English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News
& Editorials
For April 19/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.april19.26.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
Jesus Appears to Two
Of The Disciples On the Road to Emmaus & Explaines For Them The Scripture
Luke 24/13-35/Now that same day two of them
were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. They
were talking with each other about everything that had happened. As they talked
and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked
along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him. He asked them, “What
are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces
downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting
Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
“What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a
prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief
priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they
crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem
Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In
addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning
but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of
angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and
found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.” He said to
them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have
spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his
glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what
was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. As they approached the
village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going
farther. But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening;
the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.0 When he was at the
table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to
them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared
from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us
while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” They got
up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with
them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has
appeared to Simon.” Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how
Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.
Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related
News & Editorials published
on April 18-19/2026
A Reading of “President” Joseph Aoun’s Speech: Cloning Failure in
Military Garb, Fear of Naming Things, and Words Without Action/Elias Bejjani/April
18/2026
Patriarch Rai's Statement Attacking President Trump is a Mistake and a Sin,
Reflecting Ignorance, Stupidity, Lack of Vision, and Blatant Sycophancy/Elias
Bejjani/April 15, 2026
Trump: We'll make Lebanon great again, it's about time we did so
French soldier killed in attack on UN mission in southern Lebanon, officials say
Macron blames Hezbollah for French peacekeeper's death in Lebanon
Saudi Arabia condemns attack on UNIFIL in Lebanon
State Dept. says Trump prohibition of Israeli attacks in Lebanon doesn't apply
to self-defense
Israeli army says established 'Yellow Line' in Lebanon, as in Gaza
Israeli army says air force 'eliminated terrorist cell' in South Lebanon
Hezbollah denies involvement in deadly attack on UN peacekeepers
Lebanese Army chief visits frontline unit, praises troops after ceasefire takes
effect
Ceasefire under fire: Israel adapts "yellow line" strategy in South Lebanon
Ceasefire politics: How regional pressure and US intervention brought a fragile
truce to Lebanon
Naim Qassem: Hezbollah remains open to maximum cooperation with state
authorities
Israeli army carries out demolitions in south Lebanon town: state media
How Israeli strikes on paramedics are hindering rescue efforts in Lebanon
A divided Lebanon is facing a moment of reckoning/Hussein Chokr/Arab News/April
18/2026
How the Iran war is helping Lebanon and Israel tiptoe toward peace/Mark Dubowitz
and Ben Cohen/New York Post/April 18/2026 |
Selective Outrage: When Hezbollah Attacks/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone
Institute/April 18, 2026
Links to several important news websites
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous
Reports And News published
on April 18-19/2026
Iran closes Hormuz Strait again, as Trump warns against ‘blackmail’
Iran says reviewing ‘new proposals’ from United States
Iran’s navy tells ships Strait of Hormuz shut again, two vessels report gunfire
Iran’s top negotiator says talks with US show progress but final deal ‘far off’
Iran reports 3,468 dead in war with US, Israel: official
Iran’s Quds Force chief Qaani visits Iraq: senior official
Turkey says Israel using security as a pretext to acquire ‘more land’
India flags ‘deep concerns’ over attack on two Indian ships in Strait of Hormuz
Pope says he regrets his remarks interpreted as a debate with Trump
Saudi Arabia, Arab and Muslim countries, condemn Israel appointment of envoy to
Somaliland
Police kill shooter in Kyiv, president says five people killed
Iranian gunboats fire on tanker in Strait of Hormuz as Tehran reimposes
restrictions
Iran command says has closed Hormuz again over US blockade
Khamenei says Iran's navy 'stands ready' to defeat US
Iranian gunboats fire on tanker in Hormuz strait
Iran says no date set for next round of talks with US
Links to several important news websites
on April 18-19/2026
What Victory Looks Like When Your Foe Won’t Surrender ....The U.S. can win
without Iran acknowledging it lost/Jonathan Schanzer/The Commentary/April
18/2026
‘Morale is going to be at an all-time low’: Iran war troops living on meager
rations as Postal Service stops delivering/Brendan Rascius/The Independent/Fri,
April 18/2026
How China and Russia are becoming Iran’s eyes in the sky/Iona Cleave/The
Telegraph/Fri, April 18/2026
Trump and the first American Pope/Abdullah F. Alrebh/Al Arabiya English//18
April/2026
Trump, Iran and the battle of wits/Nadim Shehadi/Arab News/April 18/2026
Saudi diplomacy seeks to strengthen US-Iran truce/Hassan Al-Mustafa/Arab
News/April 18/2026
Selected Face Book & X tweets for April 18/2026
The Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News & Editorials published
on April 18-19/2026
A Reading of “President” Joseph Aoun’s Speech: Cloning Failure in
Military Garb, Fear of Naming Things, and Words Without Action
Elias Bejjani/April 18/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/04/153736/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KqAiQmlrq0
I. Lost Credibility: Faith Without
Works (A Dead Faith)
Yesterday, Friday, April 17, 2026, President Joseph Aoun appeared before us with
a quintessentially “wooden” speech, repeating the same old symphony of promises
from which the Lebanese have seen nothing since he took office. The “Inaugural
Address” he delivered on his election day has remained mere ink on paper, and
today he returns with rhetorical fluff devoid of any tangible executive plan.
Here, we remind him of the words from the Epistle of James: “Faith without works
is dead.” The trust of the Lebanese is not built on resonant speeches but on the
actions that Aoun completely lacks. He “talks much and does nothing,” constantly
attempting to mask his impotence behind terms like “steadfastness” and
“sacrifice,” while attacking those who oppose the terrorist Hezbollah and the
Iranian-Jihadi occupation that occupies Lebanon and sows destruction,
corruption, displacement, and impoverishment.
II. Malice, Narrow-Mindedness, and the Betrayal of Those Opposing Hezbollah’s
Occupation
The speech reveals a mindset that rejects criticism and grows weary of political
opposition. Instead of holding the party responsible for the ruin and
devastation—namely Hezbollah—accountable, Joseph Aoun poured his wrath upon the
sovereignist voices that criticized the presidency’s “cover” for the Hezbollah
mini-state. This is evident in the following phrases from his speech:
“We endured accusations… insults… slander, and misinformation”: Here, he
classifies political criticism as “insult and slander,” a military language that
brooks no debate.
“Do not allow skeptical and treacherous voices to sow division among you”: In a
bizarre irony, he labels opponents as “traitors” simply because they questioned
the utility of his choices.
“Overcome the instincts of the misleaders”: He dismisses the opposing opinion as
mere “instinct” and “misleading,” as if he holds the absolute truth.
“Do not be dragged behind those who exploit your emotions to build their glory
at the expense of your stability”: A direct accusation of opportunism and
trading on people’s pain.
This fierce attack on Hezbollah’s opponents (exclusively) proves that the man
does not write his own speeches. Instead, the task is left to a team of
“entrusted” advisors (groups tied to Berri, Hezbollah, the Syrian Social
Nationalist Party, opportunists, scribes, and Pharisees). Through this language,
they aim to silence any voice demanding the reclamation of the state from its
kidnappers—the Iranian-Shia Duo. His statements are issued in a vengeful tone
toward “Sovereignists,” while remaining “cowardly” and appeasing toward the Shia
Duo and their masters, the Mullahs of Iran. This confirms he is fully tied to
the interests of the Duo’s system and the opportunistic advisors who surround
him—with his consent—shielding him from the reality of the situation.
III. Cowardice in Naming the “Internal Enemy”
In a predictable sovereignist failure, Joseph Aoun did not dare mention the name
“Hezbollah” a single time in his lengthy speech. He utilized vague, generalizing
language, avoiding the naming of the party that has violated Lebanon’s
sovereignty and its decisions on war and peace. Although the party—by
international, legal, and local (Cabinet) decisions—represents an entity outside
the state’s legitimacy, Aoun preferred to flee forward. This confirms he remains
a silent (or coerced) partner in an alliance that places the party’s interests
above those of the nation, stripping him of the title of “Sovereign President.”
IV. Linguistic Acrobatics and Fleeing the Obligation of Peace
Aoun used an “acrobatic” expression when he said: “I am ready to go anywhere to
liberate my land and protect my people.” This is a pathetic attempt to emulate
historical leaders (like Sadat) without possessing their courage. Had Aoun been
serious about “saving his country,” he would have had the courage to say
explicitly: “I will go to the White House and meet Netanyahu, and I will go to
Israel if necessary to end the cycle of death and conclude a permanent peace.”
But, true to form, he prefers the gray zone to appease Nabih Berri, Hezbollah,
and Iran, confirming he remains in their political trench and has never stepped
out from under their cloak.
V. The “Let Us Congratulate” Groups: Okazis of a Wretched Time
One cannot read the echoes of President Joseph Aoun’s speech without pausing at
the choir of “clappers” from the political class, “party corporations,” and the
rabble of media mouthpieces and cymbals who rushed to issue statements of praise
and support. These represent the “Qumwa Ta Nehni” (Arise, let us congratulate)
mentality—a quintessentially opportunistic Lebanese mindset where everyone
rushes to praise whoever sits on the throne without any self-respect or
objective analysis. We are witnessing an “Okazi” scene (referring to the
historic Souk Okaz), but a low-end political version of it. In the past, poets
sold praise and blame for dinars; today, we see these politicians like the
“repliers” in Lebanese Zajal troupes, improvising praise for Aoun’s speech to
guarantee their place in the paradise of power or to satisfy the “entrusted”
advisors. Their “Zajal-like” statements lack any credibility; they are merely
opportunistic rituals that do not seriously address the issues, but settle for
echoing the “President” and those behind him from the de facto powers (Berri and
Hezbollah).
Final Conclusion
The scene is now complete: a President drowned in rhetoric, advisors passing the
agendas of external axes, an opposition being betrayed rather than heard, and a
“Zajal” troupe applauding the void. The speech of April 17, 2026, was not
“salvation”; it was a confirmation that power in Lebanon remains a prisoner of a
gray-zone mentality and disguised dependency, and that the true “man of the
hour” has yet to emerge.
Patriarch Rai's Statement
Attacking President Trump is a Mistake and a Sin, Reflecting Ignorance,
Stupidity, Lack of Vision, and Blatant Sycophancy
Elias Bejjani/April 15, 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/04/153648/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JJgrnAhAn8
The statement issued yesterday by Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rai, in which he
attacked U.S. President Donald Trump under the guise of defending the sanctity
of Pope Leo, is both a mistake and a sin. It is misplaced politically and
contextually; rather, it once again reveals a deep crisis in credibility and
vision.
The most dangerous aspect of this statement is not just its content, but the
motive behind it. According to reports circulating in well-informed Lebanese
circles, it appears to be an attempt at flattery and a plea for favor from the
Vatican and the Pope. This comes amid increasing talk of dissatisfaction within
high ecclesiastical circles regarding Rai's performance, and even reports that
he was asked to resign and the banning of secretary, lawyer Walid Ghayyad from
any public appearance during the Pope’s recent visit to Lebanon. This places the
statement within a personal and sycophantic framework that has nothing to do
with faith, principles, or ethics.
Regarding his track record, since his election in 2011, Rai has not provided a
model of a clear sovereignist patriarch. In his first week, he visited Sheikh
Mohammad Yazbek in Baalbek, the then-representative of the Iranian Supreme
Leader in Lebanon. From there, he attacked the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL)
investigating the assassination of PM, Rafik Hariri, in a move that constituted
flagrant political bias.
Later, he visited the criminal head of the Syrian regime, Bashar al-Assad,
without achieving any tangible results, particularly regarding the file of
Lebanese detainees in Syrian prisons. Driven by jealousy and envy of the
achievements of the late Patriarch Mar Nasrallah Sfeir, he then attempted to
create a political framework similar to "Qornet Shehwan" by gathering political
and religious figures affiliated with the Syrian regime and Hezbollah; failure
was inevitable. Additionally, in his early days as Patriarch, he dispatched
Father Abdo Abou Kasam to participate on his behalf in "Quds Day" in Iran.
During his European, American, and Canadian tours, he did not hesitate to
shamelessly and foolishly promote Bashar al-Assad's regime under the slogan of
"protecting Christians," ignoring the bloody facts known to everyone.
Internally, his performance has been no better. Serious suspicions have been
raised regarding the management of church properties, specifically the
allocation of church lands. A prominent example is the circulating reports that
he granted a piece of church land near Bkerke to his secretary, Walid Ghayyad,
who built a palace on it in clear violation of ecclesiastical laws, sparking
widespread resentment within church circles and the community.
Politically, his positions have been characterized by appeasement from the
start, especially toward Hezbollah. Clear sovereignist stances have been absent,
replaced by a "gray" rhetoric that does not align with the historical role of
Bkerke.
In light of all this, his latest statement merely reinforces the same approach:
biased, flowery rhetoric that oversteps the spiritual role for the sake of
political posturing, attacking an elected president while ignoring the
priorities of Lebanon and its people.
This statement adds nothing to the value of defending the Pope. On the contrary,
it harms the cause because the person issuing it suffers from a clear crisis of
trust, and his positions are surrounded by much doubt.
Conclusion: Patriarch Rai's statement is nothing more than a weak political
stance driven by personal calculations and attempts at flattery. It lacks
credibility and vision and, therefore, holds no actual value on a national or
moral level.
Trump: We'll make Lebanon
great again, it's about time we did so
Naharnet/April 18/2026 |
U.S. President Donald Trump said overnight that "hopefully the situation with
Hezbollah will get straightened out quickly." "We will make Lebanon great again.
It's about time we did so. The world has forgotten them, and they’re good people
who have lived like hell for a long period of time," Trump added. He had voiced
similar remarks during the day.
French soldier killed in
attack on UN mission in southern Lebanon, officials say
Reuters/April 18, 2026
April 18 (Reuters) - A French soldier was killed and three others wounded while
clearing a road in southern Lebanon in an attack that UNIFIL peacekeepers and
French officials said on Saturday was likely carried out by Iran-backed
Hezbollah.
In calls with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam,
French President Emmanuel Macron condemned the "unacceptable attack", Macron's
office said in a statement. Three other members of the United Nations' UNIFIL
peacekeeping mission were injured, UNIFIL said, two of them seriously.
UNIFIL said initial assessments indicated the fire came from non-state actors,
allegedly Hezbollah, and that an investigation had been launched into what it
called "a deliberate attack." Macron also said the evidence so far pointed to
the Iran-backed armed group and urged Lebanese authorities to act against those
responsible. Hezbollah denied any involvement in the attack, expressing its
"surprise at positions that rushed to make baseless accusations" against the
group. French armed forces minister Catherine Vautrin said the patrol was
ambushed while on a mission to open a route to a UNIFIL post that had been
isolated by fighting in the area. The soldier was killed by direct small-arms
fire, she said. UNIFIL said the attack occurred in the southern Lebanese village
of Ghandouriyeh. Lebanon's army condemned the shooting and said it had opened an
investigation. President Aoun offered condolences and ordered an immediate
probe, while Prime Minister Salam also condemned the attack. UNIFIL was first
deployed in 1978 and has remained through successive conflicts, including a
2024 war during which its positions came under repeated fire.
ISRAELI MILITARY KILLS MILITANTS IN THE SOUTH
Separately, the Israeli military said on Saturday it had killed members of a
"terrorist cell" that violated a U.S.-brokered ceasefire and approached its
soldiers in southern Lebanon. It said it was authorised to take necessary self-defence
measures against "threats," adding that such actions are not restricted by the
ceasefire. The Israeli military later said a soldier who was wounded in southern
Lebanon on Friday had died of his wounds. It gave no details of the incident,
which it did not describe as a violation of the ceasefire. Israel's Army Radio
military correspondent reported that an initial inquiry found he had been
wounded by an explosive device that was likely to have been planted before the
ceasefire. Israel and Lebanon agreed a "cessation of hostilities" on April 16
at 2100 GMT for an initial period of 10 days to enable peace negotiations
between the two countries, according to a text of the deal released by the U.S.
State Department. The deal does not require Israel to withdraw from southern
Lebanon, where Israeli troops have been destroying villages and infrastructure
after ordering residents south of the Litani River to flee. The area makes up
about 8% of Lebanese territory. (Reporting by Enas Alashray, Menna Alaa El-Din
and Ahmed Tolba in Cairo, Tassilo Hummel in Paris and Olivia Le Poidevin in
Geneva, and Maayan Lubell; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise and Mark Potter)
Macron blames Hezbollah for French peacekeeper's death in
Lebanon
Agence France Presse/April 18/2026 |
A French soldier was killed and three others wounded in an attack Saturday on
U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon that appeared to have been carried out by
Hezbollah, French President Emmanuel Macron said. "Everything points to
Hezbollah being responsible for this attack," he said on X, urging Lebanese
authorities to arrest the perpetrators.
Iran says no date set for next round of talks with US
No date has been set for the next round of Iran–U.S. peace talks brokered by
Pakistan following the failure of an initial round, Iran's deputy foreign
minister said on Saturday.
"Until we agree on the framework, we cannot set a date," Saeed Khatibzadeh told
journalists on the sidelines of an annual diplomatic forum in Turkey's southern
Antalya province. "We hope that as soon as we can finalize that, then we can
move on to the next step". Khatibzadeh said both sides were currently focused on
finalizing a framework of understanding before proceeding with further
negotiations. "We do not want to enter into any negotiation or meeting that is
destined to fail and could serve as a pretext for another round of escalation,"
he said. "I can assure you that Iran is very much committed to diplomacy".
Pakistan's powerful military chief and prime minister concluded separate visits
aimed at ending the Iran war, with Field Marshal Asim Munir leaving Tehran and
premier Shehbaz Sharif headed home from Turkey. Munir met Iran's top leadership
and peace negotiators during a three-day visit to Tehran, a Pakistani military
statement said.
Egypt and Pakistan were working "very hard" as mediators to brig about "a final
agreement between the United States and Iran", Egypt's foreign minister told
journalists at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum. Egypt and Turkey has joined
diplomatic efforts with Pakistan to help secure a ceasefire in the conflict. "We
hope to do so (reach an agreement) in the coming days," Badr Abdelatty said,
noting that "not only us in the region, but the whole world is suffering from
the continuation of this war".
"We are pushing very hard in order to move forward," he said.
Trump 'tweets a lot'-
Iran dismissed U.S. threats of fresh military action, with the senior Iranian
official saying that that Washington's statements were inconsistent. "The
American side tweets a lot, talks a lot. Sometimes confusing, sometimes, you
know, contradictory," Khatibzadeh said, referring to U.S. President Donald Trump
and his frequent social media posts. "It is up to the American people to decide
whether these statements are consistent and in accordance with international
law," he added. Khatibzadeh said Iran's position was clear and vowed resistance
to pressure from Washington. "What we are going to do is quite clear. We will
defend heroically and patriotically (our country) ... as the oldest civilisation
on earth," he said. The deputy minister also rejected U.S. accusations that Iran
was threatening freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route
for global oil shipments, after Iran's military again declared the waterway
closed. "Americans cannot impose their will to do a siege over Iran while Iran,
with good intention, is trying to facilitate safe passage through the Strait of
Hormuz," Khatibzadeh said. He said Iran had announced safe passage for
commercial vessels for the duration of Israel-Lebanon ceasefire, provided there
was prior coordination with Iranian maritime authorities. However, Khatibzadeh
accused Washington of attempting to "sabotage" those efforts. "If ceasefire
terms are violated and Americans do not honour their commitments, there will be
repercussions for them," he said.
Saudi Arabia condemns
attack on UNIFIL in Lebanon
Al Arabiya English/18 April/2026
Saudi Arabia on Saturday condemned the attack on the United Nations Interim
Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) that left one French soldier dead in southern Lebanon.
“[The Kingdom] condemns the attack against the French contingent of UNIFIL in
southern Lebanon that led to the killing of a soldier and the injury of others,”
a statement by the foreign ministry said. The statement reiterated Saudi
Arabia’s support for UNIFIL, saying the perpetrators must receive “deterrent
punishment” after “repeated targeting” of UNIFIL. The Kingdom also extended its
“sincere condolences to the government and people” of France and wished those
injured a speedy recovery. A French patrol belonging to UNIFIL came under small
arms fire in the southern Lebanese village of Ghandouriyeh, which left one
soldier dead and three injured, two of them critically.
State Dept. says Trump prohibition of Israeli attacks in
Lebanon doesn't apply to self-defense
Associated Press/April 18/2026 |
The U.S. State Department said Friday that President Donald Trump’s announced
prohibition on Israeli strikes inside Lebanon applies only to offensive attacks
and not to actions taken in self-defense, and referred to the third point of
Wednesday’s agreement by Israel and Lebanon. That point says “Israel shall
preserve its right to take all necessary measures in self-defense, at any time,
against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks.” It adds that Israel “will not
carry out any offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including
civilian, military, and other state targets, in the territory of Lebanon by
land, air, and sea.” With the ceasefire only a few hours old, Israel has already
launched at least one deadly drone strike in southern Lebanon, according to the
health ministry there. During the previous ceasefire, Israel struck what it said
were Hezbollah targets almost daily.
Israeli army says established 'Yellow Line' in Lebanon, as
in Gaza
Agence France Presse/April 18/2026 |
The Israeli military said Saturday it had established a "Yellow Line"
demarcation in southern Lebanon, similar to the one separating its forces from
territory still held by Hamas in Gaza, adding that it had already struck
suspected militants approaching its troops along the line.
"Over the past 24 hours, IDF (army) forces operating south of the Yellow Line in
southern Lebanon identified terrorists who violated the ceasefire understandings
and approached the forces from north of the Yellow Line in a manner that posed
an immediate threat," the military said, referring to such a line for the first
time since a ceasefire came into effect. "Immediately after identification and
in order to eliminate the threat ... forces attacked the terrorists in several
areas in southern Lebanon," it said, noting that the military was authorized to
take action against threats, despite the ceasefire. "Actions taken in
self-defense and to remove immediate threats are not restricted by the
ceasefire," the military said. Since a ceasefire came into effect in Gaza on
October 10, the Palestinian territory has been split by a "Yellow Line", the de
facto boundary dividing Gaza into two zones: one under Israeli military control
and one under Hamas control. Israel and Lebanon agreed to a 10-day ceasefire on
Thursday in order to negotiate an end to six weeks of war between Israel and the
Iran-backed group Hezbollah. The war saw massive Israeli airstrikes across
Lebanon and also a ground invasion in the south. Lebanese authorities say the
war that began on March 2 has killed nearly 2,300 people, and caused widespread
devastation in southern towns and cities such as Nabatiyeh. Hezbollah halted
military operations after the ceasefire came into effect, but warned that it was
keeping its "finger on the trigger" in case Israel violated the truce.
President Joseph Aoun said on Friday that "direct negotiations" with Israel "are
crucial", and that the government aims to "consolidate a ceasefire, secure the
withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied southern territories, recover
prisoners, and address outstanding border disputes". U.S. President Donald Trump
has said the United States had "prohibited" Israel from bombing Lebanon
following the ceasefire deal, adding that Washington would work with Lebanon to
"deal with" Hezbollah. But Israel has not "yet finished the job" on Hezbollah,
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, vowing to press on with the Lebanese
militant group's "dismantling" just hours after the truce came into effect.
Israeli army says air force
'eliminated terrorist cell' in South Lebanon
LBCI/April 18/2026 |
The Israeli military said Saturday that its air force had eliminated a
"terrorist cell" operating near its troops in South Lebanon, despite the
ceasefire there. "The IDF eliminated a terrorist cell operating in proximity to
Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon, in the area of the forward defense line
dedicated to preventing imminent threats to Israel's northern communities," it
said, without specifying how many suspected militants were killed. AFP
Hezbollah denies involvement in deadly attack on UN
peacekeepers
LBCI/April 18/2026 |
Hezbollah on Saturday denied it was involved in a deadly attack on United
Nations peacekeepers (UNIFIL) in South Lebanon, after France accused the group
of being behind the incident. "Hezbollah denies any connection to the incident
that occurred with UNIFIL forces in the Ghandouriyeh-Bint Jbeil area, and calls
for caution in making judgments and assigning responsibilities regarding the
incident pending the Lebanese Army's investigations to determine the full
circumstances of the incident," the group said in a statement. One peacekeeper
was killed and three others wounded from the French battalion, with Paris
blaming Hezbollah. AFP
Lebanese Army chief visits frontline unit, praises troops
after ceasefire takes effect
LBCI/April 18/2026 |
The Lebanese Army Commander, General Rodolph Haykal, inspected the Fifth
Intervention Regiment in Kfar Dounine, where he reviewed the operational
situation following the implementation of the ceasefire. During the visit,
Haykal met with officers and soldiers, commending their sacrifices, courage, and
strong commitment to their mission and to the country despite ongoing challenges
and limited resources. “The country is counting on the army today, and the
Lebanese people are looking to it in this difficult phase of our history,” he
said, stressing that the institution remains strong and cohesive. “The
leadership is proud of you and your professional performance. Rise to the
challenges ahead,” he added, addressing the troops stationed in South Lebanon.
Ceasefire under fire: Israel adapts "yellow line" strategy in South Lebanon
LBCI/April 18/2026 |
Israel has extended a military model it previously applied in Gaza to South
Lebanon, establishing what it calls a "yellow line" to reinforce its security
along the northern front. Israeli military officials describe the line as a key
security buffer. It is expected to include villages that Israeli forces have
entered and are in the process of destroying, with plans to establish military
positions within them. According to Israeli military sources cited by army
radio, the plan tied to the ceasefire involves setting up what is also referred
to as an anti-tank missile line. This zone would stretch several kilometers
inside Lebanese territory—ranging from a few kilometers up to around 10
kilometers—and encompass roughly 55 villages whose residents would not be
allowed to return. The plan also mentioned continued operations during the
ceasefire to dismantle infrastructure linked to Hezbollah. As for Hezbollah
fighters who remain in areas now considered within this buffer zone—particularly
in towns such as Bint Jbeil—Israeli officials say they would be given the option
to surrender or face targeted strikes once located. Israeli army radio reported
that troops have been instructed to strike any identified threats based on
intelligence gathered by drones that continue to operate over South Lebanon.
Despite the escalation in tactics, Israeli military assessments cited in the
report conclude that achieving long-term calm along the northern border
ultimately depends on reaching a political agreement, rather than relying solely
on continued rounds of fighting.
Ceasefire politics: How regional pressure and US
intervention brought a fragile truce to Lebanon
LBCI/April 18/2026 |
The ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel has triggered a wave of political
claims, with multiple sides rushing to take credit for halting the war. From
Iran to the Arab states and the United States, each has pointed to its role. The
reality behind the truce reflects a convergence of overlapping efforts rather
than a single decision. At the center of the final decision was U.S. President
Donald Trump, who ultimately pushed for the ceasefire and exerted direct
pressure on Israel to halt operations. According to political accounts, Israel
had initially resisted ending the war, seeking to separate the Lebanese front
from the broader U.S.-Iran confrontation and continue its campaign against
Hezbollah. After days of discussions, Tehran secured Lebanon's inclusion in a
broader understanding, a development that coincided with heightened regional
tension, including moves related to the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Lebanese
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri was reportedly informed of the impending
ceasefire by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf shortly before
its announcement. At the same time, a group of regional powers—including Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey—moved to influence the outcome. These
countries, wary of both the escalation of Iranian influence and the risks of a
broader sectarian conflict, sought to balance the equation by engaging
diplomatically and preventing any single actor from dominating the scene. Saudi
Arabia played a particularly active role through direct communications, while
Egypt also applied pressure, notably during high-level contacts in Washington.
Messages relayed through diplomatic channels underscored the urgency of reaching
a ceasefire. Internally, the Lebanese state also contributed to the shift.
Diplomatic engagement led by Lebanon's ambassador in Washington signaled
readiness to enter negotiations with Israel, provided a ceasefire was secured.
This position, later reinforced by President Joseph Aoun, gave Washington
additional leverage in pressing Israel, framing de-escalation as a gateway to
potential talks. Discussions on the next phase have already begun. Aoun and
Prime Minister officials held meetings to assess post-ceasefire readiness and
outline Lebanon's approach to negotiations. Meanwhile, U.S. envoy Tom
Barrack noted that key actors, including Hezbollah and Iran, remain outside the
formal negotiation framework, calling for a separate track that does not involve
military elimination.
Despite the announcement, the ceasefire has shown signs of fragility, with
violations reported almost immediately. Israeli actions on the ground suggest an
attempt to impose new rules, including the establishment of what it calls a
"yellow line" security zone in South Lebanon, where it intends to continue
military operations. As the situation evolves, the truce's durability remains
uncertain. The key question now is how Hezbollah will respond to ongoing
violations, and whether the Lebanese state can navigate the delicate balance
between containing escalation and turning a shaky ceasefire into a lasting end
to the conflict.
Naim Qassem: Hezbollah remains open to maximum cooperation with state
authorities
LBCI/April 18/2026 |
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem declared in a speech following
the commencement of a temporary ceasefire that "the battlefield has had the
final word," asserting that the resistance forced Israel to concede to Lebanese
sovereignty.
Qassem emphasized that the current cessation of hostilities was only made
possible by the "legendary performance" of fighters on the southern borders. He
noted that the resistance successfully blocked the Israeli military from
reaching the Litani River despite the deployment of 100,000 soldiers.
The Hezbollah leader took sharp aim at a U.S. State Department publication
titled "Ceasefire Agreement between Lebanon and Israel – April 2026." Qassem
characterized the document as an "insult" to Lebanese dignity, claiming it
falsely implied the Lebanese government had formally agreed to a text drafted by
Washington. "It is an insult to our country that America dictates the text and
speaks on behalf of the Lebanese government," Qassem stated. "Enough of these
humiliations in direct negotiations... where tyranny gathers around the prey."
The statement expressed significant gratitude toward Iran and Pakistan for their
roles in the diplomatic and strategic pressure campaign. Qassem specifically
linked the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to the U.S. and Israel finally
adhering to the ceasefire demands, noting that Hezbollah tracked these
developments "moment by moment."While the current ceasefire is in effect, Qassem
warned that fighters remain "with their fingers on the trigger" and will respond
to any Israeli violations. He outlined a five-point roadmap for a lasting
resolution:
1. Permanent cessation of all Israeli aggression by air, land, and sea.
2. Full withdrawal of Israeli forces to the international borders.
3. Release of all prisoners.
4. The return of displaced residents to their border villages.
5. Reconstruction efforts backed by international and Arab support.
Qassem concluded by calling for a "new page" in Lebanese internal politics,
urging for national unity to prevent foreign "guardianship" and to invest in a
national security strategy that protects Lebanon's sovereignty. He stressed that
Hezbollah remains open to maximum cooperation with state authorities to rebuild
the country and safeguard its citizens.
Israeli army carries out
demolitions in south Lebanon town: state media
AFP/April 18, 2026
BEIRUT, Lebanon: Israeli forces on Saturday carried out demolitions in the
southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbeil, the scene of intense fighting with
Hezbollah prior to the recently agreed 10-day truce, Lebanese state media
reported. “The Israeli enemy is repeating its house detonating operations in the
town of Bint Jbeil,” Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA) said, also
reporting demolitions in other border towns where Israeli troops are present.
Bint Jbeil, located around five kilometers north of the Israeli border, had been
the scene of heavy fighting between Israeli forces and Hezbollah for days before
the truce went into force at midnight on Thursday. The town has long been both a
symbolic and strategic flashpoint in confrontations between Israel and
Hezbollah. It was the site of some of the fiercest fighting during the 2006 war,
when Hezbollah’s resistance there became central to the group’s narrative of
defiance. And it was from the stadium in Bint Jbeil in 2000 that the group’s
former chief Hassan Nasrallah delivered his “Liberation” speech following
Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon after 22 years of occupation. Israeli
Defense Minister Israel Katz has previously said house demolitions would be
carried out “in order to remove once and for all the border-adjacent threats” as
part of efforts to establish a security zone in south Lebanon. His Lebanese
counterpart Michel Menassa decried the plans as evidence of an intention to
“forcibly displace hundreds of thousands of citizens, and systematically destroy
villages.”After a November 2024 ceasefire sought to end the last conflict
between Israel and Hezbollah — during which Nasrallah and other top leaders were
killed — Israeli troops also carried out a series of demolitions in certain
towns.
How Israeli strikes on paramedics are hindering rescue efforts in Lebanon
NAJIA HOUSSARI/Arab News/April 18,
2026
BEIRUT: Wael Mousawi, a 35-year-old Civil Defense responder in Tyre, says he has
spent weeks moving “between death and death,” pulling bodies from the rubble of
flattened homes in southern Lebanon as rescue teams struggled to keep pace with
the scale of destruction.
Paramedics and rescue workers across the country have been caught in the
crossfire of the latest war between Israel and Hezbollah, rushing into areas
civilians are fleeing, searching for survivors and navigating roads cratered by
airstrikes. The dangers have slowed rescue efforts, leaving victims trapped
beneath rubble for days and further straining already stretched healthcare
systems. “There was no protection for paramedics,” Mousawi told Arab News. “We
kept going because people depended on us. These were our communities — our
families, our friends.”Within minutes of major strikes, hospitals and rescue
teams were overwhelmed with casualties, many suffering severe injuries caused by
collapsing buildings — a pattern paramedics and doctors say has defined the
conflict. “It was rare to find survivors under collapsed buildings,” Mousawi
said. “The weapons used were devastating. In many places, bodies remain buried
under the rubble because it was impossible to retrieve them.”Rescue teams were
often forced to withdraw mid-operation due to renewed strikes or the threat of
follow-up attacks. In other cases, they faced impossible choices, pulling out
those they could reach while leaving others behind because of urgent needs
elsewhere. “One of the hardest moments is knowing there are people still under
the rubble, and you have to leave,” Mousawi said.
FASTFACTS:
• Lebanese Red Cross says its teams operate under principles of neutrality,
impartiality, and independence, that paramedics are protected under
international law.
• Israel accuses Hezbollah of “cynical and systematic use of medical
infrastructure and civilians for military purposes.”
Lebanese authorities and humanitarian organizations say dozens of paramedics
have been killed and hundreds injured during the conflict, which lasted more
than six weeks before a 10-day ceasefire took effect on Thursday.
According to official figures, 67 paramedics affiliated with the Islamic Health
Authority were killed and more than 150 injured, while 73 ambulances and 17
emergency centers were damaged. Civil Defense and Red Cross teams also reported
casualties, alongside repeated strikes on clearly marked emergency vehicles.
The Lebanese Health Ministry described the targeting of paramedics as a “war
crime,” citing recorded attacks on rescue teams in the southern town of
Mayfadoun while responding to strikes days before the ceasefire.
In one case, a paramedic team was hit while attempting to evacuate casualties,
triggering further rescue attempts that were also struck, resulting in
additional deaths and injuries. In another, two paramedics — Ali Jaber and Jawad
Suleiman — were killed in late March while traveling on a clearly marked rescue
motorcycle. The Lebanese Red Cross said its teams were operating under
internationally recognized humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality,
and independence, stressing that paramedics are protected under international
law.
It condemned the attacks as “clear violations,” emphasizing that paramedics are
not military targets and must be protected under international conventions.
Israel, however, has accused Hezbollah of using ambulances to transport fighters
and weapons — an allegation the group denies.
In a late-March incident, the the Israel military said it had “struck a cell of
Hezbollah military operatives who were dressed as paramedics and operated near
an ambulance in southern Lebanon.”
“The military operatives targeted in the strike systematically used ambulances
to transfer weapons between northern to southern Lebanon, as part of ongoing
terrorist activities, using the ambulances to conduct terror attacks against IDF
soldiers and the State of Israel,” the military said.
“In the past month alone, dozens of rockets have been launched toward the State
of Israel and at IDF soldiers from areas in which these terrorists operated,
while they exploited ambulances and medical infrastructure for military
purposes.”
It added: “The use of ambulances and medical teams to conceal terrorist
activities constitutes a severe violation of international law. Under IDF
directives and in accordance with international law, medical teams are afforded
special protection, provided they do not engage in hostile acts outside their
humanitarian duties and subject to the conditions established under the law.”
Hezbollah drew Lebanon into the war when it launched rockets into northern
Israel on March 2. Israel’s retaliation has since killed more than 2,200 people,
wounded 7,000 others, and displaced around 1.2 million — with many forced to
live in tents. Under the truce terms announced on Thursday, Israel said it would
retain the right to strike Hezbollah to stop “planned, imminent, or ongoing
attacks,” while maintaining a 10-km security buffer along southern Lebanon’s
border.
Details released by the US State Department say Lebanon “with international
support ... will take meaningful steps to prevent Hezbollah” from carrying out
attacks. Hezbollah, heavily hit by Israeli airstrikes and ground operations, has
signaled it will adhere to the ceasefire unless Lebanon comes under attack
again. “The fighters will keep their finger on the trigger because they are wary
of the enemy’s treachery,” the group said. The ceasefire is seen as part of a
broader diplomatic push tied to US-Iran negotiations. US President Donald Trump
said Washington and Tehran were “very close” to reaching a deal, adding he had
spoken with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Lebanese President
Joseph Aoun ahead of the truce. In a statement on Thursday, the Saudi Ministry
of Foreign Affairs welcomed the ceasefire and commended the role played by Aoun,
Salam, and parliament speaker Nabih Berri. “The Kingdom reaffirms its support
for the Lebanese state in extending its sovereignty, ensuring that arms remain
exclusively in the hands of the state and its legitimate institutions,
undertaking reform steps, and for its efforts to preserve Lebanon’s resources,
territorial integrity and safety,” the statement added. Responding to the
ceasefire, Mairav Zonszein, senior Israel analyst at International Crisis Group,
said: “While negotiations between Lebanon and Israel are a historic opportunity,
the prospects of achieving a lasting peace or even a viable security agreement
still seem remote.
“Nevertheless, a diplomatic track that strengthens the Lebanese government and
sees a gradual withdrawal of Israeli presence will contribute to weakening
Hezbollah politically.” Back on the ground, Mousawi says the scale of
destruction is difficult to comprehend. Entire areas south of the Litani River
have been reduced to rubble, with buildings, roads, and infrastructure
flattened.
First responders carry a body into an ambulance at the site of an Israeli
airstrike in the southern Lebanese village of Abbasiyeh, on the outskirts of
Tyre, on April 15, 2026. His work has come at a personal cost. Mousawi’s father,
also an emergency first responder in the Civil Defense, was killed during a
recent rescue operation. His brother now serves in the army. “We never had a
moment of rest,” Mousawi said. “Even while drinking water or eating, we stayed
on alert, ready to respond to the next strike.”In the days leading up to the
ceasefire, he said there were no longer any evacuation warnings ahead of
strikes. UNIFIL peacekeepers in the south were also among those killed,
according to the UN.
Despite the carnage, some residents have chosen to return even under
bombardment. “Many families had nowhere else to go and couldn’t afford to rent
places to stay in. They chose to risk death in their villages rather than face
displacement,” said Mousawi. When the ceasefire took effect, paramedics shifted
from rescue operations to organizing the return of displaced residents, issuing
safety guidance via social media and warning of ongoing risks despite the
relative calm.
People watch the restoration work at the site of Israeli strikes that targeted
the Qasmieh bridge built over the Litani river in the southern Lebanese area of
Al Qasmiyeh on April 17, 2026, as displaced residents prepare to travel back to
their homes. At the entrances to Beirut’s southern suburbs, in Sidon, and along
roads leading to accessible villages north of the Litani River, paramedics urged
residents to wait until daylight, confirm routes were safe, avoid damaged
buildings, check for gas leaks or electrical hazards, use clean water, keep
children away from debris, and report suspicious objects immediately.
They also advised travelers to ensure their vehicles had enough fuel due to the
lack of functioning stations in heavily targeted areas.
Despite the ceasefire, the psychological toll on paramedics remains immense.
“There was no time for emotion,” Mousawi said. “Our minds had to guide us
through fire, smoke and blood. We could not collapse because people depended on
us. “This time, everything — people and homes — was destroyed.”
A divided Lebanon is facing a
moment of reckoning
Hussein Chokr/Arab News/April
18/2026
When “peace” becomes synonymous with chaos, you can be certain Israel is there.
No state in the region has practiced violence and bloodshed in the name of peace
as systematically as Israel. Nor has it seen a person more brazen than Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who calls for peace through killing and
destruction. Within 10 minutes, he unleashes 100 airstrikes on Lebanon, killing
more than 300 civilians and wounding over 1,150. The next day, he appears before
the world announcing his readiness to enter negotiations with Lebanon for peace
and the disarmament of Hezbollah.
However, the real danger lies elsewhere — in how the Lebanese government will
respond. The question is whether it possesses the political maturity to navigate
this existentially sensitive moment, or whether it will succumb to the kind of
recklessness that risks plunging Lebanon into a new phase of chaos.
Why call it recklessness? Because it risks enabling Netanyahu’s strategic
cunning to ignite an internal rupture in Lebanon, potentially the most severe
since the end of the civil war in 1990. Across a region where few would wish for
anything short of Netanyahu’s political demise, it is striking to see the
Lebanese government’s political establishment extending him what amounts to a
lifeline, pulling him back from the brink of collapse triggered by the early
outcomes of the war on Iran and Lebanon.
Today, history risks repeating itself
On April 8, US President Donald Trump, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi,
and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced a two-week ceasefire meant
to pave the way for a broader settlement. Sharif, acting as mediator, explicitly
stated that Lebanon was included. Israel, however, continued its strikes. As
pressure mounted on Washington, Netanyahu sought relief by suddenly accepting
Lebanon’s earlier call for negotiations, after previously rejecting diplomacy
and insisting on imposing a buffer zone by force up to the Litani River. He said
the goals were Hezbollah’s disarmament and a “peace process” with Lebanon.
Within minutes, signals emerged from within the Lebanese government indicating a
willingness to proceed, culminating in a meeting between the Lebanese and
Israeli ambassadors to the US in Washington, followed by a declaration from
Trump that he would invite the Lebanese president and Netanyahu to conclude a
peace deal. Such a move, however, is not merely provocative to a large segment
of Lebanese society, particularly the Shiite community, which stands on the
front lines of Israeli aggression, but also represents, if aligned with
Netanyahu’s objectives, an existential threat. Why? Because for this segment,
Israel is not a conventional adversary but an existential one — one that has
systematically oppressed them since 1948. In the absence of a functioning state
capable of ensuring their security, they turned to resistance. What began as a
leftist national resistance evolved into an Islamic one, embodied in
Hezbollah.Thus, a government decision to pursue negotiations aimed at forcibly
disarming Hezbollah, without a credible alternative security framework strips
this community of its sense of safety and right to self-defense, especially
after they saw the Lebanese army withdrawing from positions during the latest
Israeli incursion. The country’s crisis is foundational
For those familiar with Lebanon, the implications are clear. Advancing such a
path without addressing these fears is a near-perfect recipe for internal
sectarian conflict echoing the Feb. 6, 1984 intifada, which erupted in response
to a peace agreement imposed under Israeli influence and supported by the
Lebanese right against other Lebanese factions that viewed Israel as an
existential enemy. Today, history risks repeating itself, rather than serving as
a lesson. Nation-building requires an inclusive partnership that accommodates
the interests and anxieties of all societal groups. Without this, no sustainable
national identity can emerge, and Lebanon remains trapped in cycles of
instability. At its core, Lebanon’s crisis is foundational. It traces back to
the very formation of the state — an entity that, were it not for the
contingencies of history and the pressures of its time, may never have emerged
in its current form. Its founding under the French mandate, and the role of
elites who shaped the state to serve their own interests, created a structural
imbalance.These elites accepted the new geography of greater Lebanon
incorporating the Bekaa, the south, and the north, but rejected the human
demographic reality of these regions. They failed to integrate the fears,
aspirations, and expectations of these populations into the national project.
The result is a persistent sense of marginalization among these communities, who
continue to view themselves as peripheral without voice or rights.
Lebanon today struggles to agree on even the most basic foundations of statehood
beyond symbolic formalities. It cannot even define its enemy. Unlike functioning
states, there is no unified conception of national security that clearly
articulates the country’s interests or the threats it faces. In such a vacuum,
decisions of war, peace, and survival are left exposed to fragmentation,
improvization, and external manipulation. If this moment passes without a
fundamental reckoning, Lebanon will not simply risk another cycle of
instability, it will be edging closer to a far more dangerous reality: a state
that no longer collapses under pressure, but one that dissolves from within.
**Hussein Chokr is a Beirut-based policy expert. X: @HuseinChokr
How the Iran
war is helping Lebanon and Israel tiptoe toward peace
Mark Dubowitz and Ben Cohen/New York Post/April 18/2026 |
One of the paradoxes of war is that it can jolt peacemakers into action when
conventional diplomacy fails. That’s what appears to be underway right now
between Israel and Lebanon. As a direct result of the success of the combined
US-Israeli operations against the regime in Tehran, President Donald Trump has
launched an unprecedented effort to forge a lasting peace between these two
neighbors. And a 10-day cease-fire, announced Thursday, could be the first step
on that road.
At the heart of the challenge lies the Hezbollah terrorist organization.
Of all of Iran’s terrorist proxies in the Middle East, Hezbollah has posed the
gravest danger to Israel and the West more broadly. Since its 1983 suicide
bombing that slaughtered 241 US servicemembers and 58 French paratroopers in
Beirut, Hezbollah has killed, kidnapped and tortured Americans. It’s fired
thousands of missiles and drones against Israeli civilians — weapons it
shouldn’t possess in the first place. Hezbollah was meant to disarm in 2006
under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which left the Lebanese army as the
only legitimate military force in the country.
Yet 20 years later, despite being severely degraded by the Israel Defense
Forces, Hezbollah still retains its weapons. With up to 50,000 fighters in its
ranks and tens of thousands of missiles still in its arsenal, no one should be
under the illusion that disarming Hezbollah will be easy. Widespread skepticism
that such an outcome can be achieved through diplomacy prevails in both Israel
and Lebanon. Even so, the United States has rightly grabbed the current
opportunity to overcome the dynamic of repeated wars while understanding that it
is only Israeli military success that has made this moment possible.
Led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the effort aims to secure an enduring
peace agreement between two small neighbors — with a combined territory about
the size of Maryland. Rubio conducted preliminary talks on Tuesday with the
Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors in Washington. On Thursday, Trump announced
that Israel had agreed to a 10-day cease-fire, creating the space for
substantive negotiations between Jerusalem and Beirut. Peace between the two
countries would give Israel the secure northern border it has lacked for
decades. Lebanon would benefit by finally becoming a fully independent country —
freed from Hezbollah threats of a renewed civil war, and no longer cowed by
powerful neighbors like Syria and Iran that have historically bullied,
marginalized, threatened and killed Lebanese political leaders.
Given the domestic power that Hezbollah wields, it’s not surprising that
Lebanese leaders have feared even speaking to their Israeli counterparts, let
alone drawing up agreements with them. That they’re doing so now underscores the
damage that the Israeli military has done to Hezbollah in recent weeks. It’s now
abundantly clear that both the Lebanese government and Israel understand they
have a mutual interest in dismantling Hezbollah.
A major psychological threshold has been crossed as a result. When the United
States helped broker a maritime agreement between the two in 2022, Lebanese
delegates at the signing ceremony were careful to avoid even eye contact with
the Israelis.
This week’s open, direct contacts and public discussions of peace suggest that
the prospect of Lebanon confronting Hezbollah internally is no longer a distant
dream.
Through a careful combination of diplomacy and force when necessary, it’s now an
attainable goal.Practically speaking, the Lebanese Armed Forces aren’t capable
of disarming Hezbollah by force. But whether Beirut admits it publicly or not,
IDF successes on the battlefield — including the recent one-day elimination of
250 Hezbollah commanders and fighters — can only accelerate the Lebanese
government’s goal of becoming the country’s sole sovereign authority. After all,
Israel has no interest in controlling Lebanese territory: Its forces only remain
in southern Lebanon to counter Hezbollah’s continued attacks on northern Israeli
communities.
The momentum is on Israel’s side.
With Tehran’s economy tanking, the Iranian regime is increasingly unable to bail
out its Hezbollah proxy. Now Trump should prevail on Lebanese President Joseph
Aoun to follow through on his pledge to make his government “the sole authority
responsible” for national security. That means standing up to Hezbollah by
openly engaging with Israel.
Negotiations rarely proceed smoothly, so it’s unrealistic to imagine a linear
process from ceasefire to negotiations to a peace agreement. Hezbollah is
determined to sabotage every step along the way.But Israeli strikes on the
terrorists’ bases, operatives and missile silos are a necessary condition for
meaningful talks. Every blow against Hezbollah strengthens the Lebanese
government’s position. Under any final agreement, Hezbollah’s entire arsenal
would need to be confiscated or ideally destroyed outright. That may be months
if not years on the horizon. But the newfound willingness of Lebanon’s
government to act independently of Hezbollah — and the growing impatience among
ordinary Lebanese citizens at Hezbollah’s exploitation of their country as a
forward base for Iran — means there’s no time like the present. Mark Dubowitz is
chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the presenter
of “The Iran Breakdown” podcast. Ben Cohen is a research fellow at FDD.
https://nypost.com/2026/04/16/opinion/how-the-iran-war-helps-lebanon-and-israel-tiptoe-toward-peace/
Read in New York Post
Selective Outrage:
When Hezbollah Attacks
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/April 18, 2026
[T]he latest escalation in hostilities did not begin with Israel. It began with
Hezbollah.
Israel found itself faced with ongoing rocket fire from Lebanon and the presence
of a heavily armed group on its border – in contravention of UN Security Council
Resolution 1701, which had unanimously required of Lebanon: "three principles --
no foreign forces, no weapons for nongovernmental militias, and no independent
authority separate from the central government -- as vital to a lasting Lebanese
peace."Hezbollah's operational tactics, like those of Hamas and other terrorist
groups, is to embed its military infrastructure within civilian areas — hiding
weapons, command centers and operational assets in densely populated
neighborhoods.... With Hezbollah's military targets located in homes, hospitals
and schools within civilian population centers, any efforts to neutralize them
carry the tragic possibility of unavoidably harming civilians. It is a strategy
deliberately designed to constrain Israel's responses and generate international
backlash against it.Responsibility for these war crimes lies squarely with
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, which deliberately orchestrated them.
Any resulting casualties cannot be judged outside this context.
In 2024, Hezbollah violated its ceasefire with Israel and also attacked in 2025
at Iran's behest. Israel's response comports with what any sovereign state would
do when confronted with attacks on its territory and civilian population.
If there is to be any meaningful discussion about stability in the Middle East,
it needs to begin with an honest acknowledgment of these realities. Otherwise,
international reactions will continue to mischaracterize the problem by
criticizing responses while overlooking their causes -- and contributing to the
conflict rather than to its resolution. Hezbollah's operational tactics, like
those of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is to embed its military
infrastructure within civilian areas — hiding weapons, command centers and
operational assets in densely populated neighborhoods. With Hezbollah's military
targets located in homes, hospitals and schools within civilian population
centers, any efforts to neutralize them carry the tragic possibility of
unavoidably harming civilians. It is a strategy deliberately designed to
constrain Israel's responses and generate international backlash against it.
Once again, large segments of the international community, from the United
Nations to key European governments, appear either unwilling or unable to
confront the basic and uncomfortable reality that the latest escalation in
hostilities did not begin with Israel. It began with Hezbollah.
This silence — or at best, selective acknowledgment — when, without provocation,
rockets were launched into Israel, stands in blazing contrast to the instant
outrage when Israel responds. That imbalance is not just dishonest; it distorts
the foundation of how conflicts like this are understood.
One must begin with the simple but critical fact that there was no active,
large-scale conflict between Israel and Hezbollah at the time the current
escalation began. Israel was, however, facing direct threats and attacks in a
broader confrontation with Iran. It was precisely then — when Israel was under
pressure — that Hezbollah chose to act. The timing reflects a calculated
decision to open a second front against Israel with the clear intention of
intensifying the strain on its defenses.
What would any other country do if it were under attack by an enemy, and
suddenly faced missile barrages into its towns and cities? Would it just stare
at the sky and watch?
Presumably no state — whether in Europe, Asia, or the Americas — would tolerate
such a situation. The seeming expectation that Israel, smaller than the state of
New Jersey (roughly 22,000 sq. km), should absorb such attacks without a
decisive response is not only unrealistic; it is fundamentally inconsistent with
how sovereignty and self-defense are globally understood. Hezbollah is not just
some independent force acting in isolation. It is, by its own admission, founded
by, intertwined with, and dependent on the Islamic Republic of Iran. "Hezbollah
arose in the wake of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution," according to Middle East
expert Hussain Abdul-Hussain, "as part of an effort to establish an Islamic
state in a Lebanon fractured by warring militias."
Hezbollah's weapons, funding, and strategic direction are explicitly linked to
Tehran. Such a relationship transforms Hezbollah's actions from spontaneous,
isolated incidents into components of a broader regional strategy. When
Hezbollah acts, it is not just a local terrorist group making tactical decisions
— it is an extension of a regional power's geopolitical agenda.
When considering ceasefires or diplomatic arrangements – for instance, Iran
accepting a ceasefire while Hezbollah continued its attacks – the contrast
exposes that any ceasefire failing to restrain Iran's most powerful proxy
remains incomplete. It allows the conflict to persist through indirect means,
through the back door, while maintaining the only pretense of de-escalation.
Such agreements are pretty much worthless.
Israel's response, therefore, must be understood within that broader context.
Israel found itself faced with ongoing rocket fire from Lebanon and the presence
of a heavily armed group on its border – in contravention of UN Security Council
Resolution 1701, which had unanimously required of Lebanon:
"three principles -- no foreign forces, no weapons for nongovernmental militias,
and no independent authority separate from the central government -- as vital to
a lasting Lebanese peace. Underlying these principles was the recognition that
while the flow of arms to terrorist groups like Hizballah is the most immediate
threat to stability in Lebanon, the true key to long-term peace is an empowered
and capable central government in Beirut."
None of this, of course, took place. Instead, Hezbollah basically seized control
of Lebanon, proceeding to cement domination over the military and the media, as
well as having veto power over Lebanon's cabinet. Hezbollah positioned itself
along Lebanon's short, 80 km border with Israel, and deployed approximately
150,000 rockets and missiles, aimed at Israel's towns and cities.
Israel, after being attacked, unsurprisingly acted to neutralize the threat.
Critics sometimes focus on the scale of Israeli operations, but scale alone is
not the only valid metric on which to base judgment. The relevant question is:
Does a state have the right to defend itself against an armed group attacking it
and openly seeking its elimination? By any conventional standard of
international relations, the answer is yes.
Hezbollah's operational tactics, like those of Hamas and other terrorist groups,
is to embed its military infrastructure within civilian areas — hiding weapons,
command centers and operational assets in densely populated neighborhoods. This
positioning deliberately creates a tragic and intended dilemma. With Hezbollah's
military targets located in homes, hospitals and schools within civilian
population centers, any efforts to neutralize them carry the tragic possibility
of unavoidably harming civilians. It is a strategy deliberately designed to
constrain Israel's responses and generate international backlash against it.
The use of military infrastructure within a civilian population violates
international humanitarian law and constitutes a war crime when it intentionally
places civilians at risk. Responsibility for these war crimes lies squarely with
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, which deliberately orchestrated them.
Any resulting casualties cannot be judged outside this context.
Global reaction, however, disregarding who is actually responsible for these war
crimes, as planned, follows a predictable and troubling pattern. Initial acts of
aggression by Hezbollah of Hamas receive no attention or are framed ambiguously.
When Israel responds, however, the narrative shifts dramatically and becomes a
declaration of "It all started when he hit me back!" This call is followed by
sympathy for the false grievance, widespread condemnation of Israel, which was
attacked, and self-righteous, misplaced calls for its restraint. It is a pattern
that reverses cause and effect, and focuses instead on the response while
downplaying — or ignoring — the aggression. Such an approach does not contribute
to peace; it slyly perpetuates getting the facts wrong. Possibly there are those
who do not want the outcome of the conflict to align with the facts.
For nearly 80 years, tiny Israel has faced open and persistent threats to its
existence from most of the 57 members of the Organisation of Islamic
Cooperation, working with the support of Russia and much of Europe. Recent
attacks from Lebanon -- opening a second front on Israel's north in addition to
Hamas's on its south -- is a condition that no country could tolerate. The
expectation that Israel should allow itself to be defeated is not simply
unrealistic, it is detached from the norms applied to all other nations.
In 2024, Hezbollah violated its ceasefire with Israel and also attacked in 2025
at Iran's behest. Israel's response comports with what any sovereign state would
do when confronted with attacks on its territory and civilian population.
If there is to be any meaningful discussion about stability in the Middle East,
it needs to begin with an honest acknowledgment of these realities. Otherwise,
international reactions will continue to mischaracterize the problem by
criticizing responses while overlooking their causes -- and contributing to the
conflict rather than to its resolution.
**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)
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 18-19/2026
Iran closes Hormuz Strait again, as Trump warns against ‘blackmail’
AFP/18 April/2026
Iran’s military declared the Strait of Hormuz closed again on Saturday,
prompting ships to abandon attempts to transit the waterway and President Donald
Trump to warn Tehran against trying to “blackmail” the United States. On Friday,
Tehran had declared the strait, which usually carries a fifth of the world’s oil
and liquefied natural gas, open after a ceasefire was agreed in Israel’s war
with Iran’s ally Hezbollah in Lebanon. This prompted elation in global markets
and sent oil prices plunging but, with Trump insisting that a US naval blockade
of Iranian ports would continue until a deal to end the wider Middle East war
was concluded, Tehran threatened to shutter the strait once more. Late on
Saturday morning, Iran’s central military command said that, in response to the
US blockade, “control of the Strait of Hormuz has returned to its previous
status” and “is under strict management and control of the armed forces.” Trump
had previously said the two sides were “very close” to striking a deal, but
following Iran’s announcement on Saturday, he insisted Tehran “can’t blackmail
us,” even as he maintained communications were ongoing. “We’ll be talking about
Iran later. We have very good conversations going on,” he added, accusing Tehran
of getting “a little cute” with its recent moves. Iran’s top national security
body, meanwhile, said that during a visit by the military chief of mediator
Pakistan that concluded Saturday, “new proposals have been put forward by the
Americans, which the Islamic Republic of Iran is currently reviewing and has not
yet responded to.”It went on to say, however, that Iran’s negotiating delegation
would not offer “even the slightest compromise, retreat or leniency” in talks
with Washington.
Four days left
There are just four days remaining before the end of the two-week ceasefire in
the US and Israel’s war on Iran, launched by Washington and its ally on February
28.Nevertheless, Trump has appeared convinced that a deal could be finished
shortly, and has made a series of social media posts praising talks mediator
Pakistan.Islamabad has emerged as the lead mediator during the conflict, hosting
a marathon first round of talks last weekend, with a second expected in the
Pakistani capital this coming week.
Iran says reviewing ‘new proposals’ from United States
AFP/18 April/2026
Iran’s top national security body said Saturday that the country was reviewing
“new proposals” received from the United States, even as it warned that its
negotiators would cut no compromises with Washington. “In recent days, with the
presence of the commander of the Pakistani army in Tehran as an intermediary and
mediator in the negotiations, new proposals have been put forward by the
Americans, which the Islamic Republic of Iran is currently reviewing and has not
yet responded to,” the Supreme National Security Council said in a statement
carried by state media. It went on to say that Iran’s negotiating delegation
“will not make even the slightest compromise, retreat or leniency, and will
defend with all its strength the interests of the Iranian nation.”Pakistan has
emerged as the main mediator between the two foes and hosted an initial round of
talks last week that ended without an agreement. The disclosure of the new
proposals came hours after Iran declared that it was reimposing its closure of
the Strait of Hormuz over an ongoing US blockade of its ports, prompting a
warning from US President Donald Trump not to try to “blackmail” Washington. The
Supreme National Security Council said, “Iran is determined to enforce
supervision and control over traffic through the Strait of Hormuz until the
definitive end of the war,” insisting the US blockade would preclude even a
“conditional and limited reopening.” The council said such a reopening would
involve Tehran issuing transit certificates to vessels, as well as requiring
payment of fees related to services for security, safety and environmental
protection.”
Iran’s navy tells ships Strait of Hormuz shut again, two
vessels report gunfire
Reuters/18 April/2026
Merchant vessels attempting to cross the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday received
radio messages from Iran’s navy telling them they were not allowed to pass,
while two ships reported being hit by gunfire, shipping sources said. Several
commercial vessels tried to transit the strait after receiving a notice to
mariners a day earlier saying passage would be allowed but restricted to lanes
Iran deemed safe. On Saturday, at least two ships reported that Iranian boats
fired shots, shipping and maritime security sources told Reuters. The incidents
were reported in waters between the Qeshm and Larak islands. The vessels turned
back without completing the crossing, the sources said. The United Kingdom
Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) agency said it had received a report of an
incident 20 nautical miles northeast of Oman. The captain of a tanker said it
had been approached by two IRGC gunboats that fired on the vessel. The tanker
and its crew were safe. A container ship was also hit by gunfire, a maritime
security source said. Some vessels reported that Iran’s navy had been
broadcasting a VHF message saying the Strait of Hormuz was closed again.
“Attention all ships, regarding the failure of the US government to fulfil its
commitment in the negotiation, Iran declares the Strait of Hormuz completely
closed again. No vessel of any type or nationality is allowed to pass through
the Strait of Hormuz,” the radio message said. Hundreds of ships and about
20,000 seafarers remain stranded in the Gulf, waiting to pass through the key
waterway, which handles about 20 percent of global oil and liquefied natural gas
flows.
Iran’s top negotiator says
talks with US show progress but final deal ‘far off’
Reuters/AFP/April 19/2026
TEHRAN/WASHINGTON: Iran’s top negotiator said recent talks with the US had made
progress but gaps remained over nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz, while
President Donald Trump cited “very good conversations” with Tehran despite
warning against “blackmail” over the key shipping channel.
Neither side offered any specifics about the state of negotiations on Saturday,
days before a fragile ceasefire in the US-Israeli war against Iran is set to
expire. The war, now in its eighth week, has killed thousands, spread to Israeli
attacks in Lebanon and sent oil prices surging because of the de facto closure
of the strait, which before the war carried one-fifth of the world’s oil
shipments.“We have had progress but there is still a big distance between us,”
Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Baqher Qalibaf, told state media, referring to
talks last weekend. “There are some issues on which we insist ... They also
have red lines. But these issues could be just one or two.”Trump said the US
was having “very good conversations” but gave no other details. Tehran
reversed course on Saturday to reassert control over the strait, again closing
the energy choke point and adding fresh uncertainty to the war, which the US and
Israel launched on February 28. Iran said it was responding to a continued US
blockade of Iranian ports, calling it a violation of the ceasefire, while
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei said Iran’s navy was ready to inflict
“new bitter defeats” on its enemies. Trump called the move “blackmail” even as
he praised the talks. On Friday, Iran had announced the temporary reopening of
the Strait of Hormuz following a separate US-brokered 10-day ceasefire agreement
on Thursday between Israel and Lebanon.
Trump defended the US blockade and threatened "to start dropping bombs again"
unless the countries reached a long-term deal before the ceasefire expires on
Wednesday.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council said Tehran's control over the strait
included demanding the payment of costs related to security, safety and
environmental protection services, state media said. Qalibaf struck a sharply
critical tone toward Trump, accusing him of making false statements about the
negotiations. “In one hour, the US president made seven statements, and all
seven were lies,” Qalibaf wrote on social media on Saturday, adding that
Washington would not succeed in talks through misinformation. His remarks came
as Tehran confirmed it is reviewing new proposals presented by the US through
Pakistani mediation. A statement from Iran’s Supreme National Security Council
said the offers were delivered following a visit by Asim Munir, and that no
response had yet been issued. Iran stressed its negotiating team would not
compromise on core interests, signaling a firm stance despite ongoing diplomacy.
Meanwhile, Trump chaired a high-level meeting to discuss the strategic Strait of
Hormuz and the status of negotiations, highlighting the broader regional stakes.
Tensions between the United States and Iran have fluctuated for decades, rooted
in geopolitical rivalry, sanctions, and disputes over Iran’s nuclear and
regional policies. Efforts to reach agreements — including the landmark 2015
nuclear deal — have repeatedly faced setbacks, particularly after Washington’s
withdrawal from the accord in 2018. Recent diplomacy has intensified amid
heightened instability in the Middle East, where conflict dynamics and maritime
security concerns — especially around the Strait of Hormuz, a vital transit
route — have raised global alarm. Pakistan has emerged as an intermediary in the
latest round of contacts, reflecting broader regional efforts to prevent
escalation and stabilize energy flows. Despite periodic signals of progress,
negotiations have often stalled over core issues such as sanctions relief,
security guarantees, and the scope of any potential agreement — leaving the path
to a durable deal uncertain.
Iran reports 3,468 dead in war with US, Israel: official
AFP/April 18, 2026
TEHRAN: Iran’s state-run Foundation of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs said on
Saturday that the war with the United States and Israel had killed more than
3,400 people in the Islamic republic. The announcement comes in the midst of a
two-week ceasefire in the conflict, which erupted in late February with
US-Israeli strikes on Tehran. Foundation head Ahmad Mousavi was quoted by the
ISNA news agency as saying that 3,468 “martyrs... fell during the recent
conflict.” A previous toll from the head of the Iranian Legal Medicine
Organization issued on April 12 said 3,375 people in Iran had been killed in the
war.The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) said on April 7 that
at least 3,636 people had been killed, including 1,701 civilians — among them at
least 254 children — as well as 1,221 military personnel and 714 people whose
status had not been classified. Due to reporting restrictions, AFP is not able
to access the sites of strikes nor to independently verify tolls in Iran.
Iran’s Quds Force chief Qaani visits Iraq: senior official
AFP/April 18, 2026
BAGHDAD: Iranian commander Esmail Qaani arrived in Baghdad on Saturday to meet
political leaders and representatives of armed factions and to discuss the
Middle East war and its impact on Iraq, a senior Iraqi official told AFP.
Political deadlock over the nomination of Iraq’s next prime minister would also
be on the agenda, the official said of Qaani’s first reported trip abroad since
a US-Iran ceasefire began on April 8. Qaani, whose visits to Iraq are rarely
announced, heads the Quds Force, the foreign operations branch of Iran’s
Revolutionary Guards. Iraq has long walked a tightrope between the competing
influences of its allies — neighboring Iran and the United States — with Iraqi
leaders struggling to maintain a delicate balance between the two foes. Iraq was
drawn into the Middle East war with strikes targeting Iran-backed groups, which
in turn have claimed attacks on US interests, mostly in Iraq but also across the
wider region. The Iraqi official said Qaani was holding “meetings with Iraqi
political leaders and a number of commanders of armed factions,” adding that the
goal of the visit was to “address regional de-escalation and its impact on
Iraq.”Qaani “seeks to coordinate positions among Tehran’s allies in Iraq and to
ensure that the security situation does not deteriorate during these sensitive
times” in Iraq and the region, the official said. A source from a powerful
Tehran-backed faction and another two close to the Coordination Framework — a
ruling alliance of Shia groups with varying ties to Iran — confirmed the visit.
All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity. The visit is also part of
Iranian “efforts to support the path of understanding between Iraqi parties and
bridge their differences, especially amid ongoing disagreements over the
government,” the Iraqi senior official said.
Iraqi leaders have been stuck in a political deadlock since January, after US
President Donald Trump threatened to cut support for Iraq when the Coordination
Framework backed Nouri Al-Maliki to become the country’s next prime minister.
Trump said he would end all support for Iraq if Maliki, a two-time former prime
minister with close ties to Iran, returned to power. Several political sources
told AFP that the Coordination Framework will likely choose a new candidate
soon.
Turkey says Israel using
security as a pretext to acquire ‘more land’
AFP/18 April/2026
Turkey’s foreign minister on Saturday accused Israel of using security as a
pretext to acquire “more land.” “Israel is not after its own security. Israel is
after more land. Security is being used by the Netanyahu government as an excuse
to occupy more land,” Hakan Fidan told the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, referring to
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Tensions between Turkey and Israel
have steadily escalated since the Gaza war erupted following Hamas’s October 7,
2023, cross-border attack in Israel. “Israel has created an illusion
internationally, claiming that Israel is in favor of its own security but it has
become very clear, especially in the recent years ... it is more than that,”
Fidan said. He said from the Palestinian lands, Gaza, the West Bank, East
Jerusalem, and now towards Lebanon and Syria, it was “an onward occupation and
expansionism in the region.”“I think this has to stop.”“Israel has to know that
the only way to live peacefully in the region ... is to let the other countries
enjoy their own security, and territorial integrity, and freedom, not to use
power on those countries,” he added.
India flags ‘deep concerns’ over attack on two Indian ships in Strait of Hormuz
Reuters/18 April/2026
India said it had called in the Iranian envoy to New Delhi and flagged its “deep
concern” over the attack on two Indian-flagged ships attempting to cross the
Strait of Hormuz on Saturday. One of the vessels attacked was identified as the
Sanmar Herald, an Indian government source said.The crew on board and the vessel
were safe, the source said. India’s top foreign ministry official asked the
Iranian ambassador to convey India’s view to Iranian authorities and resume at
the earliest the process of facilitating India-bound ships across the strait, a
statement from the ministry said. The ambassador said he would convey these
views to Iranian authorities, the statement said.
Pope says he regrets his remarks interpreted as a debate
with Trump
AFP/18 April/2026
Pope Leo XIV said Saturday he regretted remarks he made were interpreted as a
response to criticism from President Donald Trump, insisting he had no interest
in debating the US leader. An example was a speech about “tyrants” ransacking
the world that he delivered in Cameroon on the second leg of a tour of Africa,
Leo told journalists as he travelled to Angola.The remarks had been written well
before Trump’s comment that he was “not a big fan” of the American pope. “And
yet it was perceived as if I were trying to start a new debate with the
president, which doesn’t interest me at all,” Leo said.
Saudi Arabia, Arab and Muslim countries, condemn Israel
appointment of envoy to Somaliland
Al Arabiya English//18 April/2026
Saudi Arabia and several Arab and Muslim countries condemned on Saturday
Israel’s announcement of a diplomatic representative “to the so-called
Somaliland.”The foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Libya,
Bangladesh, Algeria, Palestine, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and Kuwait said
Israel’s appointment of an envoy to Somaliland is “a flagrant violation of the
sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Somalia.”They also reaffirmed
their unequivocal rejection of all unilateral measures that undermine the unity
of states or infringe upon their sovereignty.”They added that such actions
“constitute a blatant violation of the principles of international law, the UN
Charter, and the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and set a dangerous
precedent that risks undermining stability in the Horn of Africa.”
Police kill shooter in Kyiv, president says five people
killed
Reuters/18 April/2026
Ukrainian police killed a man who opened fire in a district of Kyiv and
barricaded himself into a supermarket on Saturday in an incident that killed at
least five people. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, writing on the Telegram
messaging app, quoted Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko as saying that five people
had been killed in the city’s Holosiivskyi district and 10 were being treated in
hospital. Mayor Vitali Klitschko, also writing on Telegram, said a woman among
the 10 injured had died in hospital. “The shooter in Kyiv was liquidated during
the arrest,” Klymenko said on Telegram. “Special forces of the...national police
stormed the store where the attacker was. He took people hostage and shot at a
policeman during his detention. Before that, negotiators tried to contact
him.”Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko said the shooter had been identified
as a 58-year-old native of Moscow and a fire had broken out in the Kyiv
apartment where the suspect was registered. Kravchenko said four people had been
killed in the street and one inside the supermarket, where the suspect had
brandished an automatic weapon. He posted a photo showing a blurred prone figure
covered in blood inside a store, a weapon lying nearby.
Iranian gunboats fire on tanker
in Strait of Hormuz as Tehran reimposes restrictions
Agencies/18 April/2026
A second vessel was reportedly hit by a projectile and others reversed course as
Iran reimposes restrictions on the vital waterway. The British military says two
gunboats from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard opened fire on a tanker transiting the
Strait of Hormuz after Iran said it had reimposed restrictions on the vital
waterway. Get breaking National news The United Kingdom Maritime Trade
Operations center said an unknown pIranian
gunboats fire on tanker in Strait of Hormuz as Tehran reimposes restrictions
rojectile hit the vessel, 25
nautical miles (46 kilometers) northeast of Oman. Some containers on the vessel
were damaged, it said. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations Centre said
the tanker and crew were reported safe, without identifying the vessel or its
destination. Iran said earlier it was reimposing restrictions on the strait in
response to a U.S. blockade on Iranian shipping and ports. Iran has prevented
vessels from crossing throughout the seven-week-long war, except for ones it
authorizes.
Iran command says has closed
Hormuz again over US blockade
Agence France Presse
Iran's central military command announced on Saturday it would resume "strict
management" of the Strait of Hormuz, reversing a decision to unblock the
strategic channel as part of negotiations with Washington. In a statement shared
on state television, the headquarters said Washington had broken a promise by
continuing its naval blockade of ships sailing to and from Iran's ports. Until
the United States restores freedom of movement for all vessels visiting Iran,
"the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain strictly controlled," the
statement said.
Khamenei says Iran's navy 'stands ready' to defeat US
Agence France Presse/18 April/2026
A statement said to have been issued by Iran's supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei
warned Saturday that Tehran's navy was ready to defeat U.S. forces, as the foes
sparred over the Strait of Hormuz. In a statement carried on his Telegram
channel, Khamenei, who has not been seen in public since before the start of the
war, said Iran's "brave navy stands ready to make the enemies taste the
bitterness of new defeats."
Iranian gunboats fire on tanker in Hormuz strait
Naharnet/18 April/2026
Iranian gunboats fired on a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, a
British maritime security agency reported, after Iran's military reversed a
pledge to open the route to shipping. The tanker's captain reported being
approached 37 kilometers (23 miles) northeast of Oman by two gunboats of Iran's
Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). Without any radio warning, the gunboats "then
fired upon the tanker", the UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre said in an
online statement. "Tanker and crew are reported safe. Authorities are
investigating."
Iran says no date set for next round of talks with US
Agence France Presse/18 April/2026
No date has been set for the next round of Iran–U.S. peace talks brokered by
Pakistan following the failure of an initial round, Iran's deputy foreign
minister said on Saturday.
"Until we agree on the framework, we cannot set a date," Saeed Khatibzadeh told
journalists on the sidelines of an annual diplomatic forum in Turkey's southern
Antalya province. "We hope that as soon as we can finalize that, then we can
move on to the next step". Khatibzadeh said both sides were currently focused on
finalizing a framework of understanding before proceeding with further
negotiations. "We do not want to enter into any negotiation or meeting that is
destined to fail and could serve as a pretext for another round of escalation,"
he said. "I can assure you that Iran is very much committed to diplomacy".
Pakistan's powerful military chief and prime minister concluded separate visits
aimed at ending the Iran war, with Field Marshal Asim Munir leaving Tehran and
premier Shehbaz Sharif headed home from Turkey. Munir met Iran's top leadership
and peace negotiators during a three-day visit to Tehran, a Pakistani military
statement said.Egypt and Pakistan were working "very hard" as mediators to brig
about "a final agreement between the United States and Iran", Egypt's foreign
minister told journalists at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum. Egypt and Turkey has
joined diplomatic efforts with Pakistan to help secure a ceasefire in the
conflict. "We hope to do so (reach an agreement) in the coming days," Badr
Abdelatty said, noting that "not only us in the region, but the whole world is
suffering from the continuation of this war". "We are pushing very hard in order
to move forward," he said.
Trump 'tweets a lot'-
Iran dismissed U.S. threats of fresh military action, with the senior Iranian
official saying that that Washington's statements were inconsistent. "The
American side tweets a lot, talks a lot. Sometimes confusing, sometimes, you
know, contradictory," Khatibzadeh said, referring to U.S. President Donald Trump
and his frequent social media posts. "It is up to the American people to decide
whether these statements are consistent and in accordance with international
law," he added. Khatibzadeh said Iran's position was clear and vowed resistance
to pressure from Washington. "What we are going to do is quite clear. We will
defend heroically and patriotically (our country) ... as the oldest civilisation
on earth," he said. The deputy minister also rejected U.S. accusations that Iran
was threatening freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route
for global oil shipments, after Iran's military again declared the waterway
closed. "Americans cannot impose their will to do a siege over Iran while Iran,
with good intention, is trying to facilitate safe passage through the Strait of
Hormuz," Khatibzadeh said. He said Iran had announced safe passage for
commercial vessels for the duration of Israel-Lebanon ceasefire, provided there
was prior coordination with Iranian maritime authorities.However, Khatibzadeh
accused Washington of attempting to "sabotage" those efforts. "If ceasefire
terms are violated and Americans do not honour their commitments, there will be
repercussions for them," he said.
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 18-19/2026
What Victory Looks Like When Your Foe Won’t
Surrender ....The U.S. can win without Iran acknowledging it lost
Jonathan Schanzer/The Commentary/April 18/2026
https://www.commentary.org/articles/jonathan-schanzer/us-victory-without-iran-surrender/
The domestic debate around the meaning of what would constitute victory in the
current military conflict with Iran is nearly as fierce as the fighting itself.
Part of this stems from the personage of the commander in chief. For some, no
war fought by Donald Trump could ever be won on satisfactory terms. This is the
portion of the American electorate that has been reduced to rooting, if often
only implicitly, for the clerical regime in Iran to prevail over the United
States—alternately by tut-tutting at the increasingly complex nature of the
geostrategic battle or by gloating at what they see as Trump’s lack of strategy.
They simply want the president to lose.But for those who can separate the man
from the mission, an important question must be answered: What would victory
look like over Iran look like?
The president has been elusive on this question. He has been unwilling to
articulate a clear theory of victory from the outset. This has enabled him to
maintain his signature posture of maximum flexibility in every situation. For
now, the president appears content to keep all his options open, while keeping
his domestic adversaries guessing what he will do next. The good news is that
this has kept the Iranian regime guessing, too.Two weeks into the conflict, by
mid-March, the president appeared satisfied with eliminating top regime figures,
setting back the nuclear program by at least a half decade, wrecking the Islamic
Republic’s defense industrial base, and thinning out its missile stockpiles as
Israel continued to hammer away at its regional proxies. Trump’s aims appeared
more modest than those of his fighting partners in Israel, who sought nothing
less than the downfall of the regime. Trump declined to state this as a metric
for victory, given the anxiety among a sizeable portion of his political base
and other Americans who do not want a return to the long wars fought in the wake
of the September 11, 2001, attacks.But even with his more modest aims, the
president soon found that declaring victory—which he did on a daily basis almost
from the first moment the war began—would be no easy thing, especially if he
wanted others to believe it. The Iranian regime upended the notion of an
American victory when it attacked vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, spooking
energy and stock markets by effectively cutting off access to 20 percent of the
world’s oil. The regime simultaneously went after energy and other critical
infrastructure elements belonging to the surrounding Gulf Arab states, which
happen to be among the most important global energy exporters.
Israel and the United States certainly won the conventional war from Day One,
flying sortie after sortie into Iran with the confidence that only air
superiority can offer. But the regime countered by launching an asymmetric
economic war that soon had even some initial supporters of the war questioning
its wisdom. With the short-lived cease-fire in early April having come to its
conclusion after six days, Trump’s task is to end that economic war on favorable
terms so that he can credibly declare victory not only on the battlefield but
also in rendering harmless the enemy’s economic weaponry.
Trump doesn’t just want to win on both the conventional and asymmetric fronts.
He wants a full Iranian surrender. This is a problem because “surrender” is an
antiquated concept. No country has unconditionally and formally surrendered to
the United States since Emperor Hirohito authorized the signing of the Japanese
Surrender Instrument on September 2, 1945. That was after a “total war,” with
America dropping two atomic bombs in a bid to convince the Imperial Japanese
that further fighting was futile. And it worked. But in the aftermath of that
horrific and historic event, the notion of total war was eschewed by the
international community. At least, this has been the case for more than eight
decades. The notion of a lengthy occupation of another
nation’s territory to ensure the terms of a military victory, such as the U.S.
presence in Germany or Japan after World War II, is also antiquated. This was
demonstrated by the turn in American public opinion on the value of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. For this reason, Trump is clearly loath to put boots on
the ground.
But without forces physically holding territory and forcing the regime in Iran
to its knees, Trump has few viable options other than to punish the regime with
an unrelenting torrent of withering blows from above. As the president has
learned, however, this is probably not the path to triumph, especially in the
Middle East. As a simple matter of logic, victory requires, at least in part, an
acknowledgment by the losing side that it has lost. Even if the metrics of
victory are achieved with most or all military objectives met, the vanquished in
this region rarely, if ever, cede defeat. The Israeli experience shows as much.
The IDF has now fought five major battles against Hamas in the Gaza Strip in the
past two decades. The current IDF campaign against Hamas, begun in October 2023,
has handed the group a resounding defeat. Hamas has lost 53 percent of the Gaza
Strip. What remains of the Mediterranean enclave is largely rubble and twisted
rebar. The group has lost more than 20,000 fighters. Its tunnel system, which
cost as much as $1 billion to build, is being steadily destroyed by the Israeli
military. Hamas has very few rockets left. And it lacks the ability to conduct a
ground incursion, let alone approach the Israeli border. And yet the group has
vowed to never disarm.
Previous Israeli operations against Hamas in 2008, 2012, 2014, and 2021 all
ended in conclusive victories in a conventional sense, but Hamas would not bow
to convention. Standing upon the rubble and having buried thousands of their
fellow fighters, the group’s leaders insisted that their survival, in some shape
or form, was proof that they had not been defeated. The famous 2021 photo of
Hamas chief Yahya Sinwar, who would later mastermind the 10/7 attacks, holding
up a child in Hamas paramilitary garb, vowing to fight on after the group
suffered a resounding humiliation, perfectly epitomizes Hamas’s concept that it
can even win by losing.
Up north in Lebanon, Hezbollah, a more powerful proxy for Iran than Hamas ever
was, has also absorbed several unequivocal beatdowns at the hands of Israel. The
war of 2006 left the terror group, and much of the country of Lebanon, in utter
disarray. As the group’s then-leader Hassan Nasrallah stated at the war’s end,
“If I had known…that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I
say no, absolutely not.”
The hostilities initiated by the 10/7 attacks culminated in the elimination of
Nasrallah by Israeli munitions, not to mention the death and maiming of hundreds
of Hezbollah fighters after the Israelis detonated explosives in their beepers
and walkie-talkies. The group quickly agreed to a cease-fire, but when Operation
Epic Fury erupted in March, the group resumed its war against Israel. Hezbollah
quickly began losing fighters and territory in a fight against a far more
capable adversary. And yet Hezbollah again has refused to concede.
The United States has struggled with similarly tenacious foes. The 2003
lightning American victory in Iraq gave way to an insurgency that was led, in
part, by holdovers from Saddam Hussein’s regime. The Baathists teamed up with
both Sunni and Shiite extremists to organize an insurgency aimed at driving out
the United States, even after the conventional fighting subsided. The asymmetric
war left the United States battered and bewildered. Unwilling to lose any
further blood or treasure, the Barack Obama administration beat a shameful
retreat in 2011.
America’s war in Afghanistan after the September 2001 attacks ended in a
similarly ignominious manner, albeit after two decades. The war against the
Taliban remained open-ended even after the major fighting concluded, yielding an
insurgency that ultimately forced America to terminate its presence there in
2021 with a chaotic scene at the Kabul International Airport. The Taliban hailed
the American withdrawal as proof that it had achieved “the fruits of its efforts
and sacrifices for 20 years.”
Trump’s problems in fighting Iran are tangible: a naval blockade, drone swarms,
and missile attacks on allies. But the struggle can be distilled to one word:
ideology. The wars at the beginning of this century were waged to defeat that
ideology. We called it the “War on Terror.” And it was a war worthy of waging,
even though the word “terror” was a politically correct euphemism for the true
enemy, Islamic radicalism. But we gave up for lack of progress. From 2001 to
2021, the United States spent more than $8 trillion. We had the edge against our
enemies in terms of firepower. However, we could not credibly declare victory no
matter how many battles we won. And we could not win because the other side
refused to lose.
Adherents to jihadism (who make up fewer than 20 percent of the world’s Muslim
population) believe that their faith commands them to fight and that victory is
inevitable, even if it takes decades. Indeed, they believe they are destined to
win, or die trying. As the late, great Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis wrote
back in 2006, “For people with this mindset, [Mutually Assured Destruction] is
not a constraint; it is an inducement.”
This is the worldview of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. It is the worldview of
Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, not to mention the Houthis in Yemen.
Adherents to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s 1979 Islamic Revolution view the
world this way, too.
When your enemy is the infidel, and your victory is ordained by Allah, your
obligation is to keep fighting, even in defeat. Surrender is not an option. The
Islamic Republic not only embraces this mindset; it portrays every challenge as
a test of will that it must endure. Military losses or economic pain are spun as
proof of martyrdom and sacrifice, to be answered with even greater confidence in
the revolution.
But just because someone refuses to admit defeat doesn’t mean he is immune to
it. The relentless Israeli–American assault on the assets of the regime is
undeniably taking its toll. There is still a chance that the regime will
collapse amid the demise of its top leaders, the destruction of its key military
assets, and the voiding of its cash-generating businesses. If the regime
survives all of that, it will still be contending with a population that is not
soon to forget the slaughter of more than 30,000 patriots who were murdered for
the crime of protesting against their oppressive regime. The Iranian rank and
file will likely be aided by the Mossad, the CIA, and other intelligence
agencies from countries that sustained attacks by the Islamic Republic over the
course of this war. These countries have deep pockets and a grudge. The combined
ability of these parties to provide weapons, cash, secure communications, and
intelligence to the Iranian people could ultimately tip the scales and topple
the regime.
The problem for Donald Trump is that such things take time. And, as we’ve seen,
he fears that time will sink him deeper into this war, just as it has sunk
America into almost every war it has fought since World War II.
One possible missed opportunity for Trump was to take a page out of the George
H.W. Bush handbook. When the United States expelled Iraq from Kuwait in 1991,
Saddam Hussein’s regime was defeated militarily in just six weeks. However, the
Iraqi government remained in place, and it was not forced to surrender
unconditionally. The liberation of Kuwait was the aim, so Operation Desert Storm
was deemed a success. What followed was a long-standing effort to isolate the
Iraqi regime through a combination of diplomatic and economic pressure, along
with UN measures to ensure disarmament and the enforcement of no-fly zones to
protect the Iraqi population.
Such a scenario might have been thinkable at the outset of Operation Epic Fury.
But the window for that closed when the regime began to wage its asymmetric war
in the Persian Gulf. There was no way to leave and save face.
An unequivocal victory is still feasible, but that may be possible only by
waging total war. Which is what Trump implied when he warned the regime that a
failure to reach an equitable deal through diplomacy would result in Iran
getting bombed “back to the stone age.” His words immediately elicited howls of
disapproval from the international community, not to mention Trump’s political
opponents, who declared such rhetoric out of bounds. But threats such as “a
whole civilization will die” violate not a single law of war. Angry rhetoric
does not constitute a crime. And in any event, due to the unlikely diplomatic
intervention of Pakistan, a window for dialogue was opened.The cease-fire that
followed only 12 hours later was dramatic, but mostly because it was bound to
fail. The Iranian regime sent emissaries to Islamabad to deliver one message: It
will not capitulate. After 21 hours of fruitless talks, Trump and his chief
negotiator, Vice President JD Vance, sensibly took no for an answer.The next
phase of Operation Epic Fury will be a hybrid campaign. The conventional strikes
will continue as necessary when targets present themselves—although we have
already been told that we may have reached a point of diminishing returns in
this regard. Concurrently, the U.S. will likely
continue to wage the economic campaign during which the United States Navy is
blocking Iranian tankers and those paying Iran bribes for its tankers to transit
the Strait of Hormuz. The Air Force may knock out additional economic assets to
deprive the regime of the ability to pay its loyalists. The handbook for
sanctions and other financial tools honed since the George W. Bush
administration is likely to be deployed, too. This will be a reprise of Trump’s
“Maximum Pressure” campaign on steroids.
For Trump, this is now all about legacy and history. If waged wisely, Operation
Epic Fury could bring down America’s most determined Middle Eastern foe. It can
also help redefine military victory in the modern era. There will be no white
flags, no papers signed on a battleship, no suicides in a bunker. We will have
to content ourselves with knowing we set the world on a new course—even as, in
the wake of a victory, there will almost certainly be an entire class of experts
and political opponents who will continue to insist that the whole thing was a
dead loss.
‘Morale is going to be at an all-time low’: Iran war troops
living on meager rations as Postal Service stops delivering
Brendan Rascius/The Independent/Fri, April 18/2026
U.S. troops deployed to the Middle East during the Iran war are facing scarce
food supplies, forcing some to ration their meager meals and endure prolonged
hunger, according to a new report.
Alarmed by these conditions, family members have reportedly spent significant
sums sending care packages to help nourish their loved ones. But U.S. Postal
Service deliveries to the region have been suspended, leaving boxes stuffed with
home-cooked meals and protein bars stranded in limbo.
“[Supplies] are going to get really low," a Navy sailor aboard the USS Tripoli
texted his mother last month, according to USA Today. "Morale is going to be at
an all-time low.”
More than 50,000 American service members are currently stationed in the Middle
East, including thousands of Marines and sailors aboard warships patrolling the
Strait of Hormuz. Multiple vessels have not made port since the war erupted in
late February.
Hostilities were paused after the U.S. and Iran announced a two‑week ceasefire
last Tuesday, and both sides are now engaged in peace negotiations, which have
yet to yield a breakthrough. On Thursday, President Donald Trump said the
conflict is “going along swimmingly” and signaled that it “should be ending
pretty soon.”Multiple recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans oppose
the war, which has killed thousands in the Middle East — including 13 U.S.
service members — and sent gas prices soaring.
‘They’re hungry all the time’
A 63-year-old man identified as Dan F. became deeply concerned when his
daughter, a Marine stationed on the USS Tripoli, sent him a photo of the meal
served aboard the vessel, according to USA Today. It consisted of a small
portion of meat and one tortilla. Most of the tray was empty.
A photo taken aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier, shows an
equally unappetizing meal: a tiny clump of carrots, a hamburger and a thin slab
of meat.
Dan’s daughter messaged him that service members aboard her ship were rationing
food, had no fresh fruit or vegetables and that the coffee machine had broken
down.
“We have the strongest military in the world. You shouldn’t be running out of
food,” Dan, a Marine veteran, told the outlet. Karen Erskine‑Valentine, a pastor
in West Virginia, said she was disturbed to hear from a community member that
her son on the USS Abraham Lincoln is living on insufficient rations. “The food
is tasteless and there’s not nearly enough and they’re hungry all the time,” she
said. “That kind of breaks your heart.” A spokesperson for the Pentagon did not
immediately respond to a request for comment from The Independent. General Dan
Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters earlier this
month that U.S. troops supporting the war had consumed “more than six million
meals, more than 950,000 gallons of coffee, and more than two million energy
drinks.”Caine added that service members have also relied on copious amounts of
nicotine. “I’m not saying we have a problem,” he laughed.
Mail deliveries suspended
In an attempt to help supplement service members’ paltry rations, family members
have filled boxes with all the comforts of home — including Girl Scout cookies,
home-baked fudge, Kind bars and new socks — and attempted to send them to the
Middle East.
A West Virginia community mailed out 22 boxes to a sailor aboard the USS Abraham
Lincoln. A Texas woman said her family spent upwards of $2,000 on packages for
her son.
Yet none of these shipments have been delivered, according to USA Today.This is
because mail delivery services to military ZIP codes across the region have been
suspended indefinitely as of this month. The pause, which is “in effect until
further notice,” is “due to airspace closures and other logistical impacts from
the ongoing conflict," an Army spokesperson told the outlet. “Resumption of mail
service is contingent upon the reopening of airspace by civil authorities, and
the area commander’s evaluation of regional transportation and distribution
stability,” the spokesperson added. Steve Kochersperger, a Postal Service
historian, said these types of wartime logistical issues are not uncommon.
“Interruptions and delays in mail service have been a part of every American
conflict since the Revolutionary War,” he told the outlet. “Communications and
supply networks that work well during peacetime are invariably disrupted during
wartime." Meanwhile, some concerned family members are still holding onto their
packages after being informed they could not be sent. Dawn Penrod, who lives in
Maryland, said she tried mailing a package to her nephew, a service member in
Bahrain, about two weeks ago. But, after a postal worker told her that they were
unable to make deliveries to the address she had written down, she left and took
her package with her. "It's sitting in my living room, waiting," she said.
How China and Russia are becoming Iran’s eyes in the sky
Iona Cleave/The Telegraph/Fri, April 18/2026
Chinese and Russian satellites were secretly providing the Islamic Republic with
critical imagery to target US military bases, according to intelligence
reports.Publicly, Beijing and Moscow sat on the sidelines of the 40-day war that
consumed the Middle East. Both countries had plenty to gain from watching the US
entangle itself in a potential military quagmire. Yet, when Iranian missiles and
drones began hitting higher-value US targets across the Gulf with increased
precision, analysts quickly knew Iran was relying on intelligence from
elsewhere. “Iran does have a nascent space programme, but this was beyond the
technical capabilities of Iranian satellites,” said Clayton Swope, a CIA veteran
and director of aerospace security at the Centre for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS). “China and Russia, in no particular order, were top of the
list,” he told The Telegraph.
A Chinese satellite
Intelligence reports say Chinese and Russian satellites provided Iran with
imagery to target US military bases - teesat.com If confirmed, the integration
of Chinese-enabled satellite imagery and Russian targeting data could have
proved a lethal mix, giving Iran a significant technological boost in its fight
against two of the most advanced militaries in the world.More broadly, the
developments point to how modern warfare is being quickly reshaped by persistent
surveillance from above – the so-called “unblinking eye” in the sky.
The Financial Times, citing leaked military documents, reported on
Wednesday that Iran secretly used a Chinese spy satellite to target US military
assets in the Middle East. In late 2024, the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Aerospace Force acquired the TEE-01B satellite, built
by Chinese company Earth Eye Co, which had already been launched into space. It
has a 0.5-metre resolution, making it 10 times more precise than any satellites
Iran possesses and on a par with Western commercial counterparts.The near
real-time imagery it captured would allow Iran to identify aircraft, vehicles
and the movement of specific assets – crucial to its ability to inflict pain on
its enemies. The documents showed that in March the satellite photographed
Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia – where Donald Trump confirmed US
aircraft were hit on March 14 – Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, the US Fifth
Fleet naval base Bahrain and Erbil airport in Iraq.
All the US bases were targeted by Iranian strikes around the time the images
were taken.
Simultaneously, Russian military satellites also lurked above the region,
capturing near-real time, high-resolution imagery of critical US sites and
targets. There was shock inside US Central Command,
for example, when Iran conducted a precise strike that destroyed a $500m E-3
Sentry surveillance aircraft on March 27. It pointed
to a worrying level of intelligence in the hands of Tehran.
A destroyed E-3G 'Sentry' aircraft following the Iranian
ballistic missile and drone attack on Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, on
March 27, 2026
The precision strike that destroyed an E-3 Sentry surveillance aircraft on March
27 caused shock inside US Central Command. Both Beijing and Moscow have denied
aiding Iran with satellite intelligence. But for years, both countries have
helped the Islamic Republic economically, diplomatically and militarily. Russia
has long exchanged weapons with Iran and provided drone expertise during the
war. Chinese companies have sold sanctioned dual-use technologies that enable
Tehran to build and enhance their weapons. Last year, the Pentagon said that as
of 2024, the IRGC was doing business with Chinese commercial satellite firms.An
Iranian official with knowledge of military operations could not comment on the
satellite, but confirmed to The Telegraph that Russian and Chinese technologies
were used during the war.“And they were very helpful,” they said. “And now,
since the ceasefire started, there have been talks with the Chinese to get some
defensive technologies, we have not received anything yet.”
Last week, US intelligence indicated that China was preparing to deliver new air
defence systems to Iran within the next few weeks. “If China does that, China
will have big problems, OK?” Mr Trump told reporters when asked about the
report.
By Wednesday, the US president said he had spoken to Xi Jinping who agreed not
to send arms to Iran. “President Xi will give me a big, fat hug when I get there
in a few weeks. We are working together smartly,” he said.
Mr Trump is due to visit in four weeks, a pivotal moment as the world’s two
biggest economies attempt to rebuild relations. But those efforts are being
strained by accusations of China covertly aiding Iran with military equipment,
while the US Navy continues its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which
40 per cent of Beijing’s oil imports flow.
People watch as smoke billows from an oil warehouse in the Kani Qirzhala area on
the outskirts of Erbil, the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdistan region,
following a suspected drone strike, on April 1, 2026
Beijing has been walking a fine line: positioning itself as a neutral peacemaker
and a friend to Tehran – upon whose oil it depends – while carefully avoiding
upsetting its trade relations with the Gulf states. Carlton Haelig, a fellow
with the Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), said
Beijing only has thin deniability over the TEE-01B satellite. “It is very
unlikely that a commercial Chinese operator would provide this degree of access
to satellite capabilities to Iran without the cooperation or direction of the
Chinese government,” he told The Telegraph. There is still a question over
whether it is just one Chinese satellite allegedly in the hands of Iran or part
of a greater unknown system. Compared to conventional
space powers like the US, China and Russia, Iran has rudimentary capabilities at
best. But while Moscow’s space power – reliant on old Soviet-era technologies –
is waning, Beijing is dramatically expanding its surveillance capabilities in
orbit. As of last year it had approximately 1,060 state and commercial
satellites – almost half of which are designed for observation. China’s most
advanced surveillance models are catching up with the US in terms of resolution,
but Washington still retains the technological edge. Iran’s alleged use of the
Chinese-made satellite is a warning sign of how commercial space assets can end
up in the hands of a hostile regime and “there is very little we can do about
it,” Mr Haelig said.It is an unsurprising development, however, given how
heavily Ukraine and Russia have relied on a mix of state and commercial
space-based surveillance in their four-year war. With
the expansion and proliferation of satellite constellations, the US military,
among many others, is already discussing how to adapt its battlefield
operations.
“Will anything be secret anymore? That is the question,” Mr Haelig said.
Trump and the first American Pope
Abdullah F. Alrebh/Al Arabiya English//18 April/2026
The current political landscape features an unprecedented clash between the
White House and the Vatican, fueled by deep disagreement over US foreign policy
in the Middle East. President Donald Trump recently took to Truth Social to
attack Pope Leo XIV, labeling him “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign
policy.” The pope responded defiantly during his Africa tour, declaring in
Cameroon that the world is “ravaged by a handful of tyrants” who twist religious
narratives to justify war. Central to this feud is the pontiff’s ongoing
criticism of the administration’s hardline stance on Iran.
To understand this fracture, one must trace its origins to fundamentally
divergent worldviews on global power. Pope Leo XIV has repeatedly used his
platform to call for peace, specifically condemning President Trump’s threats to
destroy Iranian civilization as “truly unacceptable” amid the region’s shadow
war. This papal intervention carries added weight given its context: Born in
Chicago, Pope Leo XIV is the first American pontiff. The irony is particularly
stark after Trump’s recent claim that the pope was elevated “because he was an
American” to deal with his administration.
The conflict escalated from quiet diplomatic friction into public spectacle when
President Trump treated the Vatican as a conventional political adversary. In
highly publicized statements, he accused the Holy See of radical left influence
and personalized the clash by posting that “if I wasn’t in the White House, Leo
wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” This tactic aligns with his broader strategy of
coercive diplomacy. The controversy peaked when Trump shared an AI-generated
image of himself in a Christ-like pose, later admitting he is “not a big fan” of
the pontiff.
The Holy See’s response demonstrates resolute adherence to moral doctrine.
Aboard the papal flight, Pope Leo XIV directly addressed Trump’s digital
provocations, declaring, “I have no fear of the Trump administration.” He
condemned “bloodthirsty tyrants” and a global system squandering billions on
“killing and devastation.” Through a Weberian lens, the pope wields traditional
and moral authority to counter Washington’s charismatic, populist power,
favoring timeless ethical teachings over personal attacks.
This international dispute has sparked immediate domestic political challenges,
most notably for Vice President JD Vance. As a recent Catholic convert and key
conservative voice in the White House, he navigates a narrow political tightrope
– defending the administration’s foreign policy while managing his religious
identity. Vance urged the pope to “stick to matters of morality” and focus on
“what’s going on in the Catholic Church” rather than dictating international
policy. He warned the pontiff to “be careful” when engaging the theology of
modern statecraft, while acknowledging that many Catholics recoil at President
Trump calling him “weak.”The electoral implications of this feud are already
evident in polling data. President Trump’s approval among American Catholics has
dropped to 48 percent, with disapproval rising over the administration’s
aggressive Iran policy. Pope Leo XIV, by contrast, enjoys 84 percent approval
among US Catholics. This erosion of Catholic support – a crucial swing
demographic in Trump’s 2024 victory – threatens Republican prospects in the 2026
midterms. This dispute underscores growing tensions between an America First
populist agenda and traditional Catholic teachings on the ethics of war. The
friction strains the administration’s broader coalition of religious
conservatives. The feud encapsulates a profound clash of worldviews, pitting an
America First president against a deeply American pope. In an era of polarized
faith and tribal politics, it forces the question: Can the Vatican and White
House coexist without more destructive collisions?
Trump, Iran and the battle of wits
Nadim Shehadi/Arab News/April 18/2026
The US is largely winning the war with Iran, but may end up losing it at home,
both for domestic reasons and for failing to convince its allies of the danger
Iran can pose to them. The majority of policy analysts, mainstream media
commentators, and many politicians hold a negative view of the war and its aims.
This can be a decisive factor, as the end result also depends on who wins the
battle of minds. The answer lies, possibly, in an anthropological examination of
the politicians, analysts, and media commentators themselves as much as it does
in an examination of the war. After all, war is also a contest of ideas and
strategy, where wit is tested as much as military hardware.
The anthropologist Ruth Benedict defined her field as the study of people who
themselves also need to be studied. Anthropologists go into the field to observe
the cultures of indigenous populations, but they also bring their own cultural
baggage, which influences how they interpret what they experience.
The same applies to analysts, journalists, politicians, and anyone trying to
make sense of the current war with Iran — and, most importantly, those trying to
make sense of US President Donald Trump. If Washington fails to carry its
partners and its public, Iran may achieve by default what it cannot achieve on
the battlefield: pushing the US out of the region and reshaping the Middle East
on its own terms.
Very often, we end up analyzing the myth rather than reality. Let me give an
example. On May 25, 2000, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon after a 22-year
occupation. This was considered a major blow to Syria, which occupied the rest
of the country and used Israel as an excuse.
Israel’s then prime minister, Ehud Barak, had promised the withdrawal a year
earlier, and the Syrians were furious, calling for coordination between the
Lebanese and Syrian tracks, arguing that any solution had to be comprehensive
and not partial, unlike those pursued with Egypt, Jordan, or the Palestine
Liberation Organization. Everyone was waiting for Syrian President Hafez Assad’s
reaction and his next move. But there was none from Damascus for a week or more.
An Israeli academic tried to explain this and published a piece on Assad’s
strategic silence: The Lion of Damascus likes to keep the enemy guessing. He
does not rush into declarations or actions, and plays the long game, carefully
considering every move, weighing every word, looking at the big picture, and
strategically evaluating every option from the perspective of every other
player. Two days later, Assad was declared dead. All this time, he had been in a
coma in intensive care, and there was panic in the presidential palace over
succession and fear of revolt. Damascus had many other concerns.
The analysis by our academic friend was a product of his imagination, but it
sounded compelling and made sense. It was certainly grounded in expertise, and
there is no doubt about his knowledge. But it was wrong. He was addressing the
myth of Assad, projecting an image formed beforehand onto a man who was dying.
Much of what we read about the US-Iran war is similar. It is shaped by myths
about Iran: the strategically patient carpet weavers, inventors of chess,
bearers of thousands of years of civilization, and the poetry of Saadi and
Hafiz.
To complicate matters further, there is also the projection of a preconceived
caricature of Trump: the businessman and dealmaker whose statements and social
posts are confusing, contradictory, and sometimes nonsensical.
There is that nervous giggle you often hear when people discuss him, and the
reaction he provokes can be as irrational, emotional, or erratic as his
statements themselves. This is a war in which rationality itself is being
tested.
Both of these images may turn out to be misleading. Iran has been at war with
the US for the last 47 years, and this is the first time it is engaged in a
direct confrontation on its own soil. In The Art of War, the Chinese military
strategist Sun Tzu describes war as much a battle of minds as of military
hardware. A wise warrior avoids fighting on his own territory, knows how to
deceive the enemy, and strikes weakness rather than strength. One must know the
enemy as well as oneself, if not better.
Both sides have certainly absorbed that advice and have been playing that game.
But knowing your enemy is not easy when dealing with Trump. He is difficult to
predict and does not conform to conventional analysis.
After 47 years of proxy wars, Iran had succeeded in keeping the battle away from
its territory. It has fought the US wherever it was weakest — in Lebanon, Syria,
Palestine, Iraq, Yemen, and even in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Defining victory is not always straightforward, but if it is defined by the
damage inflicted on the enemy — by weakening and exhausting it over time — then
Iran has, at times, succeeded. It has won a series of smaller battles. It helped
spoil any meaningful peace prospects in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through
its support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. It has contributed to the instability
of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, and marked them as part of its sphere of
influence in the region. All the while, it has avoided direct confrontation with
the superior force of the American military machine. But this time Iran’s
previous strategy has failed: the battle is directly with the US, and it has
little chance of winning militarily unless the US implodes or withdraws. The
Trump administration perceives the enemy as an octopus with its head in Tehran
and its tentacles spread across the region. Iranian negotiators often had the
upper hand in talks with the Obama and Biden administrations, and knew how to
exploit internal divisions and political agendas in Washington. Some even saw
Iran as a potential partner in the war on terror.
A key advantage Iran had was that US policymakers tended to compartmentalize
conflicts, treating each regional issue separately. While attention focused on
the nuclear file, Iran gained sanctions relief and space to expand its regional
networks. There is no doubt that Iranian leaders, many of whom were US-educated,
understood America better than American leaders understood Iran. But they may
have underestimated Trump.
Trump’s often unpredictable, contradictory behavior can work in his favor in
this battle of wits. How do you win a game when you cannot anticipate your
opponent’s moves, or even rely on him to behave in line with conventional logic?
America’s Achilles’ heel is internal. If it loses this war, it will likely be
because much of the media, politicians, and even some of Trump’s allies do not
fully understand his policies. He has alienated many of those he most needs,
including parts of his MAGA base that are isolationist in foreign affairs. They
judge him by the rules of an older game. But by those rules, the US had already
failed before — it lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and in the war on terror.
Trump may appear to be winning by breaking those rules, but he risks losing by
failing to carry the country and his allies with him. The president’s
unpredictable style is an advantage against an adversary, but a disadvantage in
a political system that requires a degree of transparency and coherence.
There is no doubt that NATO, the Europeans, the Arabs, and the US itself all
have a strong interest in preventing Iran from winning. For Iran, victory would
mean pushing the US out of the region and dismantling its network of bases.
It would also mean holding Arab states hostage to its influence, forcing them to
abandon their current vision of a more open and stable region in favor of a more
militarized order. Iran also seeks to shape control over key global energy and
trade routes. These are ambitious goals that could end up turning even its
allies against it. At that point, NATO and the Europeans may conclude they must
support the US against Iran. The danger is not Iran’s strength but America’s
weakness. If Washington fails to carry its partners and its public, Iran may
achieve by default what it cannot achieve on the battlefield: pushing the US out
of the region and reshaping the Middle East on its own terms.
In the end, it all comes down to a battle of wits — a contest of minds.
• Nadim Shehadi is an economist and political adviser. X: @Confusezeus
Saudi diplomacy seeks to strengthen US-Iran truce
Hassan Al-Mustafa/Arab News/April 18/2026
Saudi Arabia is addressing the US–Iranian negotiations, sponsored by Pakistan,
with utmost seriousness and meticulous attention. Although not a party to these
discussions, the Kingdom will not be sidelined.
In other words, its absence from the negotiating table in Islamabad has not
excluded Riyadh, its national interests, and its national security from the
considerations of the negotiators and the Pakistani mediator. This is evident in
the continuous communication between Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and the US,
Iran, and Pakistan on the other.
Saudi diplomacy is noticeably active on several fronts: first, solidifying the
truce between Iran and the US to ensure that war does not resume and thus
guarantee that Iranian hostilities will not be launched again against the
Kingdom and the Gulf Cooperation Council states; second, supporting Pakistan’s
mediation efforts, given Islamabad’s trust in Riyadh and the existence of a
joint strategic defense agreement between the two countries; and third, building
regional and international understandings aimed at the swift and permanent
reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to guarantee safe navigation, the resumption
of oil and gas exports, and the return of trade through Gulf ports.
These efforts are being pursued in parallel with a future Saudi vision for
relations with Iran, because Riyadh knows that regional security cannot be
achieved without a clear understanding between the two countries, based on
frankness and seriousness, that resolves the most pressing outstanding issues:
Iranian armed attacks, sleeper cells, armed militias, and maritime security in
the Arabian Gulf. These are urgent issues that require a specific roadmap, a
clear commitment from Iran, and the provision of tangible and verifiable
guarantees.
Riyadh does not view war as an inevitable fate
As part of these political efforts, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met
with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif during his visit to Jeddah on April
15. They discussed the latest regional and international developments,
particularly the course of events in the region and the talks between the US and
Iran hosted by Pakistan. They also emphasized the importance of continuing
diplomatic efforts to restore stability in the region.
The talks reflected explicit Saudi support for Pakistan, with the crown prince
commending the efforts of the Pakistani prime minister and Field Marshal Asim
Munir, Pakistan’s chief of army staff. Riyadh does not view war as an inevitable
fate, but rather seeks political outcomes and security understandings that will
lead to a post-war phase in which Tehran respects its neighbors and refrains
from aggression. This was the clear political message conveyed by the meeting
between the Saudi crown prince and the Pakistani leader following communication
between the two countries’ foreign ministers and a meeting of senior officials
from the foreign ministries of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkiye. The
meeting took place in Islamabad on April 13, with the Saudi delegation headed by
Prince Abdullah bin Khalid bin Saud Al-Kabeer Al-Saud, director-general of the
Kingdom’s foreign ministry. It was part of the “quadrilateral consultative
framework,” during which discussions focused on “developments in the region and
ways to enhance joint coordination to serve the region’s security and
stability,” according to a statement issued by the Saudi Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
In parallel, Pakistan’s army chief paid a visit to Tehran, where he met with the
Speaker of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, and
Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, before meeting President Masoud Pezeshkian on
April 16. The meetings carried messages exchanged between Iran and the US,
alongside Pakistani efforts to bring the two countries closer together ahead of
a potential second round of dialogue, which is expected to be held soon in
Islamabad. This comes amid emerging positive signals from Washington, where
President Donald Trump said that “Iran has agreed to almost everything” and that
“the chances of reaching an agreement are great,” adding: “We have very good
relations with Iran, and this is unbelievable.”
Trump, in his remarks on Friday, gave greater impetus to Pakistan’s role,
revealing that he “might visit Pakistan if the agreement with Iran is concluded
there.”In sum, these developments indicate that a political framework is being
developed and that understandings have been reached, even if not yet finalized,
despite the heightened media rhetoric from both Iran and the US.
This rhetoric may be aimed at boosting morale on the one hand, or improving
negotiating positions on the other, as well as serving as a means of addressing
domestic audiences and those sympathetic to each side, in consideration of
internal “public opinion” in each country. Since Pakistan announced a two-week
temporary ceasefire between Iran and the US, two phone conversations have taken
place between Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan and his Iranian
counterpart. In this context, Riyadh issued a statement supporting “the
mediation efforts undertaken by Pakistan to reach a permanent agreement that
achieves security and stability,” emphasizing “the necessity of keeping the
Strait of Hormuz open to navigation in accordance with the 1982 UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea, without any restrictions,” as well as the need for “a
comprehensive and sustainable de-escalation that enhances regional
security.”Therefore, “any attacks or policies that infringe upon the
sovereignty, security, and stability of the region’s countries must cease,”
according to the Saudi Foreign Ministry statement issued on April 8. The
statement stipulates a key point, as it stressed the importance of these efforts
addressing “all the issues that have caused instability and insecurity over
several decades.”In other words, Saudi Arabia seeks to prevent the return of war
after years of relative de-escalation, a goal that requires strong and solid
understandings as well as a clear commitment from Iran. In this context, Iran
now carries the responsibility of rebuilding trust with its larger neighbor,
Saudi Arabia, and of demonstrating that it is willing to pursue advanced and
sustainable relations.This will benefit both countries and enhance security in
the Arabian Gulf. However, the responsibility for proving good intentions
through actions, not words, falls primarily on Iran. The question remains
whether it can meet these expectations. Hassan Al-Mustafa is a Saudi writer and
researcher specializing in Islamist movements, the evolution of religious
discourse, and relations between the Gulf states and Iran.
X: @Halmustafa
Selected Face
Book & X tweets for April 18/2026
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Below is a glimpse of how kind-hearted and clueless Westerners (including many
American Jews who own Forward) think that one binational state for Jews and
Arabs works, unaware that Palestinians who are calling for such a state imagine
the "binational state" as Arab and Muslim, with non-Muslim minorities holding a
"revered status." Not equal, only revered.
Articles from the Constitution of Palestine as approved in February 2026:
Article 1
Palestine is an integral part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian Arab
people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 4
1. Islam is the official religion of the State of Palestine.
2. The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source of legislation.
3. Christianity holds a revered status in Palestine, and all other religions are
accorded due respect.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Below is a glimpse of how kind-hearted and clueless Westerners (including many
American Jews who own Forward) think that one binational state for Jews and
Arabs works, unaware that Palestinians who are calling for such a state imagine
the "binational state" as Arab and Muslim, with non-Muslim minorities holding a
"revered status." Not equal, only revered.
Articles from the Constitution of Palestine as approved in February 2026:
Article 1
Palestine is an integral part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian Arab
people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 4
1. Islam is the official religion of the State of Palestine.
2. The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source of legislation.
3. Christianity holds a revered status in Palestine, and all other religions are
accorded due respect.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Below is a glimpse of how kind-hearted and clueless Westerners (including many
American Jews who own Forward) think that one binational state for Jews and
Arabs works, unaware that Palestinians who are calling for such a state imagine
the "binational state" as Arab and Muslim, with non-Muslim minorities holding a
"revered status." Not equal, only revered.
Articles from the Constitution of Palestine as approved in February 2026:
Article 1
Palestine is an integral part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian Arab
people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 4
1. Islam is the official religion of the State of Palestine.
2. The principles of Islamic Sharia are a primary source of legislation.
3. Christianity holds a revered status in Palestine, and all other religions are
accorded due respect.