source of
resilience.”After this the “disinflation path” of recent years should reassert
itself, Gourinchas said. But these projections assume a relatively short-lived
conflict with temporary energy market disruptions. In more adverse scenarios
where energy prices remain steep, global growth could slow to 2.5 percent or
even around 2.0 percent. “This latest shock comes less than a year since the
shift in US trade policies, and the transition to a new international trade
system is still ongoing,” the IMF said.
A year ago, Trump unleashed sweeping tariffs on US trading partners, rocking
financial markets and snarling supply chains. Some of the tariffs have been
struck down by the Supreme Court, but uncertainty lingers as Trump moves to
reimpose duties via other means.
Uneven impact
Although overall revisions to global growth and inflation appear modest, the IMF
cautioned that the war has taken a bigger toll on the Middle East and
“vulnerable economies” elsewhere. “The impact on emerging market and developing
economies would be almost twice that on advanced economies,” the fund said.
Higher energy and fertilizer costs could bring steeper food prices, mainly
hitting low-income energy importers, Gourinchas said. Growth projections this
year for the Middle East and central Asia were cut by around half to 1.9
percent. Among the world’s two biggest economies, US growth is still set to
accelerate to 2.3 percent this year, although the pace of growth was revised
slightly lower. “The US at the margin is benefiting from higher energy prices,”
Gourinchas said. But gasoline prices have also jumped for consumers. China’s
growth is anticipated to cool to 4.4 percent, a touch below the January
forecast, too. The IMF flagged an underlying “unevenness” in both economies.
Domestic activity lags behind exports in China, while a strong showing in the
United States has been accompanied by low employment growth. Euro area growth
was revised 0.2 points down to 1.1 percent for 2026. While the IMF does not
expect inflation expectations to go off-track, there is concern they may not be
as well-anchored as before. Past inflation episodes remain fresh in the public’s
minds, and firms might act to restore margins more quickly than before. “If that
happens, then you can get much more persistent inflation going on, that would be
reflected in higher inflation expectations,” Gourinchas said. Central banks
might then need to step in and raise interest rates to cool the economy, despite
ongoing negative supply shocks.
Gaza civil defense says toddler among 10 killed in Israeli
strikes
AFP/14 April/2026
Gaza’s civil defense agency said on Tuesday that a toddler was among 10 people
killed in separate Israeli strikes in the northern part of the Palestinian
territory. Violence continues despite a ceasefire in the Gaza war that came into
effect on October 10, with both Israel and Hamas regularly accusing each other
of violations. Mahmoud Bassal, spokesman for the civil defense agency, which
operates as a rescue service under Hamas authority, said “four people were
killed, including a child and several others were injured... in a strike
targeting a police vehicle” in Gaza City. He identified the child as
three-year-old Yahya al-Mallahi. Gaza City’s Al-Shifa Hospital confirmed
receiving the bodies of the dead. Contacted by AFP, the Israeli army said it was
looking into the details. In a statement, Gaza’s interior ministry said Israeli
warplanes had “targeted a police vehicle” in the city center “causing several
deaths and injuries.”Bassal also said another person had been killed by Israeli
fire in the northern Beit Lahia area earlier on Tuesday. The military said in a
statement that its troops had identified an “armed terrorist” in the area of the
so-called Yellow Line - behind which its forces have withdrawn - who approached
their position. The army said he was killed in a strike, but it was unclear
whether it referred to the same incident in Beit Lahia. AFP footage showed
Palestinians gathering around the body of a man who was then placed on a
stretcher and carried away to be buried through streets lined with rubble. Later
on Tuesday evening, the civil defense agency reported that multiple people were
killed in another strike near an intersection in the Al-Shati refugee camp in
Gaza City. The Al-Shifa Hospital confirmed receiving five bodies from “an
Israeli drone bombing with two missiles a group of citizens in front of
warehouses for electricity generators” in Al-Shati.
The military did not offer an immediate response regarding the latest strike.
The October ceasefire followed more than two years of war triggered by the
Palestinian Hamas movement’s October 7, 2023 cross-border attack on Israel. At
least 757 have been killed in Gaza since the truce came into effect, according
to the territory’s health ministry, whose figures are considered reliable by the
United Nations.The Israeli army says five of its soldiers have been killed in
Gaza over the same period. Media restrictions and limited access in Gaza have
prevented AFP from independently verifying casualty figures or freely covering
the fighting.
Drone strike hit Iranian Kurds, three wounded: Exiled group
AFP/14 April ,2026
A drone struck an Iranian Kurdish group on Tuesday wounding three people, a
party official told AFP, in the first such attack in northern Iraq since a
fragile ceasefire took effect in the region. Commander Mohammed Hakimi from the
exiled Komala party blamed the attack on “Iran and its affiliated militias.”
During the Middle East war, Iran repeatedly struck positions belonging to
Iranian Kurdish exiled groups in northern Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan region. “A
drone struck at 4:45 pm (1345 GMT) Camp Sordash” which belongs to the Komala
party, Hakimi told AFP. “Three Iranian Kurdish refugees were wounded, including
a woman who is in a critical condition,” Hakimi added. The camp is located 40
kilometers west of the city of Sulaymaniyah. Another opposition group, the
Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), told AFP that a drone attack
targeted its camp in the Koysinjaq district near Erbil, the capital of the
Kurdistan region, with no casualties reported. The autonomous region’s
Counter-Terrorism Service said “a warplane downed two bomb-laden drones coming
from Iran” towards the province of Erbil, without specifying who the warplane
belonged to. The northern Kurdistan region hosts camps and rear bases operated
by several Iranian Kurdish rebel groups, which Iran designates as terrorist
organizations and accuses of serving Western or Israeli interests.
US Says Six Vessels Turned Back by Iran Port Blockade
Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
The US military said Tuesday that it successfully stopped six ships from sailing
out of Iranian ports during the first 24 hours of a naval blockade against the
country. Central Command (CENTCOM) -- which is responsible for American forces
in the Middle East -- said more than 10,000 US troops, over a dozen warships,
and dozens of aircraft are taking part in the mission. "During the first 24
hours, no ships made it past the US blockade and six merchant vessels complied
with direction from US forces to turn around to re-enter an Iranian port on the
Gulf of Oman," CENTCOM said in a post on X. "The blockade is being enforced
impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports
and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of
Oman," it added. But despite CENTCOM's assertion that no vessels made it through
the blockade, tracking information from maritime data provider Kpler showed at
least two ships sailing from Iranian ports crossed the Strait of Hormuz on
Monday. Tehran's forces effectively closed the strait after the start of the
US-Israeli air campaign against Iran on February 28, and the US on Sunday
announced its own blockade after peace talks with Iran failed.
Lavrov Blasts Efforts to ‘Contain’ Russia, China on Beijing Visit
Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov criticized efforts he said were aimed at
"containing" Russia and China on Tuesday during a visit to Beijing, where he
also discussed with his Chinese counterpart plans for a meeting "within the
year" between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Lavrov was given a red-carpet
welcome after he arrived in the Chinese capital, photographs released by the
Russian foreign ministry showed. He later met his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi,
who he was seen shaking hands with in a picture posted on social media by
Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
Beijing and Moscow are close economic and political partners, and the
relationship has deepened further since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Lavrov warned of "some very, very dangerous games going on" in East Asian
geopolitical hotspots that included Taiwan, the disputed South China Sea and the
nuclear-armed Korean peninsula, according to quotes from the meeting with Wang
published by state-run RIA Novosti. Beijing claims Taiwan as part of its
territory and is sharply critical of US military assistance the self-ruled
island receives. In comments apparently referring to the United States and its
allies, Lavrov said "they are trying to dismantle (regional cooperation) by
creating small-format, bloc-based structures aimed at containing both the
People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation". "Our vast continent as a
whole demands constant attention," he said. Wang and Lavrov "conducted in-depth
exchanges on the US-Iran conflict, the Asia-Pacific situation, the Ukraine
crisis" and other issues during their meeting, the Chinese foreign ministry said
in a statement without providing details. "The two sides coordinate and support
one another on the international stage, demonstrating to the whole world that
amid adversity, a righteous path remains, and that under changes, there lies
greater responsibility," Wang said. Lavrov and Wang also "communicated and
synced up preparations for a meeting between the two heads of state within the
year", according to the Chinese readout.
China is hosting this week a string of leaders of countries that have been
affected by the US-Israeli war on Iran and its economic fallout, including
Vietnam's To Lam and Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Wang
and Lavrov agreed during a call on April 5 that Beijing and Moscow would work
together to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East.
‘I have no
fear of the Trump administration:' Pope Leo XIV responds after president calls
him ‘weak'
NBC Chicago Staff and The Associated Press • Published April 13, 2026 • Updated
on April 13, 2026
The comments from history's first U.S. born Pope come as criticisms from
President Donald Trump continue, with Trump calling Pope Leo 'terrible' on
foreign policy as the war in Iran continues
President Donald Trump lashed out after Pope Leo XIV expressed his opinion on
the war in Iran, prompting some Trump supporters to suggest he should apologize.
Mary Ann Ahern reports.
Live Updates on the Iran War: The war, which is entering its seventh week,
continues after marathon U.S.-Iran ceasefire talks in Pakistan over the weekend
ended without an agreement. Monday, a blockade from the U.S. of all Iranian
ports will go into effect, tempering Trump’s earlier vow to entirely block the
strategic Strait of Hormuz. Early reports indicated that ships had stopped
crossing the waterway.
Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV pushed back Monday on President Donald Trump’s jabs
against him over the war in Iran, telling reporters that the Vatican’s appeals
for peace and reconciliation are rooted in the Gospel, and that he isn't afraid
of the Trump administration.
"I have no fear of the Trump administration or speaking out loudly of the
message of the gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the church
is here to do," Pope Leo told NBC News while on the papal plane en route to
Algeria. "We are not politicians, we don't deal with foreign policy with the
same perspective he might understand it, but I do believe in the message of the
gospel, as a peacemaker. "
History’s first U.S.-born pope stressed that he was not making a direct attack
against Trump or anyone else with his general appeal for peace and criticisms of
the “delusion of omnipotence” that is fueling the Iran wars and other conflicts
around the world.
“I will not enter into debate. The things that I say are certainly not meant as
attacks on anyone. The message of the Gospel is very clear: ‘Blessed are the
peacemakers,’” Leo said.
“I will not shy away from announcing the message of the Gospel and inviting all
people to look for ways of building bridges of peace and reconciliation, and
looking for ways to avoid war any time that’s possible."
The comments come as Leo's opposition to the war continues to irk Trump. Last
week, a a source close to Pope Leo told NBC Chicago a recent meeting between the
Pentagon and Cardinal Christophe Pierre was "most unpleasant and
confrontational."
Sunday night, Trump continued his broadside against Leo, saying he didn’t think
the U.S.-born global leader of the Catholic Church is “doing a very good job”
and that “he’s a very liberal person,” while also suggesting the pontiff should
“stop catering to the Radical Left.”
Flying back to Washington from Florida, Trump used a lengthy social media post
to sharply criticize Leo, then kept it up after deplaning, in comments on the
tarmac to reporters.
“I’m not a fan of Pope Leo,” he said. Trump’s comments came after Leo suggested
over the weekend that a “delusion of omnipotence” is fueling the U.S.-Israel war
in Iran. History’s first U.S.-born pope didn’t mention the United States or
President Donald Trump by name, But Leo’s tone and message appeared directed at
Trump and U.S. officials, who have boasted of U.S. military superiority and
justified the war in religious terms.
“Enough of the idolatry of self and money!” Leo said Saturday while presiding
over an evening prayer service in St. Peter’s Basilica. “Enough of the display
of power! Enough of war!”While it’s not unusual for popes and presidents to be
at cross purposes, it’s exceedingly rare for the pope to directly criticize a
U.S. leader — and Trump’s stinging response is equally uncommon, if not more so.
“Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” the president
wrote in his post, adding, “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to
have a Nuclear Weapon.”
Italian politicians across the spectrum showed their solidarity with Leo.
Premier Giorgia Meloni sent a message of support for his peace mission while the
leader of the main opposition party, Elly Schlein, was more direct, calling
Trump’s attacks “extremely serious.”
Trump repeated that sentiment in comments to reporters, saying, “We don’t like a
pope who says it’s OK to have a nuclear weapon.”Later, Trump posted a picture
suggesting he had saint-like powers akin to those of Jesus Christ. Wearing a
biblical-style robe, Trump is seen laying hands on a bedridden man as light
emanates from his fingers, while a soldier, a nurse, a praying woman and a
bearded man in a baseball cap all look on admiringly. The sky above is filled
with eagles, an American flag and vaporous images.
President Trump says US will block Strait of Hormuz following failed peace talks
2:32 President Trump says US will block Strait of Hormuz following failed peace
talks
President Donald Trump has warned Iran that the United States will set up a
blockade after failed negotiations between the two countries. Chris Hush
reports.
'I don't think he's doing a very good job'
Leo, who is on an 11-day trip to Africa starting Monday — has previously said
that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects
them.” He’s also referenced an Old Testament passage from Isaiah, saying that
“even though you make many prayers, I will not listen — your hands are full of
blood.”Before the ceasefire, when Trump warned of mass strikes against Iranian
power plants and other infrastructure and that “an entire civilization will die
tonight,” Leo described such sentiments as “truly unacceptable.”
In his social media post on Sunday night, however, Trump went far beyond the war
in Iran in criticizing Leo. The president wrote, “I don’t want a Pope who thinks
it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending
massive amounts of Drugs into the United States.” That was a reference to the
Trump administration having ousted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in
January.
“I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because
I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do,” Trump added,
referencing his 2024 election victory. He also suggested in the post that Leo
only got his position “because he was an American, and they thought that would
be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump.”
“If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican,” Trump wrote,
adding, “Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop
catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.
It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic
Church!”In his subsequent comments to reporters, Trump remained highly critical,
saying of Leo, “I don’t think he’s doing a very good job. He likes crime I
guess” and adding, “He’s a very liberal person.”
Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops, issued a statement saying he was “disheartened” by Trump’s comments.
“Pope Leo is not his rival; nor is the Pope a politician. He is the Vicar of
Christ who speaks from the truth of the Gospel and for the care of souls,”
Coakley said.
In the 2024 election, Trump won 55% of Catholic voters, according to AP VoteCast,
an extensive survey of the electorate. But Trump’s administration also has close
ties to conservative evangelical Protestant leaders and has claimed heavenly
endorsement for the war on Iran.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Americans to pray for victory “in the name
of Jesus Christ.” And, when Trump was asked whether he thought God approved of
the war, he said, “I do, because God is good — because God is good and God wants
to see people taken care of.”
Pope says Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization is
‘truly unacceptable’
ROME (AP) — Pope Leo XIV said Tuesday that U.S. President Donald
Trump’s threat to destroy Iranian civilization was “truly unacceptable” and said
any attacks on civilian infrastructure violate international law. In some of his
strongest comments yet against the war, the American pope urged Americans and
other people of good will to contact their political leaders and congressional
representatives to demand they reject war and work for peace. “Today as we all
know there was this threat against all the people of Iran. This is truly
unacceptable,” Leo said as he left his country house in Castel Gandolfo, south
of Rome. He was referring to Trump’s threat that a “whole civilization will die
tonight” if Iran fails to meet his latest deadline to strike a deal that
includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Leo recalled his Easter appeal for
peace and to reject war, “especially a war which many people have said is an
unjust war, which is continuing to escalate, and which is not resolving
anything.”He invited all people of good will to contact their political leaders
and congressional representatives to remind them that attacks on civilian
infrastructure are “against international law” and also are a “sign of the
hatred, the division, the destruction human beings are capable of, and we all
want to work for peace.”
Canada/Carney
pledges collaboration, substantive debate in majority Parliament
Sarah Ritchie/The
Canadian Press/April 14, 2026
OTTAWA — The morning after the Liberals secured a majority government, Prime
Minister Mark Carney said Canadians can expect Parliament to be more substantive
and less performative. "There's a difference between real testimony, real
substance, getting to issues, debating aspects of law, advancing — that's the
job of parliamentarians — and showboating," he said. The governing party held
seats in three byelections on Monday in Terrebonne, north of Montreal, and
Scarborough Southwest and University—Rosedale, both in Toronto. Once the winning
candidates are sworn in, the Liberal benches in the House of Commons will have
174 MPs, two more than the minimum needed for a majority.
Those bolstered numbers — five more seats than the Liberals won in last
April's election — come courtesy of the five MPs who've crossed the aisle from
the opposition benches. Since November, four Conservatives and one New Democrat
have joined the Liberal ranks. Conservative Leader
Pierre Poilievre accused Carney on Monday night of manufacturing a majority
through "backroom deals with politicians who betrayed the people who voted for
them." He described the historic shift from minority to majority government as a
"cynical power grab." Carney said Tuesday his government's new power is the
product of "increasing support" for Liberal candidates in the byelections.
"Canadians elect deputies, deputies vote with their conscience and support the
program that they see best for their constituents and for the country," he said.
He also said the government is "open to ideas from anyone" and promised to work
collaboratively with the other parties. It will take a
few weeks for the byelection results to be certified and the newly elected MPs
to be sworn into office. Once that happens, the Liberals will have far greater
control over the House of Commons. The next federal election doesn't have to be
called until 2029, and the government will be able to pass confidence votes
without the support of another party for the first time since 2019. The
government will no longer need to rely on opposition support to pass
legislation, and the Liberals can now speed legislation through Parliament by
limiting debate and taking control of House committees.
Changing the makeup of the committees would require a majority vote to
change the Standing Orders, the rules that govern the House of Commons. Hinting
that such a change might come, Carney told reporters that over the last year,
some legislation had been bogged down for political reasons. He also said he is
not considering calling an election at this time.
Susan Smith, a Liberal commentator and founder of Blue Sky Strategy Group, said
Monday's byelection results show there is support for stability in Ottawa. "With
these byelection results and the effect of the floor crossings, you see what
Canadians want, which is a stable government and they want Mark Carney at the
helm," she said. Canada hasn't had a majority government since 2019, when former
prime minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals were reduced to a minority in an
election. But the slim majority comes with its own headaches.
It gives Liberal MPs greater leverage inside their own caucus, but also
creates problems with winning votes when a caucus member gets sick or is
travelling abroad. That puts greater pressure on the
party whip, who will need to ensure MPs don't miss key votes and see that
Liberals who defected from other parties don't step out of line.
Speculation about more floor crossers is still running rampant on
Parliament Hill. Conservative MP Billy Morin told The
Canadian Press on Monday the Liberals were trying to "poach" him. He later said
in a social media post that he is "proud to be a part of a strong opposition."
Liberal MP Wayne Long denied that the party was trying to poach Morin and said
he wasn't aware of more floor-crossings to come. A number of Conservative MPs
have posted to social media in recent days to assure their constituents they
plan to remain with the Tories. Poilievre, whose party is lagging in the polls,
has faced questions about his leadership as the defections have continued. He
said in his Monday social media post that he plans to carry on leading the
Conservatives in Parliament and into the next election.
More byelections are also expected in the future, which could result in
further fluctuations in Parliament. Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith is exploring a
run for the Ontario Liberal leadership and is expected to step down from his
seat of Beaches — East York once Premier Doug Ford calls a byelection for a
vacant Ontario seat. This report by The Canadian Press was first published April
14, 2026.
**With files from Catherine Morrison and Kyle Duggan
Links to several important news
websites
Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper
https://aawsat.com/
National News Agency
https://www.nna-leb.gov.lb/ar
Al Arabiya/Arabic
https://www.alarabiya.net/
Sky News
https://www.youtube.com/@SkyNewsArabia
Nidaa Al Watan
https://www.nidaalwatan.com/
Al Markazia
https://www.nidaalwatan.com/
Al Hadath
https://www.youtube.com/@AlHadath
Independent Arabia
https://www.independentarabia.com/
The Latest
LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on April 14-15/2026
Why Qatar's Al-Jazeera Should
be Banned
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone Institute/April 14/2026
Equally disturbing is the role of Al-Jazeera itself. Owned, funded, and
controlled by the government of Qatar, Al-Jazeera, particularly its
Arabic-language channel, has long provided a platform for Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood movement. Its coverage frequently echoes Hamas and Muslim
Brotherhood narratives, and amplifies anti-Israel propaganda and antisemitic
rhetoric.
Reports by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) have documented
Al-Jazeera providing a platform for guests who assert that Jews are "enemies of
Muslims and all humanity" or that they control global affairs.
"Among the Islamist terrorist organizations that Qatar and Al-Jazeera have
supported over the years are the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban,
Hizbullah, the Al-Nusrah Front/ Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham, ISIS, Hamas, and even the
Shiite Iranian proxies in Yemen, Ansar Allah (the Houthis), which are currently
engaged in direct conflict with the U.S. and other Western countries." — Yigal
Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024.
"According to its website, Al-Jazeera has 'over 70 bureaus around the globe' and
is 'one of the largest and most influential international news networks in the
world'.... Between 2004 and 2020, AJ+ Facebook videos had been viewed over 10
billion times, and it had amassed over 11 million followers on Facebook." —
Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024.
"Al Jazeera just surpassed CNN and BBC as the world's most-watched international
news network. Its Arabic channel hit 400 million weekly viewers." — Pakistani
commentator Amna Kausar, March 2026.
"Since the October 7 attack... The network has been operating as a propaganda
outlet in the service of Hamas 24/7, with hardly any coverage of other topics.
The channel expresses unreserved support for Hamas, justifying the deadly
attack, showing footage of it obtained from the body-cams of the terrorists, and
celebrating it as a victory that has brought pride and honor to the Islamic
nation." — Yigal Carmon, MEMRI, May 6, 2024.
Given the mounting allegations of links between Al-Jazeera and terrorist
organizations, policymakers should consider decisive steps, formally designating
Al-Jazeera as an entity that supports terrorism.
Given the mounting allegations of links between Al-Jazeera and terrorist
organizations, policymakers should consider decisive steps, formally designating
Al-Jazeera as an entity that supports terrorism.
The death of another Palestinian "journalist" working for Qatar's Al-Jazeera TV
empire has once again triggered outrage and drawn condemnations from some in the
international community. Yet those who rushed to denounce Israel for targeting
the Gaza-based "journalist" are ignoring voluminous evidence that he and some of
his Palestinian colleagues were, in fact, active members of terrorist
organizations.
According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Mohammed Wishah, an Al-Jazeera
"reporter" killed in an April 8 Israeli airstrike, was not merely a media
figure. He was a "key terrorist" in Hamas's military wing, Izz a-Din al-Qassam,
and was involved in weapons production, including rockets and drones, and
actively planning attacks against Israeli soldiers and the State of Israel.
According to Israeli intelligence, Wishah exploited his job as a journalist as a
cover, an operational shield that allowed him to move, gather intelligence, and
advance terrorist activities under the protection of press credentials. In a
statement on April 9, the IDF wrote:
"The terrorist contributed to Hamas' force build-up efforts, was actively
involved in planning attacks against IDF troops, and posed a concrete threat to
forces in the area. Prior to the strike, steps were taken to mitigate harm to
civilians, including the use of precise munitions, aerial surveillance, and
additional intelligence."
About two years ago, the IDF revealed that during a search at a Hamas base in
northern Gaza, a laptop belonging to Wishah was seized. The laptop contained
images and intelligence materials linking him to Hamas. An IDF spokesperson said
at the time:
"Findings from the computer indicate that in addition to his role as a
'journalist,' Muhammad, born in 1986 from Al-Bureij, is a senior military
operative in Hamas' anti-tank missile array, and by the end of 2022 had moved to
research and development of aerial weapons for the terrorist organization....
analysis of the computer found several weeks ago includes images linking him to
his activity in Hamas"
Wishah is not the first terrorist to operate in the Gaza Strip under the guise
of a "journalist."
More than half of the Palestinian "journalists" killed in the Gaza Strip during
the Israel-Hamas war, triggered by the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led invasion of
Israel, were affiliated with terrorist organizations, according to a study by
the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Center.
"An analysis of the identity of the 131 journalists revealed that least 78 (more
than 59%) were active in or affiliated with a terrorist organization. Among them
were 13 prominent members of a terrorist organization, Fatah or the Palestinian
Authority. Of them 13 were overtly terrorist operatives belonging to Hamas, the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the Popular
Resistance Committees, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Fatah and the Palestinian
Authority....
"Of the 78 journalists identified as having organizational affiliation, 44 were
identified with Hamas.... Nineteen were affiliated with PIJ... One was an al-Aqsa
Martyrs' Brigades operative and another a Popular Resistance Committees
operative. Two were affiliated with the Fronts, one with the Popular Front for
the Liberation of Palestine and the other the Democratic Front for the
Liberation of Palestine."
Wishah was not the only Al-Jazeera terrorist masquerading as a journalist.
In August 2025, the IDF conducted a precise strike in Gaza City targeting Anas
al-Sharif, a Hamas terrorist who posed as a journalist for Al-Jazeera.
Al-Sharif, head of a Hamas terror cell, was responsible for facilitating and
advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces. Intelligence
and documents recovered in the Gaza Strip, including personal rosters, training
lists, phone directories and salary records, confirmed his operational position
within Hamas and his integration into the Al-Jazeera network.
Wishah and al-Sharif were not alone. Several Palestinian "journalists,"
including some affiliated with Al-Jazeera, have in recent years been exposed as
members of Hamas or PIJ. Among them:
Ismail Abu Omar, an Al-Jazeera "journalist" and Hamas operative who served as
commander of the terror group's Eastern Battalion;
Hossam Shabat, a Hamas sniper who exploited his role as an Al-Jazeera
"journalist" and carried out terrorist attacks against IDF troops and Israeli
civilians;
Ismail al-Ghoul, an Al-Jazeera "journalist" who served as an engineer in the
Hamas Gaza City Brigade and took part in the October 7 massacre against Israelis
and foreign nationals.
These cases demonstrate a disturbing pattern: the systematic exploitation of
journalism by Palestinian terrorist groups. This cynical tactic endangers
genuine journalists who risk their lives covering the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. When terrorists masquerade as journalists, they blur the line between
civilian and combatant, making it more difficult to distinguish between the two.
Those who condemn Israel over the death of such "journalists" would do well to
direct their outrage where it truly belongs: at Hamas and other terrorist
organizations that deliberately exploit the protections afforded to journalists
under international law. Those who genuinely care about press freedom should be
the first to condemn its exploitation by terrorists.
Equally disturbing is the role of Al-Jazeera itself. Owned, funded, and
controlled by the government of Qatar, Al-Jazeera, particularly its
Arabic-language channel, has long provided a platform for Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood movement. Its coverage frequently echoes Hamas and Muslim
Brotherhood narratives, and amplifies anti-Israel propaganda and antisemitic
rhetoric.
Reports by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) have documented
Al-Jazeera providing a platform for guests who assert that Jews are "enemies of
Muslims and all humanity" or that they control global affairs.
In May 2024, MEMRI reported:
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to shut down the Qatar-funded
Al-Jazeera channel's operations in Israel, calling it a 'terror channel,' and
Israel Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi said it would be shut down because
it acts as 'a propaganda arm of Hamas' by 'encouraging armed struggle against
Israel.' The outlet was shut down and taken off the air in Israel on May 5....
"Among the Islamist terrorist organizations that Qatar and Al-Jazeera have
supported over the years are the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban,
Hizbullah, the Al-Nusrah Front/ Hay'at Tahrir Al-Sham, ISIS, Hamas, and even the
Shiite Iranian proxies in Yemen, Ansar Allah (the Houthis), which are currently
engaged in direct conflict with the U.S. and other Western countries....
"Al-Jazeera was the prime power for toppling the secular authoritarian regime in
Egypt, when Qatar, by means of Al-Jazeera, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in
ousting then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Al-Jazeera, the single most
significant platform for mainstreaming jihadi and Muslim Brotherhood ideology,
was the power that accorded Mohamed Morsi his victory....
"According to its website, Al-Jazeera has 'over 70 bureaus around the globe' and
is 'one of the largest and most influential international news networks in the
world....'"
"Between 2004 and 2020, AJ+ Facebook videos had been viewed over 10 billion
times, and it had amassed over 11 million followers on Facebook."
Pakistani commentator Amna Kausar wrote last month:
"Al Jazeera just surpassed CNN and BBC as the world's most-watched international
news network. Its Arabic channel hit 400 million weekly viewers."
Al-Jazeera Arabic has repeatedly broadcast speeches by senior Hamas figures,
such as Khaled Mashaal, Ismail Haniyeh, Saleh al-Arouri, Mohammed Deif and
Khalil al-Hayya. They praised "resistance" (terrorism) and demanded continued
armed struggle against Israel. On the very morning of the October 7, during the
Hamas-led invasion of Israel, while terrorists were torturing and murdering more
than 1,200 Israelis and others, and took more than 250 as hostages -- Al-Jazeera
provided Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif with an exclusive television
appearance -- to broadcast that this was just the "first strike" and incited
Arabs inside Israel to "join the war , using all means in their possession –
guns, knives, Molotov cocktails, and vehicles."
Haniyeh issued a statement on Al-Jazeera in which he described the October 7
massacre as a "great triumph" and called to expand the operation to the West
Bank and to within the pre-1967 borders of Israel. On the same day, Al-Jazeera
broadcast a speech by al-Arouri, deputy chairman of the political bureau of
Hamas, in which he threatened that "the storming of the Zionist settlements and
bases in the Gaza Envelope will pale compared to what may happen to them
[Israelis]."
During the Hamas-Israel war, Al-Jazeera not only reported and relayed Hamas's
announcements; according to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information
Center, it became an integral part of the Hamas influence, propaganda, and
psychological warfare machine:
"Across all its platforms, Al Jazeera spread the psychological warfare materials
produced by the Combat Media Unit of Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, which
allegedly documented ambushes and attacks on IDF forces."
In many cases, Hamas's military wing even used Al-Jazeera Arabic to announce
attacks on IDF troops, such as:
"Urgent – Al-Qassam Brigades: shortly... footage from the 'Lion of al-Mantar'
ambushes of the enemy's soldiers and vehicles in the al-Shuja'iyya neighborhood
in eastern Gaza will be broadcast on Al Jazeera on 25-04-2025."
Glorifying the October 7 massacre, the program "Ma Khafiya A'tham" ("What is
Hidden is Greater"), hosted by journalist Tamer al-Mishal, dedicated to the
October 7 massacre a series of episodes emphasizing Hamas propaganda, sometimes
using videos provided exclusively to Al-Jazeera. One episode included a video of
a disguised Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the massacre,
conducting a field tour above ground. The episode also included pictures of
Mohammed Deif, commander of the Hamas military wing, during the preparations for
the October 7 attack. The program promoted the Hamas narrative that the massacre
was a jihad justified by Islam, and that the "determination, heroism, and
sacrifice" of the Palestinian people enabled the success of Operation Al-Aqsa
Flood (the Hamas name for the October 7 attack).
MEMRI wrote in May 2024:
"Since the October 7 attack... The network has been operating as a propaganda
outlet in the service of Hamas 24/7, with hardly any coverage of other topics.
The channel expresses unreserved support for Hamas, justifying the deadly
attack, showing footage of it obtained from the body-cams of the terrorists, and
celebrating it as a victory that has brought pride and honor to the Islamic
nation."
For many years, Al-Jazeera hosted Islamist figures such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi his
show "Sharia and Life," where he issued fatwas (religious decrees) justifying
Palestinian suicide bombings against Israel as a form of "jihad" and "defense."
In one interview, Qaradawi explained that in "legitimate martyrdom operations,
people use their bodies to defend their country from occupiers." He described
suicide attacks as a form of divine justice, stating:
"Allah Almighty is Just; through His infinite Wisdom He has given the weak a
weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies
into bombs as Palestinians do."
Qaradawi also noted on his Al-Jazeera program in February 2013 that "If they
[Muslims] had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam wouldn't
exist today."
According to MEMRI:
"Al-Jazeera's role in providing a platform for promoting extremist Islamist
ideologies goes back decades. The case of promoting Al-Qaeda is of particular
interest. Two months before 9/11, Al-Jazeera gave an Al-Qaeda spokesman,
Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, free rein to speak uninterrupted for ten minutes, and to
call for 12,000 mujahideen to join Al-Qaeda.
"Al-Jazeera employed a correspondent, Tayseer Allouni, who was sentenced in
Spain to seven years in prison for transferring funds to Al-Qaeda – and Al-Qaeda
even issued a public statement in his support. Al-Jazeera broadcast live the
killing of a U.S. soldier by an Iraqi sniper – which could only have happened if
the media network had coordinated with the perpetrators of the killing.
"As for ISIS – Al-Jazeera allowed a pledge of allegiance to its leader Abu Bakr
Al-Baghdadi live on air. In the middle of a TV debate on Al-Jazeera's flagship
Arabic-language program, an Islamic scholar pledged allegiance to the leader of
ISIS, the Emir of the Believers, while moderator Faysal Al-Qassem did nothing to
stop him."
In 2004, on Al-Jazeera, Anis al-Naqqash, a Lebanese militant and analyst,
explicitly called for attacks against US oil companies and installations and
labeled the US an enemy of humanity.
It is time for the US and other Western countries to undertake an urgent and
thorough review of Al-Jazeera's activities. Given the mounting allegations of
links between Al-Jazeera and terrorist organizations, policymakers should
consider decisive steps, formally designating Al-Jazeera as an entity that
supports terrorism.
*Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East.
© 2026 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.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22440/al-jazeera-should-be-banned
NB: Published om April 13/2026
Trump's Middle East Strategy: Half-Measures, Full
Consequences
Pierre Rehov/Gatestone Institute/April 14/2026
Regimes are destabilized but left standing, Jihadist ecosystems are weakened but
not dismantled. Recycled figures from the same ideological mold are repackaged
as partners. This sadly makes for half-finished wars presented as advisability.
In Syria... Ahmed al-Sharaa, known under his former identity as Abu Mohammad al-Julani
— a man once affiliated with Al-Qaeda and long listed with a $10 million
American bounty on his head — was welcomed at the White House on November 10,
2025, and, in what was framed as a historic diplomatic opening, publicly
described by Trump as a "strong leader."
To then legitimize these terrorists under the convenient fiction of ideological
conversion is not merely contradictory; it signals to the entire region that
time and patience are sufficient to outlast Western resolve.
Ideologies do not just dissolve when their representatives adopt the codes of
diplomacy. They simply put on suits and ties, prepare to say what Western
leaders would like to hear and re-enter the international arena through a
legitimacy granted by those who once sought to eradicate them. The former head
of Romanian Intelligence, Ion Mihai Pacepa, who defected from the Soviet-bloc to
the West in 1978, wrote as early as 2003:
"In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on
how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll
break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and
over," Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over
the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize
with their fake displays of the olive branch."
The central flaw that continues to undermine Western policy seems to be the
illusion that eliminating individuals is equivalent to dismantling the system
that produces them.
Trump's position appears divided between two incompatible premises. On one side
is a clear recognition that the Iranian regime is intrinsically hostile, driven
by an expansionist vision anchored in a theology that elevates martyrdom above
compromise and confrontation above coexistence. On the other side is the
temptation -- a recurring wish -- to explore engagement with supposedly "less
radical" elements within that same system, as though extremism were a matter of
degree rather than a defining principle. This ambiguity is a strategic fault
line. As long as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the clerical
hierarchy, and the ideological infrastructure remain intact, any figure
presented as moderate operates within boundaries that preclude genuine
transformation. What appears as moderation to Western observers instead often
functions as tactical adaptation within an unchanged ideological framework.
Half-measures, in this context, represent the most dangerous possible course.
They combine the costs of intervention with the failure of restraint:
destabilizing adversaries without removing their capacity to rebuild and, in
doing so, often strengthening the very dynamics the half-measurists were seeking
to contain.
If... the objective is seriously to alter the dynamics that perpetuate a
conflict — to dismantle the ideological regimes and frameworks that export
instability across the region — then partial measures are indistinguishable from
failure.
American voters, particularly before midterm elections, are unlikely to engage
with the subtleties of diplomatic maneuvering or the layered complexities of
proxy warfare. Their judgment will rest on visible outcomes: on the coherence
between declared objectives and tangible results. In that light, a strategy that
delivers disruption without resolution risks being perceived not as prudence but
as an abdication of purpose, just another American cut-and-run.
There can be no rehabilitation of jihadists under new labels, no reliance on
hypothetical "moderates" within revolutionary systems, and no acceptance of
partial outcomes as substitutes for structural change. Anything less will ensure
that the same threats will persist, reconfigured and reinforced, for the next
round of conflict.
Syria's President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a man once affiliated with Al-Qaeda and long
listed with a $10 million American bounty on his head, was welcomed at the White
House on November 10, 2025.
There is, in Washington, a recurring temptation: that the Middle East can be
managed, contained, adjusted at the margins through economic pressure, surgical
strikes, and the careful selection of supposedly "acceptable" figures drawn from
within the very systems that generated the chaos. US President Donald Trump,
whose instincts have often broken with this practice, now appears perilously
close to reproducing it. The issue is not a lack of clarity— he understands the
nature of the threat far better than most Western leaders — but the potential
failure of an operation halted midway. Regimes are destabilized but left
standing, Jihadist ecosystems are weakened but not dismantled. Recycled figures
from the same ideological mold are repackaged as partners. This sadly makes for
half-finished wars presented as advisability.
In Syria, for instance, Ahmed al-Sharaa, known under his former identity as Abu
Mohammad al-Julani — a man once affiliated with Al-Qaeda and long listed with a
$10 million American bounty on his head — was welcomed at the White House on
November 10, 2025, and, in what was framed as a historic diplomatic opening,
publicly described by Trump as a "strong leader."
To then legitimize these terrorists under the convenient fiction of ideological
conversion is not merely contradictory; it signals to the entire region that
time and patience are sufficient to outlast Western resolve.
Ideologies do not just dissolve when their representatives adopt the codes of
diplomacy. They simply put on suits and ties, prepare to say what Western
leaders would like to hear, and re-enter the international arena through a
legitimacy granted by those who once sought to eradicate them. Former head of
Romanian Intelligence, Ion Mihai Pacepa, who defected from the Soviet bloc to
the West in 1978, wrote in 2003:
"In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on
how to behave in Washington. 'You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll
break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and
over,' Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over
the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize
with their fake displays of the olive branch."
Iran is an even more consequential test. The joint U.S.-Israeli strikes that
began on February 28, 2026 and eliminated key figures of Iran's regime,
including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, constituted a shock that briefly opened
the possibility of structural break. What followed, however, was not a collapse
but rapid recovery: the regime regenerated itself from within its own
ideological core and reaffirmed the same doctrines, the same networks, and the
same political objectives.
The central flaw that continues to undermine Western policy seems to be the
illusion that eliminating individuals is equivalent to dismantling the system
that produces them. A regime built on a mix of clerical authority, revolutionary
ideology, and paramilitary enforcement cannot be neutralized through
decapitation alone; it must be confronted at its structural foundations, or it
will simply regrow, often in a more radicalized form.
Trump's position appears divided between two incompatible premises. On one side
is a clear recognition that the Iranian regime is intrinsically hostile, driven
by an expansionist vision anchored in a theology that elevates martyrdom above
compromise and confrontation above coexistence. On the other side is the
temptation -- a recurring wish -- to explore engagement with supposedly "less
radical" elements within that same system, as though extremism were a matter of
degree rather than a defining principle. This ambiguity is a strategic fault
line. As long as Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the clerical
hierarchy, and the ideological infrastructure remain intact, any figure
presented as moderate operates within boundaries that preclude genuine
transformation. What appears as moderation to Western observers instead often
functions as tactical adaptation within an unchanged ideological framework.
Events on the ground have already begun to expose the limits of this approach
with unforgiving clarity. Despite the loss of senior leadership, Iran
intensified its attacks across the region, expanded missile and drone strikes
against American military installations and civilian targets in the Gulf states,
and contributed to the disruption of maritime routes with direct consequences to
global markets and Western interests, all while targeting Israeli cities with
cluster bombs attached to ballistic missiles. Such behavior is the predictable
outcome of pressure applied without dismantling a system. Partial confrontation,
rather than inducing moderation, reinforced the regime's internal cohesion, and
allowed it to mobilize part of its population around a narrative of "resistance"
while hardening its strategic posture. The leadership that emerged from such
conditions appeared less inclined than ever to engage on terms defined by its
adversaries.
At the heart of the West's recurring miscalculation lies a deeper cultural and
intellectual gap. American strategic thinking, shaped by Enlightenment
rationalism and economic pragmatism, tends to assume that actors ultimately seek
stability, prosperity, and survival within a framework of material incentives.
This assumption encounters its limits when confronted with systems in which
ideological or religious imperatives override material considerations. Within
such a framework, sacrifice is not a cost but a form of fulfillment, and death
itself can be integrated into a narrative of victory. The classical mechanisms
of deterrence lose their force in this environment: the underlying calculus is
no longer based on cost-benefit analysis but on a hierarchy of values that
places transcendence above survival.
Despite decades of hard evidence, Western policy continues to operate as though
these regimes could be integrated into a rational order through negotiation and
incremental pressure. In reality, these regimes function as ideological engines
whose primary objective is not coexistence but expansion — cultural, religious,
and geopolitical. Periods of apparent moderation or openness are not indications
of transformation; they are designed to relieve pressure, gain time, or
reposition assets without altering the ultimate objective. The notion of a
stable equilibrium with such systems or the power base in them rests on a
misunderstanding of what they regard as their priorities.
The domestic dimension in the US introduces an additional layer of constraint
that further complicates the strategic equation. The political coalition that
brought Trump back to power is neither uniformly interventionist nor inclined to
support prolonged engagements lacking clear, decisive and preferably fast
outcomes. For them, even four weeks was too long.
Recent polling indicates that a substantial majority of Americans, including a
significant segment of Republican voters, favor a rapid conclusion to the
confrontation with Iran even at the cost of incomplete objectives. The findings
appear to reflect growing concerns over potential casualties, escalation, and
economic repercussions, or the wish for Trump not to have a success. The view
creates a narrow and unforgiving window in which decisive action must either
achieve structural results or give way to a gradual erosion of political
support, with predictable consequences for any long-term improvement in the
situation.
Half-measures, in this context, represent the most dangerous possible course.
They combine the costs of intervention with the failure of restraint:
destabilizing adversaries without removing their capacity to rebuild and, in
doing so, often strengthening the very dynamics the half-measurists were seeking
to contain. The result is a cycle in which each round of confrontation produces
a more resilient and more ideologically entrenched adversary, while Western
credibility diminishes step by step.
The broader international environment only amplifies these risks. European
leadership, exemplified by figures such as French President Emmanuel Macron,
continues to prioritize de-escalation and negotiated solutions, frequently
detached from the radical ideological realities that shape the behavior of
regional actors. At the same time, Russia and China exploit Western hesitancy to
expand their influence, presenting themselves as "neutral" alternative
interlocutors while benefiting from the ambivalence of the United States. The
cumulative effect is that a clarity of purpose becomes increasingly rare, and
decisive outcomes increasingly elusive.
Israel, operating under the immediate pressure of existential threat, adopts a
fundamentally different approach. The question, from Jerusalem's perspective, is
not whether the Iranian regime can be managed or contained, but whether its
continued existence in its current form is compatible with actual long-term
security. This view has been shaped by the proximity to nearly 80 years of
bombardments, terrorism and historical experience. Where Washington hesitates,
Jerusalem calculates for survival.
Stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved by preserving the structures
that generate instability or by pretending that actors steeped since birth in
jihadist ideology can be easily rebranded. Stability cannot be secured through
partial victories or symbolic demonstrations of force that leave intact the
mechanisms of radicalization and expansion.
Trump's instinctive understanding that strength must be asserted and that
adversaries must be confronted remains fundamentally sound – yet needs to be
carried through to its logical conclusion. The result, as seen in Iraq, Libya,
Tunisia and Afghanistan, is not peace but a return to the same strategic
starting point under less favorable conditions.
If the objective is merely to delay nuclear proliferation or to manage crises
episodically, the current approach may produce short-term appearances of
success. If, however, the objective is seriously to alter the dynamics that
perpetuate a conflict — to dismantle the ideological regimes and frameworks that
export instability across the region — then partial measures are
indistinguishable from failure.
American voters, particularly before midterm elections, are unlikely to engage
with the subtleties of diplomatic maneuvering or the layered complexities of
proxy warfare. Their judgment will rest on visible outcomes: on the coherence
between declared objectives and tangible results. In that light, a strategy that
delivers disruption without resolution risks being perceived not as prudence but
as an abdication of purpose, just another American cut-and-run.
Trump has identified the nature of the threat with uncommon clarity. To
translate it into lasting strategic success requires refusing the comforting
illusions of only half-hearted, fake success. There can be no rehabilitation of
jihadists under new labels, no reliance on hypothetical "moderates" within
revolutionary systems, and no acceptance of partial outcomes as substitutes for
structural change. Anything less will ensure that the same threats will persist,
reconfigured and reinforced, for the next round of conflict.
*Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter,
novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including
"Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from
French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre
- La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced
and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern
war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of
Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of
ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the
October 7 massacre.
© 2026 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.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22423/trump-middle-east-strategy
NB: Published om April 12/2026
Negotiating With Tehran: The Danger of Diplomacy
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute./April 14/2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22425/danger-negotiating-with-tehran
Above all, the Strait of Hormuz
must remain a free and open international waterway, governed by established
principles of maritime law rather than unilateral control. Any international
monitoring force must include a permanent US presence to guarantee that the
international forces remain effective. The UNIFIL peacekeeping forces in Lebanon
apparently found it easier to be onlookers, complicit in ignoring all
agreements. Ensuring open access is not simply a regional concern — it is a
global imperative.
In addition, throughout the entire region, the aggressive dimension of Iran's
regime must be seriously addressed. The persistent use of rhetoric such as
"death to America" and "death to Israel" reflects a deeply embedded worldview
that legitimizes hostility and frames confrontation as a moral imperative.... A
durable resolution in Iran -- as well as for other states such as Qatar --
requires not only behavioral change but also a shift away from the regime's
rhetoric of aggression.
In short, there can be no upfront relief granted to Iran, no phased easing based
on promises, and no concessions granted in anticipation of compliance. Every
aspect of the regime's commitments -- uranium removal, dismantlement of nuclear
and missile infrastructure, and cessation of destabilizing activities -- must be
fully verified. To relieve any pressure prematurely would be to give the regime
exactly what it seeks: space to recover, regroup, and ultimately resume its
previous trajectory.
With the Islamic Republic of Iran, a ceasefire does not necessarily indicate a
genuine shift in intent. It more likely functions as a tactical pause to relieve
pressure, rebuild capabilities, and buy time under the cover of diplomacy.
Iran's is a regime whose leadership is divided between those who speak and those
who decide. The politicians may negotiate, but the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps (IRGC) and intelligence apparatus ultimately determine the course of
action. Pictured: A funeral procession, featuring banners memorializing senior
officers from the IRGC who were killed in Israeli strikes, in Tehran's Enqelab
Square on June 28, 2025. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
Iran has ostensibly agreed to a two-week ceasefire -- which, intentionally or
not, it broke within minutes -- and to negotiations. At first glance, an
agreement may seem a meaningful step. With the Islamic Republic of Iran,
however, a ceasefire does not necessarily indicate a genuine shift in intent. As
US President Donald J. Trump and his negotiators undoubtedly know, it more
likely functions as a tactical pause to relieve pressure, rebuild capabilities,
and buy time under the cover of diplomacy.
Unlike conventional states where elected officials or formal institutions hold
ultimate decision-making authority, Iran operates through a deeply layered,
often opaque power structure. On the surface, diplomats and politicians engage
with the international community, projecting reasonableness, flexibility, and a
willingness to compromise. Beneath this diplomatic façade, nonetheless, lies the
true center of power: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Iran's
intelligence apparatus. These institutions are not merely influential — they are
decisive. They shape national security policy, control key economic sectors, and
determine the regime's strategic direction. Any negotiation that fails to
account for this structure misunderstands who actually makes final decisions.
Iran's regime now must find itself under significant strain. Militarily, it has
faced sustained pressure and blows; economically, it continues to struggle under
sanctions and internal inefficiencies; politically, it must manage both domestic
dissatisfaction and external threats. The regime therefore has strong incentives
to de-escalate temporarily without conceding strategically. At such a moment, it
may be willing to promise sweeping concessions and even alignment with
international demands. Such signals, regrettably, must be interpreted not as
evidence of change but as indicators of tactical adaptation. The central
question is not whether the regime is willing to say the right things — it is
whether it is able and willing to do them.
During previous rounds of negotiations, for instance, particularly in 2015 with
then President Barack Obama's disastrous JCPOA "nuclear deal," Iran made
commitments that looked comprehensive and verifiable. Concerns soon emerged,
however, regarding undisclosed nuclear activities, continued technological
development, and the limitations of monitoring mechanisms.
The Iranian regime's core objective is survival. Offering poison-pill demands,
it has been rejecting any terms that might alter its behavior. Instead, it seems
to be aiming to absorb shocks, outlast pressure, and wait for more favorable
conditions. Usually this tactic -- if Islam even appears threatened -- includes
a religiously required directive, taqiyya: deceit in the service of furthering
Islam. The tactic also includes extending negotiations, limiting concessions,
and avoiding actions that would provoke overwhelming retaliation, all while
preserving its ideology. When Trump pursues a firm approach, the Iranian regime
is incentivized to delay negotiations and diffuse pressure until the political
dynamics shift. Negotiations become a tool of strategic patience rather than a
genuine revision of intent.
Any agreement, therefore, needs to be built only on strict, enforceable
verification mechanisms that impose tangible, irreversible consequences that
eliminate the regime's ability to revert to previous behaviors. The enriched
uranium stockpiles cannot be subjected to indirect monitoring, which, as
recently revealed, can easily be circumvented. All uranium should instead be
physically removed under the direct supervision of the US, and no hidden stocks
may remain within the country.
All infrastructure for producing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles needs to
be fully dismantled or destroyed. Partial restrictions, temporary suspensions,
or limitations that can be reversed are insufficient. Anything less creates a
latent threat that can resurface at a moment of the regime's choosing.
There can be no Iranian support whatsoever for the terrorist proxies such as
Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, among others.
Iranian state media have begun signaling that the regime expects compensation as
part of any post-conflict arrangement. The demand, which seems to have been on
an initial, discarded, "10-point plan," should, of course, be categorically
rejected.
Above all, the Strait of Hormuz must remain a free and open international
waterway, governed by established principles of maritime law rather than
unilateral control. Any international monitoring force must include a permanent
US presence to guarantee that the international forces remain effective. The
UNIFIL peacekeeping forces in Lebanon apparently found it easier to be
onlookers, complicit in ignoring all agreements. Ensuring open access is not
simply a regional concern — it is a global imperative.
In addition, throughout the entire region, the aggressive dimension of Iran's
regime must be seriously addressed. The persistent use of rhetoric such as
"death to America" and "death to Israel" reflects a deeply embedded worldview
that legitimizes hostility and frames confrontation as a moral imperative. As
long as this ideological posture remains intact, any diplomatic agreement risks
being undermined by the very narratives that sustain the regime's identity. A
durable resolution in Iran -- as well as for other states such as Qatar --
requires not only behavioral change but also a shift away from the regime's
rhetoric of aggression.
This is a regime whose leadership is divided between those who speak and those
who decide. The politicians may negotiate, but the IRGC and intelligence
apparatus ultimately determine the course of action.
In short, there can be no upfront relief granted to Iran, no phased easing based
on promises, and no concessions granted in anticipation of compliance. Every
aspect of the regime's commitments -- uranium removal, dismantlement of nuclear
and missile infrastructure, and cessation of destabilizing activities -- must be
fully verified. To relieve any pressure prematurely would be to give the regime
exactly what it seeks: space to recover, regroup, and ultimately resume its
previous trajectory.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, is a political scientist, Harvard-educated analyst, and
board member of Harvard International Review. He has authored several books on
the US foreign policy. He can be reached at dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu
**Follow Majid Rafizadeh on X (formerly Twitter)
© 2026 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.
NB: Published om April 10/2026
Hormuz:
A Strait that Matters to the Entire World
Yousef Al-Dayni/Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
The Strait of Hormuz, which geography textbooks once described as the world’s
artery, has become its most volatile maritime flashpoint today. It is where war,
economics, politics - and, inevitably, definitions of legality - collide. The
actions of the regime in Tehran in and around the strait have drawn global
condemnation, not least because closing the strait amounts to a clear violation
of a basic principle of international navigation: free passage. We are
witnessing a profound shift in the nature of global conflict- from how it is
defined, to its duration, to its impact beyond the immediate parties, and even
to how costs - human and economic - are calculated. The ways in which the
concept of warfare itself is evolving are particularly striking; weapons are no
longer judged solely by the capacity for destruction, but by their ability to
impose costs. Another feature of this transformation is the rise of cheap
drones, cyberattacks carried out by small groups operating from remote locations
with little more than an internet connection, and naval mines. These simple
tools can be used to cause damage that ripples across the globe in the most
literal sense.
Geoeconomic warfare defines the moment. The strongest card Tehran is playing in
this second phase of confrontation is closing the Strait of Hormuz, which has
become the center of global attention. Hardly anyone now speaks of “exporting
the revolution”, proxy networks, or even enrichment levels, with the
conversation almost entirely focused on this vital global passage that is so
crucial to the global economy. Is the weaponization of economics new? Hardly. As
the economist and sociologist Albert O. Hirschman argued, the post-WWII global
order effectively abandoned trade neutrality.
Today, however, the world faces a faster and more potent weapon: control over
supply chains. Closing off the Strait of Hormuz tool has become more effective
than traditional deterrence. Disruptions to maritime traffic have immediate
consequences for energy, food, and technology markets. More importantly, they
undermine the trust that underpins the global economic system. Even more
troubling, we are seeing an increasing militarization of the world’s critical
chokepoints - its ports and maritime corridors - at a time when many countries
are already facing economic strain and weakened state capacity. This combination
inevitably fuels instability. At the same time, no country enjoys a degree of
self-sufficiency that would make isolation viable. The world is simply too
interconnected.
That is why rebuilding political and financial regulatory frameworks - whatever
form they take - has become necessary for collective security. This requires new
alliances among influential and capable states that foster integration,
stability, and development rather than pursuing high-risk strategies, whose
costs the world is now paying.
Recent actions by the American military are an effort to contain the situation
without sliding back into full-fledged conflict. The United States Central
Command has announced the deployment of destroyers into the Gulf as part of a
broader mission to secure maritime routes and clear mines. In a noteworthy
statement, Admiral Brad Cooper spoke of establishing safe corridors to ensure
the continued flow of goods. At the same time, asymmetric warfare has been
Iran’s naval doctrine since the American attack that destroyed much of its fleet
in a single day in 1988. Having given up on conventional naval competition,
Tehran developed a strategy focused on disrupting commercial shipping. Its
strategy exploits a structural vulnerability of global maritime traffic,
generating instability without direct confrontation.
The Strait of Hormuz is now a test for the world. Can it act collectively to
break Iran’s chokehold? The most viable path forward is coordinated
institutional action by a coalition of the states concerned in cooperation with
regional actors. Such an effort would offer an alternative to uncertain bets on
negotiation, cyclic escalation, or acquiescence to intimidation that would risk
normalizing “fees”, or even spoil-sharing if spoils were to be split.
Iran Has No Choice but to Become a Normal State
Ahmad Mahmoud Ajaj/Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
President Donald Trump has adopted a different approach to dealing with Iran
because he has a different view of the conflict. Previous US presidents believed
that economic pressure and negotiations would be enough to force Iran to give up
its nuclear program and its support for militias. Trump, by contrast, believes
that only pressure underpinned by force can work with Iran. He saw former
President Jimmy Carter as a weak leader who had embarrassed the United States
during the hostage crisis. His convictions have not changed. He acted on this
belief in the principle of negotiation through strength in June by destroying
Iran’s nuclear reactors and then, again, with the strikes that began on February
28, 2026. For its part, Iran adopted a policy of “absorbing the blows” and a
strategy that included targeting infrastructure in neighboring Gulf states,
disrupting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and expanding its confrontation
with Israel through ballistic missiles and via its allies, such as Hezbollah,
the Houthis, and Iraqi militias. Iran’s strategy for countering Donald Trump’s
application of “negotiation through strength” aimed to compel the president to
engage in a negotiation among equals. Talks were eventually held in Pakistan.
Backed by Europe and China, the talks were an attempt to negotiate a compromise,
an exercise that Iran has mastered after decades of engagement with the
Americans, Europeans, Chinese, and Russians.
Iran saw the attendance of the US vice president as a sign that its negotiating
formula had worked and that it could secure a diplomatic victory. However, this
assumption ran up against Trump’s core principle. After what he sees as a
military victory, Trump does not believe that Iran is in a position to impose
its terms. The Americans dismissed Iran’s three demands: an end to Israel’s war
against Hezbollah, recognition of Tehran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz,
and the continuation of peaceful nuclear enrichment. Instead, US negotiators
insisted that Iran commit to not seeking nuclear weapons or even the capacity to
develop nuclear weapons quickly.
The Iranian delegation believed it could use delay tactics to drag out the talks
and split them into multiple tracks. But Vice President Vance stood firm: either
Iran accepts the American offer or the talks become pointless. Pakistani and
Iranian officials were surprised to see the American delegation leave Pakistan
the next morning as they expected negotiations to continue for a second day. As
the talks were still underway, American warships had been clearing mines along
the Strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump sent a clear signal: the talks were not a
priority, and it made little difference to him whether or not a deal would be
reached. His move reflected a commitment to negotiation through strength, and it
left Iran with almost no room for maneuver as continuing to absorb blows,
however painful, became its only option.
The question now is: what options does Iran have? There are three: resume
negotiations, escalate to total war, or face a naval blockade. Resuming
negotiations would entail abandoning its nuclear program once and for all and
agreeing to strict oversight. That would open the door to talks in which Iran
holds few meaningful cards, and it would ultimately force Iran to become a
“normal state” rather than a “revolutionary” actor.
The second option, war, would pose an existential threat to the regime itself.
It would be the primary target of a war Iran cannot win. The third option is a
naval blockade. Simply put, this means no oil goes out, and no oil goes in.
Without the Strait of Hormuz as leverage and cut off its oil exports, this
option would force Iran into escalation and a disastrous war.
The challenge of confronting Iran is that the repercussions will not be confined
within its borders, leaking to neighboring countries and beyond. The Gulf states
have already shown they can defend themselves against attacks from Tehran and
can develop practical alternatives to the Strait. Operating jointly and drawing
on its broader geographic depth, the Gulf states can continue exporting large
volumes of oil while adapting to changing conditions.
For global actors, especially in Asia, options are limited. They can either
become more dependent on oil from Russia and the Americas, including supplies
routed through Red Sea ports, or coordinate (alongside European partners) to
open the Strait of Hormuz by any means necessary. Trump has held on to its
principle of strength in this confrontation, and Iran remains committed to
confrontation. The difference, this time, is that, unlike those of the past,
this American president is not deterred by escalation. He is willing to keep it
isolated from the international system. Trump has taken the initiative with this
current conflict, and he is now in a position to escalate or de-escalate, to
call for negotiations and then walk away, and to accuse Iran of undermining the
global economy.
Given this shift, Iran’s options are narrowing. It can either stick to its
current doctrine or begin to operate as a normal state that enjoys peace and
cooperates with its neighbors.
The Palestinians and the War on Iran
Nabil Amr/Asharq Al Awsat/April 14/2026
No Palestinians, no factions anywhere on the Palestinian spectrum, entered the
American-Israeli war on Iran. While some locals and factions have expressed
sympathy with Iran, these positions do not amount to strategic alignment.
Rather, they are a reflection of the simple fact that the Palestinians’ primary
adversary, Benjamin Netanyahu is a partner of this war effort, and Palestinians
stand on the opposite side of where he is. Even before Iran entered the war
after a devastating initial blow (with its supreme leader and several senior
aides assassinated within hours) Palestinians had already paid a heavy price.
Israel launched its genocidal Gaza war in retaliation for the Al-Aqsa Flood
operation, while the West Bank witnessed the most intense military
confrontations it had since 1967. Hamas, which carried out the operation, had
called on what it considered allies in the Axis of Resistance to join in its
success and build on it in order to begin the battle liberation. The response
was uneven. Hezbollah entered a support war alongside Hamas and Islamic Jihad in
Gaza, and the Houthis joined from a distance, at lower intensity. For its part,
Iran kept its distance from the outset, denying that it had had any role in the
attack and describing it as a purely Palestinian operation. The current round of
the American-Israeli war on Iran immediately raised concerns. First,
Palestinians worried about its implications for the trajectory in Gaza, where
things had been moving forward through sustained American-led global pressure by
Arab and Muslim states. Second, they worried about the consequences for the West
Bank, where Israel’s threats of annexation and settlement expansion have
intensified as the world focuses on the broader war. More broadly, they worried
that already distant prospects for a political solution have been pushed further
out of reach by the barriers erected by Israel’s right-wing government. These
concerns are well founded. As long as the war on Iran, the repercussions of
which undermine the interests of countries across the globe, continues to
dominate global attention, international efforts will shift toward containing
the conflict, managing fallout, and preventing its escalation into a broader
regional war.
Before the war, Arab and Muslim countries had built a political safety net for
the Palestinian cause, most notably through the New York Conference. That effort
reassured Palestinians that their issue remained on the international agenda and
that the goal of Palestinian statehood remained viable.
It has shifted the focus of the very Arab and Muslim countries that had led the
diplomatic effort that helped create a path forward in Gaza and secured Donald
Trump’s rejection of Israeli plans to the West Bank annexation, effectively
burying proposals to displace Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. Iran has
become the center of concern. For understandable reasons, Pakistan has played a
direct role in mediation, hosting negotiations that had seemed all but
inconceivable until very recently.
Palestinians, often presented as being among the losers in this war, have a
strong stake in seeing it end. Their priority is retaining international
attention to their cause and the resumption of the track set for Gaza, which
they hope will expand into a broader political process. This trajectory was
reflected in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, which in fact is
the first international resolution that sets a framework for peace based on
Palestinian statehood. The collapse of the first round of talks in Islamabad
was, therefore, unwelcome news. At the same time, statements from the
negotiating parties and their Pakistani hosts, who also signaled that the
failure of one round would not close the door to further talks, offered a degree
of reassurance. Palestinians are not betting on the war, especially since their
cause has rarely factored into it. At the same time, any failure for Benjamin
Netanyahu is seen as a win for Palestinians, who understand how he leverages
political or military success to sideline their cause and impede meaningful
solutions. What Palestinians are ultimately counting on, alongside their
continued resilience on their own land, is the success of their Arab and Muslim
backers in ending the war, and placing the Palestinian cause back in the center
of international politics, and resuming work on Gaza, which must be followed by
a process that returns to the fundamentals of the Palestinian question. That, in
essence, is where Palestinians stand on this war.
Hamas
Signals No Retreat: The US Fantasy of Disarmament and Peace
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute./April 14/2026
Hamas remains fully committed to jihad (holy war) and rejects disarmament.
The "Board of Peace" is therefore confronting a harsh reality: Hamas, like Iran,
is not motivated by deadlines, incentives, or promises of reconstruction. It is
motivated by ideology and by war.
In Hamas's worldview, the war is not about the Gaza Strip. It is about reshaping
the Middle East -- and beyond -- in its own image.
Any policy based on the assumption that Hamas can be persuaded to disarm is
simply detached from reality.
The danger is that this rhetoric is designed to inflame public opinion in Arab
and Islamic countries against their own governments, potentially destabilizing
countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain that have chosen a path
of pragmatism, normalization, and cooperation with Israel and the West.
Hamas remains a partner of Iran's regional war machine, a committed enemy of
peace, and a direct threat to the stability of the Middle East.
The question is whether the US is ready to listen.
An April 5 speech by Hamas military spokesman Abu Obaida (pictured) leaves no
doubt: Hamas remains fully committed to jihad (holy war) and rejects
disarmament. Hamas remains a partner of Iran's regional war machine, a committed
enemy of peace, and a direct threat to the stability of the Middle East. (Image
source: Hamas via X)
An April 5 speech by Hamas military spokesman Abu Obaida leaves no doubt: Hamas
remains fully committed to jihad (holy war) and rejects disarmament.
Meanwhile, US President Donald J. Trump's "Board of Peace," an initiative to
stabilize and rebuild the Gaza Strip, seems to be increasing pressure on Hamas.
According to a report published in The New York Times, the board has set a
deadline for the terror group to agree to a disarmament framework in the Gaza
Strip by the end of the coming week.
Abu Obaida's speech, unfortunately, is an emphatic warning that Hamas has no
intention of complying:
"What the enemy is trying to push through today against the Palestinian
resistance, via our brotherly mediators [Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey], is extremely
dangerous. Raising the issue of weapons in this blunt manner is nothing but an
overt attempt to continue the genocide against our people, something we will not
accept under any circumstances. What the enemy failed to take from us through
tanks and war, it will not be able to take through politics or at the
negotiating table."
Far from preparing to disarm, Hamas is publicly declaring its commitment to
continued jihad, praising the Iranian regime and its proxies, and inciting
Palestinians to escalate attacks against Israel.
The "Board of Peace" is therefore confronting a harsh reality: Hamas, like Iran,
is not motivated by deadlines, incentives, or promises of reconstruction. It is
motivated by ideology and by war.
The speech, in fact, is a manifesto of defiance.
From the outset, Abu Obaida frames the conflict in explicitly religious terms.
Portraying the war not as a territorial dispute, but as a religious obligation,
he calls on Muslims to "unite their ranks in confronting the disbelievers."
He goes further by describing the current war as a "decisive phase in the
history of this Ummah [Islamic nation]," a turning point meant to restore
Islamic dominance and reverse what he calls the humiliation of Muslim lands:
"For even if the balance of power is disturbed, our truth is stronger than their
falsehood, and our Ummah is one, its enemy is one."
In Hamas's worldview, the war is not about the Gaza Strip. It is about reshaping
the Middle East – and beyond. It is a call for jihad.
Equally revealing is the Hamas spokesman's repeated reference to the
"Zionist-American assault" on Iran. By fusing Israel and the US into a single
enemy, Hamas is openly declaring that the jihad is not directed only at Israel,
but also at Washington. This is a direct message to American policymakers: Hamas
does not distinguish between Israel and the US. It sees both as legitimate
targets.
The implications are worse than they might at first look.
For Israel, the speech confirms that Hamas, like Iran, has not changed
ideologically, despite the heavy military blows it has suffered since its
October 7, 2023 invasion of Israel. On the contrary, the terror group remains as
committed as ever to Israel's destruction. Abu Obaida's praise for Iran,
Hezbollah, and Yemen's Houthis underscores Hamas's integration into a broader
Iran-led war effort. Israel is not facing an isolated terrorist organization in
the Gaza Strip, but a coordinated regional "Axis of Resistance."
For the US, the message is equally clear. Hamas is rejecting any notion of
compromise or disarmament. Despite repeated calls from Trump to lay down its
arms, Hamas is doubling down on its strategy of armed struggle. The speech makes
clear that Hamas views American pressure not as a reason to moderate, but as a
further justification for jihad:
"The [US-Israeli] aggression will not achieve its results. The illusion of
normalization they seek is doomed to failure. Those who hope to impose foreign
ideologies from across the seas on our nation do not know the heritage,
civilization, and power that the nation possesses."
Any policy based on the assumption that Hamas can be persuaded to disarm is
simply detached from reality.
The speech also contains an unmistakable warning to pro-Western Arab states,
particularly in the Gulf. By accusing unnamed actors of seeking to "alter the
concepts of the Islamic religion" and impose foreign systems of governance,
Hamas is effectively attacking Arab regimes aligned with the US. These countries
are portrayed not as partners, but as part of the problem – complicit in what
Hamas describes as a campaign to subjugate the Islamic world.
The danger is that this rhetoric is designed to inflame public opinion in Arab
and Islamic countries against their own governments, potentially destabilizing
countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain that have chosen a path
of pragmatism, normalization, and cooperation with Israel and the West.
At the same time, Hamas continues to incite violence on the ground. Abu Obaida's
call for unity and confrontation, regrettably, is not "just talk." It is a
direct appeal to Palestinians in the West Bank and Jerusalem to escalate their
confrontation with Israel into deadly terrorist attacks. The speech's portrayal
of the war as a global crisis – claiming that Israel is plunging "the region,
and indeed the world, into its furnace," is, in addition, part of a broader
propaganda effort by Hamas to shift blame for regional instability onto Israel
and the US.
Stripped of its religious and ideological language, the message is simple: Hamas
has no intention of ending the war. It is preparing for more.
The speech by Abu Obaida is a loud wake-up call. Hamas is planning escalation.
For Israel, the US, and pro-Western states, any strategy that assumes Hamas can
be integrated, moderated, or coaxed into abandoning its weapons is not only
unrealistic; it is naïve and dangerous.
Hamas at least is being honest. Hamas is not negotiating. Hamas is not
moderating. Hamas is not preparing for peace. October 7, 2023, was not an
isolated attack. It was part of an ongoing jihad: "The strikes [against Israel]
by the fighters of Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen are an extension of the Al-Aqsa
Flood [Hamas's October 7 massacre]."
Israel, the US, and the Arab states aligned with the West might recognize the
simple truth: Hamas remains a partner of Iran's regional war machine, a
committed enemy of peace, and a direct threat to the stability of the Middle
East.
The question is whether the US is ready to listen.
*Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
*Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)
© 2026 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.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22424/hamas-signals-no-retreat
NB: Published om April 09/2026
Child Protection on Trial: The Maria Shahbaz Judgment
Nasir Saeed/Gatestone Institute/April 14/2026
[T]his is not simply a controversial ruling; it is a test of whether the law can
truly protect the most vulnerable, or whether it can be manipulated to
legitimise their exploitation.
This sequence transforms what begins as an allegation of abduction into a legal
narrative of voluntary marriage. The Shahbaz judgment reinforces this pattern
rather than challenging it.
At the heart of the judgment lies the concept of "consent." The Court treated
Maria's statement as sufficient proof that she acted of her own free will. But
this raises the question: can a 12-year-old meaningfully consent to religious
conversion and marriage?
In effect, the judgment creates a contradiction: the law punishes child marriage
yet simultaneously allows its consequences to stand. This weakens the deterrent
effect of the law...
A kidnapping case was turned into a custody case. So, a proceeding meant to test
unlawful custody became, in effect, a proceeding that legitimised the very
custody under challenge.
Article 227 [of Pakistan's Constitution] explicitly protects the personal laws
of non-Muslim citizens. Applying religious reasoning in a way that affects a
Christian minor raises serious concerns about whether this protection has been
fully respected.
Pakistan is a signatory to key international human rights treaties, including
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). These are not
symbolic commitments — they impose clear legal obligations.
The Court's decision appears to stand in direct tension with these obligations.
By recognising a marriage involving a minor, it risks normalising a practice
that international law requires states to abolish.
A legal system derives its legitimacy not only from its adherence to rules, but
from its ability to deliver justice.
The Shahbaz case is more than a legal dispute. It is a test of whether the law
can fulfil its most basic purpose: to protect those who cannot protect
themselves.
If a 12-year-old girl can be removed from her family, presented before a court,
and her statement treated as decisive proof of consent — without deeper scrutiny
— then the legal system risks failing those it is meant to serve.
[T]his case is not just about one child. It is about the principle that no legal
system should allow vulnerability to be mistaken for choice.
The recent judgment of Pakistan's Federal Constitutional Court in the case of
12-year-old Christian girl Maria Shahbaz has triggered protests and concern.
Pictured: The seat of Pakistan's Constitutional Court, in Islamabad. (Photo by
Aamir Qureshi/ AFP via Getty Images)
The recent judgment of Pakistan's Federal Constitutional Court in the case of
12-year-old Christian girl Maria Shahbaz has triggered protests, concern, and
deep unease — not only within Pakistan but across the international human rights
community. For many, this is not simply a controversial ruling; it is a test of
whether the law can truly protect the most vulnerable, or whether it can be
manipulated to legitimise their exploitation.
Maria disappeared from her home on July 29, 2025. Her family reported her
abduction, and alleged that she had been kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam,
and married off to an adult man. Like many similar cases involving girls from
non-Muslim minorities, events moved quickly. Within two days, Maria appeared
before a magistrate, recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, and claimed that she was 18 years old, had converted willingly,
and had married of her own free will.
That statement became the foundation upon which the entire case was built.
Her father sought her recovery through legal proceedings before the District
Sessions Court and later the Lahore High Court. Both courts dismissed his
petitions, relying heavily on her recorded statement. The Federal Constitutional
Court has now upheld those decisions, validating the marriage and her continued
custody with the man she allegedly married.
At first glance, the judgment may appear to rest on technical legal reasoning.
But its implications are far-reaching — and deeply troubling.
The Shahbaz case is not an isolated incident. It reflects a broader pattern
repeatedly reported in Pakistan, particularly involving girls from Christian and
Hindu communities.
The pattern is disturbingly consistent: A minor disappears. A delayed or
ineffective police response follows. Within days, a certificate emerges
attesting that the girl converted to Islam. A marriage is claimed. A statement
is recorded before a magistrate asserting consent. Courts then rely on that
statement to validate the marriage and dismiss allegations of coercion.
This sequence transforms what begins as an allegation of abduction into a legal
narrative of voluntary marriage. The Shahbaz judgment reinforces this pattern
rather than challenging it.
When Consent Becomes a Legal Fiction
At the heart of the judgment lies the concept of "consent." The Court treated
Maria's statement as sufficient proof that she acted of her own free will. But
this raises the question: can a 12-year-old meaningfully consent to religious
conversion and marriage?
International law — and basic principles of child protection — say no.
A child lacks the legal and psychological capacity to make such a life-altering
decision, particularly in circumstances involving abduction and isolation from
family. Consent, in such contexts, cannot be assumed simply because it is
stated. It must be examined, tested, and understood within the broader reality
of vulnerability.
By elevating a single statement above all other considerations, the Court risks
turning "consent" into a legal fiction—one that obscures rather than reveals the
truth.
Child Marriage Law and Its Misinterpretation
The Federal Constitutional Court held that even if Maria were a minor, the
marriage would not be void under the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.
Instead, the law merely criminalises the act without invalidating the marriage
itself.
This interpretation may reflect the technical wording of the statute, but it
undermines its protective purpose. A law designed to prevent child marriage
becomes ineffective if the marriage it seeks to prevent is still recognised as
legally valid.
In effect, the judgment creates a contradiction: the law punishes child marriage
yet simultaneously allows its consequences to stand. This weakens the deterrent
effect of the law and sends a dangerous signal that legal recognition may still
follow unlawful conduct.
Criminal Law and the Missing Dimension
Perhaps the most serious omission in the judgment is its limited engagement with
criminal law. Under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, kidnapping or
abducting a woman to compel marriage is a criminal offence. This provision
exists precisely to address situations where marriage is used as a cover for
coercion.
This matters because the case did not begin as a family arrangement. It began as
an allegation of abduction. Yet in Maria's case, the existence of a marriage
claim — and a statement recorded shortly after her disappearance — became the
mechanism through which the abduction complaint was effectively neutralised.
The police's First Information Report for the case itself invoked Section 365-B
PPC, which criminalises kidnapping or abduction to compel marriage or illicit
relations and is punishable with life imprisonment. However, the Court's habeas
corpus analysis effectively bracketed these criminal realities behind the
language of "marital custody."
Likewise, Pakistan's rape law has historically treated sexual intercourse with a
girl under 16 as rape "with or without her consent" (PPC s.375, clause v),
clearly establishing that consent is legally constrained by age. This statutory
principle is difficult to reconcile with a judicial approach that treats a
minor's asserted consent as decisive.
Even more strikingly, the lower court acknowledged that questions existed over
the nikahnama (marriage certificate), including claims that it was unregistered
or forged, and that such matters could not properly be determined in summary
proceedings. That should have prompted judicial caution. Instead, the marriage
claim was still allowed to do decisive work.
The judgment also reflects deeper procedural failures: the alleged cancellation
of the case by police following the Section 164 statement, disputed documentary
proof due to delayed registration, and unresolved concerns regarding the
authenticity of the marriage certificate). These are precisely the conditions
where Article 19 of the CRC requires active state intervention to investigate,
protect, and prevent abuse — not judicial deference to contested claims.
A kidnapping case was turned into a custody case. So, a proceeding meant to test
unlawful custody became, in effect, a proceeding that legitimised the very
custody under challenge.
Constitutional Questions
The judgment also raises important constitutional questions, particularly under
Article 227, which requires that laws be consistent with the injunctions of
Islam.
Some may argue that the Court's reasoning reflects Islamic jurisprudence on
marriage. However, Article 227 provides a structured constitutional framework
for such matters, including the role of the Council of Islamic Ideology. If a
law such as the Child Marriage Restraint Act is believed to be inconsistent with
Islamic principles, the Constitution provides mechanisms for its review.
What the Court has done instead is effectively weaken the law through
interpretation in an individual case, without engaging in that broader
constitutional process.
Moreover, Article 227 explicitly protects the personal laws of non-Muslim
citizens. Applying religious reasoning in a way that affects a Christian minor
raises serious concerns about whether this protection has been fully respected.
International Obligations Ignored
Under general treaty law, a state may not invoke its internal law to justify
failure to perform treaty obligations (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,
Article 27). This principle is critical here: Pakistan cannot defend
non-compliance with its international obligations by arguing that its domestic
law — such as the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 — does not invalidate such
marriages. International obligations remain binding regardless of domestic
statutory limitations.
Pakistan is a signatory to key international human rights treaties, including
the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). These are not
symbolic commitments — they impose clear legal obligations.
Under the CRC:
Article 3 requires that the best interests of the child be a primary
consideration. The judgment does not meaningfully engage with this principle.
Article 19 obligates the state to protect children from abuse and coercion.
Allegations of abduction demanded careful scrutiny, not reliance on a single
statement.
Article 34 requires protection from sexual exploitation, a category widely
understood to include child marriage.
Under CEDAW:
Child marriage is recognised as a harmful practice and a form of gender-based
violence.
States are required to take active steps to eliminate such practices — not
validate them.
The Court's decision appears to stand in direct tension with these obligations.
By recognising a marriage involving a minor, it risks normalising a practice
that international law requires states to abolish.
Why This Judgment Matters
The Shahbaz ruling is not merely controversial; it is deeply concerning. It
risks becoming a template for future impunity — one that alleged perpetrators
may exploit through a familiar sequence of abduction, conversion, and coerced
statements.
This is why Pakistan's Christian community, along with human rights advocates,
has expressed serious concern and continues to challenge the judgment. Their
response is not simply emotional; it is rooted in lived experience and repeated
patterns that suggest systemic gaps in protection.
At a broader level, the case raises fundamental questions about the role of the
judiciary. Should courts prioritise formal legal procedures, or should they
actively safeguard vulnerable individuals — especially children — against
exploitation?
The answer should not be difficult. A legal system derives its legitimacy not
only from its adherence to rules, but from its ability to deliver justice.
For international readers, the Shahbaz case should not be reduced to a familiar
headline about religion or culture. It is about legal method.
A court faced with a child-protection crisis chose form over substance,
declaration over context, and marital status over vulnerability. It treated
"consent" as a conclusion rather than a question. It interpreted a
child-marriage law in the narrowest possible way. It allowed a criminal
complaint of abduction to be overshadowed by a marriage claim. And it deployed
constitutional-Islamic language without adequately respecting the constitutional
protection of non-Muslim personal law or the Constitution's own structured
mechanisms.
For Pakistan, this is a moment of reflection.
The law already contains the tools needed to address such cases: criminal
provisions against abduction, statutory protections against child marriage,
constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality, and international commitments
to child protection.
What is needed is not new law, but better interpretation—one that places the
child at the centre of the legal inquiry, rather than at its margins.
Courts must look beyond formal declarations of consent and examine the reality
in which those declarations are made. They must treat allegations of coercion
with seriousness, not scepticism. And they must ensure that legal processes are
not used to legitimise harm.
The Shahbaz case is more than a legal dispute. It is a test of whether the law
can fulfil its most basic purpose: to protect those who cannot protect
themselves.
If a 12-year-old girl can be removed from her family, presented before a court,
and her statement treated as decisive proof of consent — without deeper scrutiny
— then the legal system risks failing those it is meant to serve.
The judgment deserves careful, sustained legal scrutiny — not only within
Pakistan, but globally. Because at its core, this case is not just about one
child. It is about the principle that no legal system should allow vulnerability
to be mistaken for choice.
*Nasir Saeed is a freelance writer and Director at the Centre for Legal Aid
Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS-UK).
© 2026 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.
NB: Published om April 10/2026
Return of war or naval blockade?
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al-Arabiya
English/14 April/2026
The next step, after the failure of negotiations in Islamabad, now lies in
Washington’s hands, which is facing a new set of challenges. The first challenge
is decoding Iran’s position, because not every “yes” means agreement, and not
every “no” is a final rejection. Iran’s refusal may be a tactical maneuver,
followed by signals offering partial concessions. Another factor shaping Iran’s
decision-making is its rhetoric and the image it projects to its supporters,
which was one of the drivers behind the most recent war.
There is a core bloc of regime supporters inside the country that it still
relies on, even if it no longer represents the majority, due to the erosion of
its standing as a result of economic sanctions and prolonged military
involvement in the region. This is in addition to Iran’s broader audience in its
external sphere. These groups, which mirror the regime, are led to believe that
it is victorious and dominant in negotiations. Propaganda is part of how the
regime maintains control. It is not new for Tehran to deliberately reject
proposals and disrupt negotiations. There is also the calculated approach of
Iran’s Foreign Ministry, maintaining a poker face that reveals nothing about
whether a negotiator intends to advance, retreat, or withdraw. The traditional
tactic of Iranian negotiators is to complicate talks and play on the edge of the
abyss. This is what happened in Geneva, when they refused to negotiate on key
issues, leading to a withdrawal. An angry Donald Trump surprised them by
launching the war in less than 48 hours after their withdrawal. They did not
expect such a move, despite the military buildup and repeated threats of war.
It would not be surprising if Iran were to seek a return to negotiations,
offering significant concessions such as conducting nuclear enrichment abroad or
reopening the Strait of Hormuz. If Tehran does not back down, or if Washington
deems the concessions insufficient, the world will face one of two scenarios,
both aimed at changing the ruling system in Tehran. The first is a return to a
strategy of war. The second is tightening the blockade on access points to the
Strait of Hormuz. Resuming the war for several months is believed to be capable
of bringing down the regime through the widespread destruction of its
institutions and leadership. So why did Washington halt the war if resuming it
remains an option? The goal was to test the intentions of Iran’s new leadership,
to see whether it might adopt a different approach. It could shift toward a new
policy, conceding what remains of the tools that support its regional expansion
project, such as enrichment, its missile system, and its proxy networks, and
transform into a more peaceful system.
This is the scenario the Trump administration chose to test, so that it could
not be said that Iran was ready to change while Trump opted for war.
The Islamabad negotiations, like the Geneva talks, demonstrated that a decision
to resume the war, if taken, would not be misplaced. Trump accepted and gave the
regime an opportunity by allowing access to its frozen funds and halting strikes
on Hezbollah targets in Beirut. In Pakistan, Iran’s stubbornness became clear in
its refusal to abandon nuclear enrichment, which lies at the heart of the
conflict and was the primary driver of the war. It also became evident that the
policy of Ali Khamenei remains in effect despite his death.
The second option for the US administration is to abandon war and return to
imposing a blockade on Iran to a level that destabilizes its internal situation
due to a shortage of financial resources. Trump has threatened to halt the
passage of Iranian oil tankers, which are currently the only ones benefiting
from the closure of the Strait, while rival tankers are blocked. Washington
would also resume support for large-scale protests at a new level, in the hope
that this would help undermine the regime.
This strategy, on one hand, would push the war away from Gulf countries, Iraq,
and Jordan, and could revive activity in the Strait of Hormuz. It is also likely
that affected countries such as China and India would pressure Tehran to lift
its blockade of the Strait.
An economic blockade may appear to be a more comfortable option for both sides,
but it may not prevent the outbreak of war once again. The US administration has
not abandoned the idea of resuming strikes, and Tehran, having lost its previous
negotiating leverage, may cling to the option of closing the Strait, challenging
US naval forces and ignoring international calls. Continued deterioration would
likely lead to successive rounds of military confrontation.
We should not forget that the Iranian regime is managing the crisis in an
irrational manner, as it is ultimately fighting for survival.
Selected Face Book & X tweets for April 14/2026
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
https://x.com/i/status/2044075720528289981
Stake out on top of the meeting. No statements expected at the end.
Sec of State Rubio joins the ambassadors of Lebanon and
Israel in direct negotiations in Washington. The U.S. message is this: America
now recognizes the Lebanese government as the sole and legitimate representative
of the Lebanese people, doesn’t talk to other governments about Lebanon (like it
used to, starting in 1984).
Itay Blumental
Translated from Hebrew
We published tonight: Senior IDF officials unusually briefed Israel's Ambassador
to the US, Yechiel Leiter @yechielleiter, ahead of his meetings tomorrow with
Lebanon's Ambassador to the US, Nada Hamadeh Ma'oud. The briefing was conducted
at the request of Ambassador Leiter, and was carried out via senior officers
from the IDF's Strategy Division, with special approval from Chief of Staff
Zamir and Defense Minister Katz. IDF senior officials
presented the ambassador with the deployment of forces in Lebanon, the demands
of the Israeli security system, and reviewed with him the efforts being made in
the northern arena against Hezbollah. They conveyed through him a message that
Israel is acting solely against the terrorist organization and demands that the
Lebanese Army act against Hezbollah in accordance with the Lebanese government's
decision before a ceasefire can be considered.
Fox News
NEW: Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets with Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors
to the U.S., marking the first direct diplomatic talks between the two nations
in decades.
It comes after weeks of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, as the U.S. moves
to prevent a broader conflict.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
More telling is the breakdown among Lebanon’s Shia community, long assumed to be
Hezbollah’s most loyal base and staunch opponents of Israel. According to the
survey, Shia opposition to Lebanon’s peace with Israel stands at around 60
percent, far from unanimous.
This finding squares with a Gallup poll from Summer 2025, which showed that 27
percent of Shia respondents wanted Hezbollah disarmed. Lebanon’s Shia are simply
not a monolithic bloc that supports endless confrontation with Israel.
Eric Daugherty
https://x.com/i/status/2044070934022111624
JUST IN: The greatest Sec. of State Marco Rubio just WALKED OUT and made
history, holding the first direct Israel-Lebanon peace talks in DECADES
Marco is making history, brokering the meeting directly in Washington DC
WE LOVE MARCO! 🇺🇸
Bechara Gerges
France’s exclusion from the Washington Israeli-Lebanese talks should have been a
diplomatic scandal, a historic ally locked out of the most significant Lebanon
negotiation in thirty years. But Beirut didn’t protest, didn’t lobby for French
inclusion, and didn’t even notice. That silence is the real verdict.
France spent decades posturing as Lebanon’s guardian, hosting summits, drafting
frameworks, and performing concern from the chandeliered rooms of the Élysée,
while Hezbollah’s arsenal swelled from fifteen thousand rockets to two hundred
thousand under the watch of French UNIFIL troops who enforced nothing.
Macron proposed Paris as the venue for these very talks,
drafted a recognition plan, and personally called Aoun, Salam, and Berri, and
previously Mikati, to choreograph a French-led diplomatic triumph.
Today, Lebanon and Israel are sitting across from each other at the State
Department in Washington, brokered by Marco Rubio and mediated by the American
Ambassador to Beirut, Michel Issa, who is of Lebanese origin and remains a
Lebanese.
France was not just sidelined, it was rendered irrelevant by its own record of
performing diplomacy without producing a single enforceable outcome. The bridge
Macron wanted to claim credit for was built by others, and the cruelest part
isn’t that France was excluded, it’s that nobody in Beirut objected.
Political Pen
17 Countries Welcome Lebanon-Israel Direct Talks
A joint statement by 17 countries, including Britain and France, said:
“We welcome President Aoun’s initiative for direct dialogue
with Israel and Israel’s acceptance of the talks.We call on Lebanon and Israel
to seize this opportunity.”
A strong international push to support the emerging Lebanon-Israel negotiations.
Yair Lapid
Translated from Hebrew
Unlike Netanyahu, I didn’t want to engage in politics on Holocaust Remembrance
Day, so I waited until it was over. Now it can be said: His speech yesterday was
a moral and ethical low point. The man during whose tenure the greatest disaster
to befall the Jewish people since the Holocaust occurred, claims that he
prevented a second Holocaust. The man who promised to eliminate Hamas and
failed, to eliminate Hezbollah and failed, to eliminate Iran and failed, is once
again explaining that he will defend the people of Israel.
The man who did everything to promote and fund draft evasion from the Jewish
army, is explaining that Jews need to defend themselves. One day you puff
yourself up and declare that we are a “global superpower,” and the next day you
play the victim and the endangered, explaining to us that we miraculously
escaped another Holocaust. A disgrace.
Dr Walid Phares
My interview with
@i24NEWS_EN
https://x.com/i/status/2044085451447763323
on Israel Lebanon talks in Washington DC. Hezbollah goal is a minimal ceasefire
until Tehran's Islamic regime survives the war, and thus Hezb militia survives
as well. The "Lebanese state" wants a ceasefire as well but doesn't want to be
the one to disarm the Khomeinist militia. Israel wants Hezb far away from it's
borderز The US wants to incapacitate Hezb but at the
hands of the Lebanese government and army.