English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For August 28/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.August 28.26.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/@eliasbejjani8036

Bible Quotations For today
No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth
Luke 16/13-17: “No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.’ The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they ridiculed him. So he said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God. ‘The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.

Titles For The English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on August 27-28/2026
Tom Barrack: An American Envoy, or a History-Ignorant Dealmaker Lost in the Quagmire of Politics?/Elias Bejjani/August 25/2026
The Creeping Danger/Abu Arz/Facebook/August 27, 2026
Zamir says Israel maintains readiness for possible escalation in Lebanon, elsewhere
Israeli army claims two explosive-laden drones launched toward troops in southern Lebanon
Woman killed, people wounded as Israel hits south in response to Hezbollah drones
Next round of Rome talks to be held in second half of September
Israeli army warns of wider strikes in Lebanon amid heightened regional tensions: The details
President Aoun welcomes Emirati business delegation, urges investment in Lebanon
Aoun reiterates that 'there is no option but negotiation'
UNIFIL: UN Resolution 1701 remains key framework for stability in southern Lebanon
US Ambassador to Lebanon Hints at Iranian Influence on Negotiations with Israel
US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michael Issa, Visits the Druze Sheikh Aql: “We Want Hezbollah to Surrender Its Weapons, and We Don’t Want Anything More From Them”
Jumblatt responds to the US ambassador: The "framework" should be replaced with the Armistice Agreement
A video link to an interview with writer and political analyst Elias Zoghbi
What's Permissible for Berri is Forbidden for Aoun... The Paradox of Negotiations and American Mediation/Najwa Abi Haidar/ Al-Markazia/August 27, 2026
Disarmament a Saudi Condition… What is the Fate of the Conference to Support the Army?/Lara Yazbek/Al-Markazia/August 27, 2026
From Missiles to Markets: Lebanon’s Choice/Elissa El Hachem/Now Lebanon/August 27, 2026
Lebanon Explores Ways to Hold Israel Accountable… Mitri: Legal Restrictions Hinder Prosecution
A Government, Two Lebanons, and Who Is Subjugating Whom?/Rafiq Khoury/Nidaa Al Watan/August 27, 2026
The Farce of an “Iranian Citizen” to Fill the Time/Abdul Wahab Badrakhan/August 27, 2026
Transgender woman in Lebanon allowed to change gender in rare case

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 27-28/2026
White House says no negotiations happening with Iran, all options on table
Iran unable to import fuel amid US blockade: Official
Iran’s president reiterates Tehran ‘did not start the war’ as mediation efforts continue
Trump says Putin will not attack NATO territory, downplays Ratcliffe trip
Qatar PM pursues mediation in Tehran as US ramps up ‘economic war’
Faltering diplomatic efforts to end Iran war continue
Israeli strikes kill three people in Gaza, medics say
Syria Kurdish women fighters discuss merger with interior ministry
Russia launches missiles and drones at Ukraine, authorities say
Saudi FM calls for OIC reform, stronger Islamic cooperation and solidarity
Iraq says bringing all weapons under state control is ‘irreversible’
Trump signs order to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America
Death toll rises, rescuers search for 1,400 missing after Nepal-Tibet floods
UN urges child-safe design across all social media, after Meta settlement
Visa, Mastercard launch international card payments in Syria
Ratko Mladic, ex-Bosnian Serb warlord who oversaw atrocities in Bosnia, dies at 84

Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 27-28/2026
The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement and the rise of South-South cooperation/Cornelia Meyer/Al Arabiya English/August 27/2026
Sam Mansi: The Upcoming Elections Will Determine Trump's Fate... and Tehran Will Not Accept US Demands/Basel Eid/Al-Arabi Newspaper/August 27, 2026
America's New Scam?: Hamas Elections by Another Name is Still Hamas/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute./August 27, 2026
When Hormuz Becomes a Strategic Loss for Iran/Hassan Fahs/Independent Arabia/August 27, 2026
Pezeshkian's Maximum Possibilities!/Hazem Saghieh/Al-Sharq Al-Awsat/August 27, 2026
Hamas: Hostility with the Arabs/Ayman Khaled/Al-Arabiya/August 27, 2026
Pearls, a Sick World, and Pigs/Aql Al-Awit/Facebook/August 27, 2026
Selected Face Book & X tweets on August 27/2026

Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on August 27-28/2026
Tom Barrack: An American Envoy, or a History-Ignorant Dealmaker Lost in the Quagmire of Politics?
 Elias Bejjani/August 25/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/08/156941/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjOFr0JJWss
Ever since Tom Barrack entered the current U.S. administration as the United States Ambassador to Turkey and its Special Envoy to Syria and Iraq, he has not stopped raising questions and controversy regarding the true nature of his role, and the extent to which his positions and statements align with the foreign policy he is supposedly in the region to represent and execute. He is neither a traditional professional diplomat, nor a historian specializing in the Middle East, nor someone with a long career in American diplomatic institutions. The man essentially hails from the world of finance, investment, and real estate; he founded Colony Capital and was a prominent player in the realms of real estate investment and international deals, with extensive relations, interests, and business dealings in the Arabian Gulf region. He is also a longtime friend of President Donald Trump, chaired his 2017 presidential inaugural committee, and has remained close to Trump’s political and financial circles for years.
Tom Barrack’s Problem with Politics
The Middle East is not a distressed piece of real estate that Barrack can buy at a low price and resell at a profit, nor is it a bankrupt company he can rescue with a financial deal, nor a political bazaar where states and peoples are managed through the logic of brokerage and barter. Politics in the Middle East—especially in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Turkey, and Iraq—requires a profound knowledge of history, geography, demography, civilizational and sectarian conflicts, and a precise understanding of the nature of competing regional projects. Herein lies Barrack’s problem: the most dangerous thing that can happen is for a senior American official to deal with this region through the mindset of a businessman looking for a "deal" rather than a statesman defending his country's strategy, interests, and values.
When the U.S. Ambassador Becomes More Enthusiastic for Turkey Than for Washington
The biggest problem with Barrack's positions is not that he holds personal views; any official has the right to have views. The problem is that some of these views, when expressed in his capacity as ambassador and special envoy of the U.S. President, appear to contradict or confuse the policy he is supposed to represent. It is difficult, for example, to ignore the impression Barrack leaves through his frequent positions on Turkey and its President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Erdogan is not merely an ordinary Turkish president. Erdogan's Turkey carries a clear regional project, utilizing its political, military, economic, and religious influence in an attempt to restore a dominant Turkish position in the region. It is a state with close ties to political Islam movements, foremost among them the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and Ankara has massively expanded its military and political presence in Syria.
In this context, any American official who deals with Erdogan as if he were simply a natural regional partner—without factoring Ankara’s expansionist project and Turkish political Islam into the core of his calculations—is committing a major strategic error. More dangerously, this is happening at a moment when the confrontation between Turkish and Israeli interests in Syria is escalating. Barrack criticized recent Israeli strikes on the Syrian Abu al-Zohour airbase while Israel was moving to prevent the expansion of a Turkish military presence inside Syria. These developments clearly revealed that Turkish and Israeli interests in Syria are not congruent, but are rather heading toward an increasing strategic clash. Is the United States expected to act as a mediator to protect Turkish ambitions in Syria? And must Israel now accommodate Erdogan's military interests inside Syria so as not to upset the U.S. ambassador in Ankara? These are legitimate questions, especially when such remarks come from an official representing the United States rather than a private political analyst.
Barrack and the Golan: How Can the Ambassador Say Something That Contradicts Trump’s Decision? Barrack's most controversial statement came in his recent interview with activist and media figure Mario Nawfal. Barrack said that Israel "still occupies the Syrian Golan Heights," referring to United Nations resolutions and the international order—phrasing that appeared to directly ignore President Donald Trump's 2019 decision recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan. Here, we are not talking about a minor difference in wording, but rather an official policy announced by the U.S. President himself. The next day, Barrack was forced to backtrack and clarify, stating that his words were a description of the historical situation rather than an endorsement of the UN position, and affirming that the U.S. policy outlined by Trump in 2019 "has not changed."
Yet the question remains: if Trump's policy has not changed, why did Barrack say what he said in the first place? Diplomacy is not a talk show where an official can float an idea in the morning and say by evening that it was merely a "personal point of view." When the U.S. ambassador and special envoy to the region speaks, his words are read as the voice of Washington, and any statement that contradicts the U.S. president's policy causes confusion and undermines the credibility of the United States and its allies. The Golan is not a marginal detail; Trump's 2019 decision was a historic turning point in American policy toward the Golan. Therefore, reopening the issue, even verbally, is not a mere slip of the tongue.
Have Hezbollah and Iran Become Parties to Lebanese-Israeli Negotiations?
Then came an even more dangerous issue regarding Lebanon. In the same interview, Barrack spoke about the absence of Iran and Hezbollah from the equation concerning Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, remarks that were understood as a push to introduce them into discussions about the future of the situation between Lebanon and Israel. Following a wave of criticism, Barrack walked back his statements to say that he was not proposing the creation of a new negotiating table that includes Iran and Hezbollah, that Hezbollah's weapons are funded and supplied by Iran, and that his remarks addressed the complications posed by Iranian support to the file.
Once again, the simple question arises: why does the American envoy need to backtrack and explain himself after every major statement? Does Barrack truly not know that his country classifies Hezbollah as an international terrorist organization, and that it is not an ordinary Lebanese party that can be treated as a normal political actor in a diplomatic dispute? It is an armed militia organically linked to Iran, and its leaders have for years declared their allegiance to the Wilayat al-Faqih project and the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Consequently, any attempt to normalize the existence of Hezbollah's weapons as merely a "Lebanese problem" or to treat Iran as a normal party in rearranging Lebanon practically means ignoring the root of the problem: Lebanon cannot build a fully sovereign state as long as an armed organization tied to a foreign regional power retains the decision of war and peace.
From Iran to Turkey: Is One Tutelage Being Replaced by Another?
Here we reach the core of the dilemma. Iran has retreated in Lebanon and the region, Hezbollah's influence has suffered massive blows, and regional balances of power have begun to shift. However, Iran's exit or the retreat of its influence does not mean that the vacuum should be filled by Turkey... This is precisely the danger that Washington must realize. Lebanon is not a prize for Iran, nor for Turkey, nor a zone of influence for any regional power. If Washington truly wants to end Iranian influence in the Levant, it must not simultaneously permit the emergence of alternative Turkish influence based on an Erdoganist project rooted in Muslim Brotherhood origins and neo-Ottoman ambitions and illusions. Replacing Iranian tutelage with Turkish tutelage is not the liberation of the region; it is merely a change in the guardian's name. Erdogan's Turkey is not a 16th-century Ottoman Empire returned to life, no matter how hard Erdogan tries to invoke the symbols of the Ottoman Empire and rebrand Turkey as a central power in the Islamic world. The Ottoman Empire has ended, and with it a long history of wars, invasions, and tyranny that cannot be recycled under new slogans. It is a historical and strategic error for Washington to treat Turkish ambitions as mere good-neighborly policy.
Ahmed al-Sharaa: From al-Golani to the President of Syria
Then there is Ahmed al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Golani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Washington is not expected to ignore the new political reality in Syria, but dealing with the man and his new regime requires the utmost caution—not an emotional or political rush, as is the case with Barrack, who is entirely ignorant of the region's history and the sensitivities of dealing with its complexities. History cannot be erased by changing a name; changing a suit and a title does not wipe away the past. The question that any American official must ask is: What is the nature of the new Syrian state? What are the limits of its independence from Turkey? What is the future of minorities? What is the position of political Islam within it? And will Syria transition from a zone of Iranian influence to a zone of Turkish influence? These questions are far more important than the handshakes, smiles, and press conferences staged by Barrack—a dealmaker before being a statesman—which is why his personality cannot be understood without examining his career.
Barrack wealth and fame
Barrack built his wealth and fame primarily in the world of investment, real estate, and international deals. He founded Colony Capital, dealt in projects, hotels, real estate, and distressed assets around the world, and maintained extensive investment relations with Gulf parties, including the UAE and Qatar, alongside his long-standing ties in Saudi Arabia. Press reports indicate that Emirati funds invested hundreds of millions of dollars in his companies during the first Trump administration years. His name was also linked to major deals with Gulf investment institutions, including partnerships and deals with Qatar—such as the Miramax deal—in addition to transactions with Emirati and Saudi investors. And here we must be fair: when U.S. authorities accused him in 2021 of acting secretly as an unregistered agent for the UAE, he stood trial, and a jury acquitted him in 2022 of all nine counts. Therefore, from an American legal standpoint, he is not "convicted" nor an "Emirati agent." Yet the case itself reveals the profound sensitivity of the overlap between the financial world, Gulf relations, and American politics throughout his career. This precisely raises a legitimate question regarding his suitability for a diplomatic post of such sensitivity and peril.
The Middle East Is Not a Real Estate Deal
The problem with the dealmaking mentality represented by Barrack is that it constantly seeks quick settlements, whereas the Middle East is not governed by deals alone. There are centuries-old history, occupations and wars, minorities and peoples, borders, ideologies, imperial projects, political Islam, terrorism, and great power interests. They cannot be approached and managed with such logic: "You get this, I get that, Turkey takes this, Iran takes that, Israel makes a concession here, and Lebanon makes a concession there." This is not strategic diplomacy; this is political brokerage, and the United States is not a real estate investment firm.
Required: A Clear American Policy, Not Personal Interpretations
If Tom Barrack represents President Trump, he must represent Trump's policy. If he holds personal views that differ from the president's policy, they have no place in press conferences and interviews perceived as expressions of the United States' position. President Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan in 2019, and this policy—according to Barrack himself after his recent backtrack—remains in place. The United States has repeatedly stated that Hezbollah's weapons constitute a fundamental obstacle to the establishment of a sovereign Lebanese state. It is unacceptable for the Lebanese, Israelis, Syrians, Turks, and Iranians to simultaneously hear contradictory stances from a single American official, as U.S. foreign policy requires a single voice, not multiple contradictory ones.
Barrack Is Unsuited for the Position He Holds
President Trump has the right to choose those he trusts, and Tom Barrack has the right to hold his views. However, the American people, U.S. allies, and the peoples of the Middle East have the right to ask: Is the right man to manage the files of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon a businessman, investor, and real estate player with broad personal ties to the president, or a strategic diplomat possessing deep knowledge of the region's history and entanglements? In my personal view, the answer is clear.
Barrack is an appropriate statesman to manage the Middle East's most dangerous files
Tom Barrack may be a successful businessman, a skilled negotiator in the world of deals, and a loyal friend to President Trump, but that does not automatically make him the appropriate statesman to manage the Middle East's most dangerous files. More dangerously, his recent positions have begun to suggest that he is not content with merely representing American policy, but is sometimes putting forward his own vision for the region—a vision that in some aspects appears closer to Erdogan's Turkey than to the interests of U.S. allies, opening the door to serious questions regarding the Turkish role and the future of Syria and Lebanon. Therefore, what is required is not more justifications after statements, nor more claims that "this is my personal opinion"; what is required is a clear American position. If Barrack is unable to separate his personal views from the official policy of the United States, and if his presence in this position causes more confusion for Washington's allies than it serves them, President Trump possesses a simple and clear solution: dismissing him and replacing him with a professional diplomat who knows the region's history, understands the danger of political Islam, realizes that Turkey is not the legitimate heir to the Ottoman Empire, that Iran is not an alternative to the Lebanese state, that Hezbollah is not a "Lebanese resistance," that Israel is not merely a negotiating chip, and that the Middle East is not a distressed property that can be saved by a deal.
Conclusion
It remains that the Middle East needs an American strategy, not a deal broker. Lebanon specifically needs a sovereign state, not a replacement of Iranian tutelage with Turkish tutelage. This is the truth that Tom Barrack must understand before giving lessons on the region's history or charting its future from behind interview screens.
Link to detalied Tom Barrack biography from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Barrack
Summary of Tom Barrack's biography (GPT)
He is:
A Lebanese-American businessman
A lawyer by education
A former Reagan administration official
A major real-estate investor
Founder of Colony Capital
Former chairman of Colony NorthStar
An investor with extensive Gulf relationships
A longtime friend of Donald Trump
Former chairman of Trump's inaugural committee
A person prosecuted in a major UAE foreign-agent case and acquitted of every charge
And now a senior American diplomat dealing with some of the most complicated political conflicts in the Middle East.
His supporters can legitimately point to his decades of experience in the region, his Arabic-language skills, his relationships with Arab leaders, and his ability to communicate directly with powerful people.
His critics can legitimately ask whether the same business relationships and transactional style that made him successful as an investor are appropriate for the conduct of American foreign policy.
That is the real issue.
The question is not whether Tom Barrack is a successful businessman. He clearly is.
The question is whether the Middle East should be approached primarily through the mentality of a businessman searching for deals, or through the disciplined strategy of a professional diplomat who understands history, sovereignty, national interests, and the long-term consequences of American decisions.
For Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iraq, and Turkey, this is not an academic question.
It is a question of national survival and regional stability.

The Creeping Danger
Abu Arz/Facebook/August 27, 2026
Once again, we warn of the danger of Turkish influence expanding into Lebanon to fill the void left by the waning Iranian occupation, especially since the traitors within the ruling system, who have become addicted to subservience to foreign powers, have begun preparing the ground to welcome this new “guardian.”
In short: Traitors within to the gallows.
At your service, Lebanon.

Zamir says Israel maintains readiness for possible escalation in Lebanon, elsewhere
Naharnet/27 August ,2026
Israeli army chief Eyal Zamir said Thursday during a multi-front situation assessment that numerous challenges remain before Israel. Noting that Israel is “conducting combat operations on all fronts, from Iran and Lebanon to Gaza,” Zamir adding that the army is also “maintaining a high state of readiness due to the potential for escalation on multiple fronts.”

Israeli army claims two explosive-laden drones launched toward troops in southern Lebanon
LBCI/27 August ,2026
Israeli military spokesperson Lt. Col. Ella Waweya said Hezbollah launched two explosive-laden drones overnight toward Israeli forces operating in the Ali al-Taher Heights area of southern Lebanon. In a post on X, Waweya said Israeli troops shot down one of the drones, while contact with the second was lost. She added that no Israeli soldiers were injured in the incident. Waweya said the Israeli military would not allow Hezbollah to operate against its forces in the area and would continue taking action against what she described as repeated attempts by the group to target Israeli troops.

Woman killed, people wounded as Israel hits south in response to Hezbollah drones
Agence France Presse/27 August ,2026
An Israeli airstrike on a house in the southern town of Arab Salim killed a young woman and wounded several people on Thursday, as Israel launched a wave of airstrikes outside the so-called security zone in response to an alleged Hezbollah drone attack.
The National News Agency said the woman "had been married for 48 hours."The Israeli strikes also targeted Nabatieh al-Fawqa, Kfar Rumman and the Ali al-Taher heights.The Israeli army later claimed that it struck “warehouses in which weapons belonging to ... Hezbollah were stored, intended to harm IDF (Israeli army) forces and the citizens of the State of Israel.”Earlier in the day, the Israeli army said that Hezbollah had launched two explosive drones at its forces in the Ali al-Taher area overnight, causing no casualties.Israeli “troops fired and downed one of the drones, and contact was lost with the second drone,” the Israeli army said in a statement. The Israeli army “will not allow ... Hezbollah to operate against (its) forces in the security zone” and “is currently operating and will continue to operate forcefully against its repeated attempts to harm” its forces, it added.Strikes and shelling had targeted overnight into Thursday Ali al-Taher, al-Mansouri, Mayfadoun, Zawtar al-Sharqiyeh, and Mays al-Jabal while Israeli forces bulldozed, burned and detonated houses in the southern border village of Mays al-Jabal.Israel has increased its attacks on south Lebanon in recent days, particularly in the Nabatieh area where the strategic Ali al-Taher ridge is located. Israel has previously said Hezbollah fighters are holed up in "underground terror infrastructure" there. On August 15, Lebanon said Israeli strikes killed 11 people including several children, as Israel's military said it launched raids in retaliation for a Hezbollah attack and that it killed two of the group's commanders.Hezbollah drew Lebanon into the Middle East conflict on March 2 by attacking Israel in support of its backer Iran, triggering massive Israeli airstrikes and a ground invasion that Lebanese authorities say have killed more than 4,300 people. Israeli forces are operating inside a self-declared "security zone", which runs around 10 kilometers deep inside Lebanese territory along the border.Violence has dropped since a U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding on the broader conflict in June and a framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon later that month.
But Lebanon still reports Israeli strikes, artillery shelling and broad demolitions of civilian buildings in southern villages and towns.

Next round of Rome talks to be held in second half of September
Naharnet/27 August ,2026
The next round of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel will be held in Rome during the second half of September, an informed source said. “Lebanon hopes that work will resume on what are called the pilot zones,” the source told the al-Anbaa news portal of the Progressive Socialist Party.
U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa had recently confirmed that the Rome negotiations are technical in nature and not tied to fixed dates while asserting that they will not stop.

Israeli army warns of wider strikes in Lebanon amid heightened regional tensions: The details
LBCI/27 August ,2026
The Israeli army has maintained the pace of its strikes on southern Lebanon, while drone flights over Beirut’s southern suburbs have continued to intensify. The army has also threatened to expand its targeting of Hezbollah infrastructure, claiming the group launched two explosive-laden drones Thursday night.Footage from Ali al-Taher showed the area where the army’s forces are surrounding Ali al-Taher and deployed across a wide area around it.The army threatened a harsh response to any attacks against its forces. Israeli army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir raised the level of readiness across various fronts during a situation assessment Thursday in response to what he described as a security escalation, warning of the possibility of a multi-front confrontation and ordering an increase in targeted killings.Zamir’s comments also sparked a dispute with Israel’s political leadership. He said the army was fighting on multiple fronts while its coffers were empty. Zamir’s remarks drew widespread reaction, prompting the Finance Ministry to respond that the army’s budget had tripled over the past two years. The ministry called on the army’s leadership to act responsibly with the large budgets allocated to Israel’s security. Amid developments on multiple fronts, particularly in Lebanon and Gaza, where challenges involving kites persist, the General Staff instructed the deployment of an additional regular division to reinforce forces stationed in the area and ordered preparations for the immediate deployment of additional units and battalions to strengthen the forces on the ground.

President Aoun welcomes Emirati business delegation, urges investment in Lebanon
LBCI/27 August ,2026
President Joseph Aoun met with UAE Minister of Foreign Trade Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi and a delegation of Emirati business leaders, describing their visit to Lebanon as a sign of confidence in the country’s stability and future. Aoun said the visit could help open new opportunities for investment and economic cooperation between Lebanon and the UAE, thanking Abu Dhabi for its continued support for Lebanon. He encouraged Emirati investors to explore opportunities in Lebanon, highlighting the country’s potential and skilled workforce across several sectors.
Al Zeyoudi said the delegation’s presence in Lebanon sent a positive message and reflected the UAE’s longstanding ties with Lebanon, praising the contributions of Lebanese people to the UAE’s development.

Aoun reiterates that 'there is no option but negotiation'
Naharnet/27 August ,2026
President Joseph Aoun on Wednesday said Lebanon has “made the decision to negotiate to avoid the devastation and tragedies caused by war.”“While negotiations are not easy or quick, and there are obstacles and difficulties, they remain far better than war,” Aoun stressed. “We share the same goals: liberating the south, deploying the army to the border, recovering captives, facilitating the return of displaced people, and rebuilding the country. This cannot be achieved through war, as has become clear. Therefore, there is no option but negotiation,” the president emphasized.

UNIFIL: UN Resolution 1701 remains key framework for stability in southern Lebanon
LBCI/27 August ,2026
UNIFIL said in a statement that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 remains the primary framework for achieving stability in southern Lebanon, with its core principles including respect for the Blue Line, a cessation of hostilities, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory, and the extension of Lebanese state authority across the country. UNIFIL said its role is to support both Lebanon and Israel in fulfilling their obligations under the resolution, while monitoring developments on the ground, reporting violations, and supporting the Lebanese army and local communities.
It stressed that the full implementation of Resolution 1701 ultimately depends on the commitment of both sides.UNIFIL added that the long-term goal is clear: to achieve lasting stability and security that allows civilians to safely return to their homes.

US Ambassador to Lebanon Hints at Iranian Influence on Negotiations with Israel
Riyadh - Al-Arabiya.net/August 27, 2026    (Google translation from Arabic)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/08/157015/
Al-Markazia - Since the launch of the first round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations under American aus
As a new round of talks between Lebanon and Israel is expected to be held in Rome in the coming period, US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, hinted at the influence of developments with Iran on this issue. Issa stated in press remarks on Thursday that the regional situation between Iran and the US is significantly impacting the Lebanese-Israeli talks. He added, "The negotiations cannot progress before we know what will happen in the region." He also added that "Hezbollah is beholden to the leadership in Tehran... despite our attempts to resolve these two issues," as he put it. Furthermore, following his meeting with Sheikh Aql of the Druze community, Sami Abi Muna, at the Druze Community Center in Beirut, the US Ambassador said, "The Lebanese are in agreement on the need for Hezbollah to surrender its weapons. Everyone wants them in a particular way, but it is essential that they surrender their weapons to the state." He also expressed his belief that "there is communication between President Joseph Aoun and Hezbollah, whether directly or indirectly." He added that "Hezbollah doesn't want to talk to the Lebanese state, nor to America, nor to Israel, and takes its orders only from Iran... and we want it to surrender its weapons." He also pointed out that Washington "constantly asks Israel to stop and reduce its attacks, but Hezbollah, in turn, doesn't take any steps." These statements came as Israel intensified its airstrikes earlier today on southern Lebanon, including the Ali al-Taher area, where it claimed that Hezbollah launched two drones from those hills towards its forces. It also bombed Nabatieh al-Fawqa, as well as the towns of Mays al-Jabal, Mashaa al-Mansouri, Majdal Zoun, and others. This American stance came as the diplomatic track between Washington and Tehran remained stalled, despite intensified mediation efforts. Months earlier, Lebanese authorities had rejected linking the Lebanese situation and negotiations with Israel to the ongoing tensions between Iran and the United States. Tehran claimed at the time that the memorandum of understanding signed last June with the US stipulated a ceasefire in Lebanon as well. However, Israeli airstrikes continued in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley after the initial ceasefire announcement on April 16, which was extended on April 23 for three weeks, and then again on May 15 for 45 days. A ceasefire was finally declared on June 20, after which the frequency of Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon decreased, though not ceased entirely.

US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michael Issa, Visits the Druze Sheikh Aql: “We Want Hezbollah to Surrender Its Weapons, and We Don’t Want Anything More From Them”
Al-Markazia/August 27, 2026    (Google translation from Arabic)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/08/157015/
The Sheikh Aql of the Druze community, Sheikh Sami Abi Muna, received US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michael Issa, at the Druze community center in Verdun today. During the meeting, they discussed the general situation in Lebanon and the region, as well as current political and security developments. Also present were Judge Sheikh Ghazi Makarem, Secretary of the Religious Council Raed Najjar, and Advisor to the Sheikh Aql Sheikh Ramzi Sari El-Din. During the meeting, the Sheikh Aql welcomed Ambassador Issa, emphasizing “the constants of the community, its unifying and inclusive role, and its approach of openness, dialogue, and coexistence, in order to strengthen Lebanon and its unique civilization and mission.” He called on the international community, especially the influential United States, to “support Lebanon on its path to recovery and to back its demands, particularly those related to its sovereignty over its territory.” The Druze spiritual leader stated, "The identity of the Druze is firmly rooted in its Arab and Islamic heritage. They live the national experience in all its dimensions, partners in building the state and coexisting, and sacrificers for the independence and sovereignty of the homeland."
He added, "What happened in Suwaida was not a coincidence; it was a premeditated, bloody project. There were those who planned it and those who carried it out. It is a malicious attempt to change the face of the mountain and the Druze, and to replace their spiritual and national identity. Someone sowed discord, while the state has not yet held anyone accountable, nor has it properly engaged the people of the mountain." He called for vigilance to prevent a recurrence of what happened in Suwaida, so that the Druze do not once again pay the price for regional rivalries. He continued, "According to the course of history, the Israeli plan is based on hegemony, encroachment, and expansion. Peace cannot be achieved by disregarding international resolutions, violating sovereignty, and occupying land, airspace, and waters. We have serious doubts and concerns. Israel will not withdraw except under pressure and coercion, and its destruction and burning do not indicate good faith." But if the framework agreement is amended to include a binding timetable for withdrawal, things might be better.” He concluded: “We place our hopes on a firm and decisive American role in achieving stability. Stability and economic integration in the region cannot be achieved through coercion, the dominance of weapons, and systematic destruction. It is also essential to strengthen the capabilities of the army and security forces to impose security in the south, within the country, and on the borders, ensuring they alone possess the legitimate authority under the umbrella of the nation.” After the meeting, Ambassador Issa stated: “I was honored to meet His Eminence the Sheikh al-Aql, and it is my duty to see him. We spoke yesterday, and today we can clarify some points.” When asked about the degree of convergence in viewpoints during the negotiations regarding the south and the Ali al-Zahir area, Ambassador Issa replied: “All Lebanese agree on one point: the disarmament of Hezbollah. Everyone has their own idea about how to accomplish this, but the single message is that Hezbollah must surrender its weapons, and the state alone must hold authority.” As for guarantees, they are that sovereignty and defense remain the sole prerogative of the state. Since the state possesses authority, sovereignty, and international relations, there is no problem; it can contact other countries for assistance. When asked how this would be achieved given the breakdown in communication between the President and Hezbollah, and the proposal put forward by Speaker Nabih Berri, he replied: "I don't know where you got this information that there is no communication between the President and Hezbollah. I believe that communication is always ongoing, directly or indirectly. We discussed the Ali Taher issue yesterday. As you know, the matter is not limited to Lebanon; there are also Iran and the United States involved. The problems that arise greatly affect the discussions here, and we cannot proceed until we know what will happen in the region there as well." The issue isn't directly between Lebanon and Iran, but rather it affects the situation in Lebanon, as long as Hezbollah remains beholden to Iranian decisions. We've tried to bring the Lebanese state and Israel together so they can decide their own fate. Regarding the ambassador's remarks about negotiations with Hezbollah potentially contradicting the role of the Lebanese state, and whether Hezbollah has a new policy on this matter, he replied: "Perhaps you misunderstood. I said yesterday: if Hezbollah has something to offer, we are ready to discuss it. We don't want more from them than the surrender of their weapons. What I meant was, if the party decides to talk to us, they should talk to the Lebanese state, with whom we are already in contact, and tell them we are ready to surrender our weapons. In that case, we would contribute to bridging the gaps and talk to Hezbollah through the Lebanese state via negotiations. Hezbollah, so far, doesn't want to talk to the state, to us, or to Israel, because they only take orders from Iran." He was asked: And if Hezbollah absolutely refuses to surrender its weapons, what is the solution?
He replied, "We're waiting, what can I say?!"
Is the movement you're undertaking aimed at bridging the gaps and keeping abreast of the negotiations and meetings in Rome?
He answered, "The talks with Israel, whether Hezbollah is present or not, are talks between the Lebanese state and Israel. For us, we're working to bring Israel and the Lebanese state closer together. If matters are resolved between the two states, the issue of Hezbollah remains. We'll see the reality of its presence, whether Iran is still present and defending Hezbollah, and whether Iran has also 'reconciled' with Hezbollah. The talks are between Lebanon and Israel, with or without Hezbollah."He was asked about the extent to which this rapprochement can be implemented given the daily bombings in the south.
Issa said, "We are talking to Israel about these strikes, that they are unacceptable, and we are also pressing for them to reduce them. But there is another issue we are discussing: you demand everything from Israel and nothing from Hezbollah. For over a year and a half, even two years, we have been asking Hezbollah to make a decision that it is ready to surrender its weapons so that we can tell Israel that they are ready to surrender theirs, and that you should do the same. But the party—and Mahmoud Qamati said it—neither the state nor Israel wants to surrender our weapons... If someone gives you such a statement, how can you deal with them?! On what basis can you force Israel to withdraw when they say, 'Even if they withdraw, we will not surrender our weapons'?"
So, is the party giving Israel a pretext?
He replied, "A pretext or otherwise, there is a war here; they don't want a pretext to continue the war."
Regarding the meeting with the Druze spiritual leader, and Walid Jumblatt's position on the agreement? He said: "The conversation with the Sheikh al-Aql was very positive, and what we discussed was in the best interest of Lebanon, and how to restore its independence and prosperity. As for Jumblatt's situation... sometimes he wants it, sometimes he doesn't. For me, my position was clear, and I know what we want, and I will speak with him soon. I haven't seen him in a while, so let's see. There's a round of talks coming!"

Jumblatt responds to the US ambassador: The "framework" should be replaced with the Armistice Agreement
Al-Markazia/August 27, 2026   (Google translation from Arabic)
Former Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt wrote on his Twitter account: "It seems that US Ambassador Michel Issa, amidst his numerous cultural and political engagements, has failed to read my comments on the document called the 'Tripartite Framework,' which I reject and which should be replaced with the Armistice Agreement stipulated in the Taif Agreement and Resolution 1701." Issa had responded to a question about Jumblatt's position on the framework agreement by saying, "One day he wants it, the next he doesn't," adding that they would be in contact with him soon.

A video link to an interview with writer and political analyst Elias Zoghbi
Zoghby addressed all Lebanon's contentious issues from a sovereign and visionary perspective. He predicted that Lebanon would return to being a functioning state and that the era of militias, occupations, and chaos,ares drawing to a close, within the framework of a regional and international plan for the region.
The interview was conducted by journalist George Shaheen from Voice of Lebanon Radio.
August 27, 2026
Elias Zoghbi to Voice of Lebanon: Weapons in exchange for withdrawal, and the era of militias is drawing to a close.
Voice of Lebanon/August 27, 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/08/157018/
In an interview with Voice of Lebanon and VDL24 TV on the "Evening Headlines" program with colleague George Shaheen, activist and political writer Elias Zoghbi pointed out that Lebanon, in this era, has declared negotiations its means of escaping the crisis. Negotiations are a necessary evil, because the other evil, war, is far more dangerous. It is good that Lebanon has chosen the path of negotiation, which must reach a result in the medium term. He added: “Lebanon has chosen the safest and easiest path to overcome the American-Iranian and Turkish-Israeli conflicts, and there may be things being discussed behind closed doors that no one is aware of.” He considered that President Bashir Gemayel was an opportunity that Lebanon missed, and that he was capable of changing the course of Lebanese politics. He pointed out that there are those who are trying to undermine the equation of Israeli withdrawal in exchange for Hezbollah surrendering its weapons, and that the Lebanese government, through its decisions on August 5th and 7th, stipulated the surrender of weapons. In return, Hezbollah is setting conditions, including withdrawal, the return of prisoners, reconstruction, and a ceasefire, with the understanding that after these conditions are met, we will sit down at the dialogue table to discuss the national strategy. He said: “Instead of starting the arms handover experiment in Lebanon and extending it to the region, we find that the SDF has handed over weapons in Syria, and Hamas is about to hand over weapons in Gaza. This means that Hezbollah should be at this level of regional considerations.” He added: “We must take the statements of the US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, as an indicator of US policy in Lebanon.” He believes that after the war, Lebanon should have realized that “the era of armed militias has ended and the era of the strong national state has begun,” noting that the national state is now being formed in Iraq and Syria and will be formed in Yemen, and we must look to the future and what model we are heading towards. Regionally, he believes that the economic war that Trump declared on Tehran complements the military war that he started in February, and that Iran’s threats to countries that will comply with US sanctions mean that it fears the sanctions, after believing that they would fail as they did previously. He added that Iran is unable to export oil, which is the lifeblood of its economy, and that its domestic markets are suffering from rationing of this commodity. He said that China has interests with America, and the primary consideration is interests, and from We cannot yet judge the outcome of the US-China summit in Washington, but we can assess the impact of the sanctions on Iran. Regarding the situation between Turkey and Israel, he said, “America is a mediator between Turkey and Israel; therefore, there will not be a bloody conflict between them, but rather a struggle for influence. Furthermore, the Abraham Accords will be expanded.” Concerning UNIFIL, he noted that the internal Lebanese movement to extend its mandate is merely wishful thinking, and that when Hezbollah surrenders its weapons, the entire world will pressure Israel to withdraw, at which point we will no longer need an international force. He concluded by stating that the first line of defense protecting Ali Taher Hill is President Trump, that there will be neither war nor peace in Iran, and that the economic pressure on it is beginning to show results. He added that it is extremely difficult to predict how things will unfold between now and the conclusion of the elections in Israel and the United States.

What's Permissible for Berri is Forbidden for Aoun... The Paradox of Negotiations and American Mediation
Najwa Abi Haidar // Al-Markazia/August 27, 2026   (Google translation from Arabic)
Al-Markazia - Since the launch of the first round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations under American auspices, the Shiite duo has consistently criticized President Joseph Aoun's approach, accusing him of excessive reliance on the United States and its President, Donald Trump, to resolve the Lebanese crisis. However, the paradox, according to sovereign political circles, lies in the fact that the duo, despite rejecting the option of negotiations and American mediation, offers no clear alternative. Is Aoun expected to halt the negotiations and return to the option of resistance? And if so, who will ensure a ceasefire, a cessation of operations and destruction, and Israel's withdrawal to beyond Lebanon's international borders?
The question becomes even more pressing, as sources confirm to Al-Markazia, when considering the position of Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. Berri informed the delegation from the American Task Force for Lebanon, headed by Ambassador Edward Gabriel, that the United States is the only party capable of compelling Israel to halt the war and military operations and withdraw from Lebanon. In return, he stated that he guarantees the immediate deployment of the Lebanese army south of the Litani River, making it the sole force responsible for maintaining security and possessing the exclusive right to bear arms in the area. Herein lies the paradox: if Berri is asking the Americans to pressure Israel to achieve withdrawal and a ceasefire, why does the American mediation itself become objectionable when endorsed by the President of the Republic? Berri has previously affirmed that he maintains constant communication with Aoun despite differing viewpoints, and in a notable statement, he said: "Whoever Saudi Arabia loves, the world loves, and Saudi Arabia loves me more than some Lebanese." These positions raise questions about the degree of differentiation within which Berri operates, and his relationship to Hezbollah's stances and Iranian decisions. It appears that Berri attempted to separate the issue of southern Lebanon from the issue of Hezbollah's weapons in other regions. According to this proposal, the monopoly of arms in the south could be achieved through the deployment of the army, while the issue of Hezbollah's weapons in the rest of Lebanon would be left to the defense strategy. However, this proposal clashes with a fundamental Israeli condition: the disarmament of Hezbollah and the implementation of the state's monopoly on the use of force throughout all Lebanese territory. Can these two issues truly be separated? According to sources, the matter doesn't end there. Berri had previously informed Aoun that Hezbollah would not open a southern front in support of Iran, only for the party to launch six rockets toward Israel in the early hours of March 2nd, just hours after these assurances. Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem attempted to justify the move and distance it from Iranian decision-making, but this did not dispel the questions surrounding who holds the ultimate decision-making power. Hence the question arises: Has Berri begun to distance himself from Hezbollah, or are his positions part of a division of roles within the Amal-Hezbollah alliance? Is Berri promoting negotiating positions that Hezbollah cannot adhere to? The most striking political paradox lies in the following question: By what logic can we analyze that what is permissible for Berri in communicating with the Americans and relying on their ability to compel Israel becomes forbidden for Aoun? The issue is not just about negotiation, but about who has the right to negotiate, under what ceiling, and for the benefit of which project for the Lebanese state, the sources conclude.

Disarmament a Saudi Condition… What is the Fate of the Conference to Support the Army?
Lara Yazbek/Al-Markazia/August 27, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Al-Markazia – Lebanon was on the agenda during the meeting between French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Monday at the Élysée Palace, and occupied a significant portion of the extensive discussion between the two men. Following the meeting, a joint Saudi-French statement spoke of “an agreement to intensify efforts to reach a final solution to the conflict in Lebanon, which requires strengthening the Lebanese state and its institutions and preserving Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The statement praised “the steps taken by President Joseph Aoun and the government headed by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to rebuild state institutions and extend the state’s authority.” The statement affirmed “the commitment to supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces and security forces to enable them to fully carry out their national responsibilities.” It stressed the importance of “the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the necessity of completing the disarmament of all armed groups, and Israel’s complete withdrawal from all Lebanese territory.” While the content of the statement is important, and not new—supporting the Lebanese state and its legitimacy, calling for the monopoly of arms on the Lebanese army, and urging the liberation of Lebanese territory from Israeli occupation—its significance lies in its timing, according to sovereign political sources speaking to Al-Markazia. It comes on the eve of a preparatory meeting for a conference to support the Lebanese army, convened by France on September 17. This meeting aims to prepare for an international conference to assist the Lebanese military, to be co-chaired by France and Jordan, and expected to be attended by chiefs of staff and army commanders from several countries. While the United States and Saudi Arabia are expected to be key participants, as they are essential to the success of any support conference, the sources say that attention is focused on the form and scale of this participation and the demands that the American and Saudi sides will bring. According to the sources, to date, all international aid to the army, especially from Washington and the Kingdom, remains conditional on accelerating the disarmament process and on Lebanon demonstrating its seriousness in this process through concrete steps to confine weapons to the South, Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and all Lebanese territory. The joint French-Saudi statement also reiterated these demands and implicitly urged the Lebanese government, even while praising the performance of its presidents, to proceed along this path. Does this mean that the Saudi position and conditions, along with the American ones, remain unchanged? Will the preparatory meeting end where previous French efforts to convene a conference to support the army stalled—that is, at the point where Lebanon practically begins disarming illegal militias, thus rendering the anticipated conference a failure even before it convenes, if it is held at all? Or can Riyadh and Washington demonstrate greater flexibility this time? And has Macron managed to persuade bin Salman to adopt a more lenient stance toward Lebanon and its army?

From Missiles to Markets: Lebanon’s Choice
Elissa El Hachem/Now Lebanon/August 27, 2026
Lebanon is being offered two very different futures. On August 26 and 27, 67 Emirati businessmen will arrive in Beirut carrying contracts, investment proposals and something Lebanon has been desperately short of for years: a chance to build. The delegation is expected to sign agreements with the Lebanese private sector and discuss developing services at the airport, ports and border crossings. At almost the same moment, Israeli strikes are falling on the Ali Taher hills above Nabatieh, where Hezbollah is rebuilding military infrastructure and coordinating with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Lebanese soil. One picture is about airports, borders, jobs and capital. The other is about missiles, armed factions and a country whose sovereignty remains contested.
The contrast could not be clearer. The UAE is offering Lebanon a path toward investment, partnership and economic revival. The question is whether Lebanon will create the security and state authority needed to take it, or remain trapped in the cycle of conflict that has kept it poor, indebted and politically hostage for decades.
The other half of that choice is simple: who controls Lebanese territory? A state that disarms Hezbollah, shuts down IRGC financing, and extends its army across the country can take an investment delegation seriously. A state that lets a non-state actor keep rebuilding for the next war will keep absorbing strikes instead of signing contracts. The reconstructed airport gate or the missile launcher. The signed agreement or the funeral.
What makes the Emirati approach notable is not the delegation alone, but the pattern behind it. Last year, while war was still raging in Lebanon, DP World opened its first representative office in the country, appointing a former Lebanese ambassador to lead it. That was not the move of an investor waiting for perfect conditions; it was a bet placed in the middle of a storm. In May, the UAE lifted its four-year travel ban on Lebanon following President Joseph Aoun’s visit to Abu Dhabi. Now comes the delegation itself: not a token trade mission but 67 businessmen arriving to pursue concrete agreements. Read separately, each of these is a headline. Read together, they are a strategy.The UAE has not approached Lebanon as a patron demanding loyalty. Where other regional actors built influence by arming factions and demanding allegiance, the Emirati approach has been different: engage Lebanon as a state and a partner. Build with the country, not through a faction inside it.
That distinction matters. Lebanon’s tragedy has never been only that it has lacked money. It has been that foreign patrons repeatedly invested in political clients and armed factions instead of the Lebanese state itself, buying influence without development and weapons without sovereignty. The Emirati offer points the other way: partnership, not dependency; investment, not charity; built around what Lebanon can become rather than what a faction can deliver to a foreign power.
The stakes go well beyond this week’s delegation. Lebanon has a real chance to become an investment hub again, but investment does not run on sentiment. Capital follows predictability. Businesses need functioning institutions, secure borders, reliable infrastructure and confidence that the state can protect what is built.It is also worth spelling out what the alternative path buys Lebanon. A country that chooses engagement, security consolidation and genuine reform can move away from the cycle of emergency financing and mounting IMF and World Bank debt. Sustained foreign investment does something emergency lending cannot: it creates businesses, jobs and a reason for people to stay rather than leave.
Lebanon does not have to imagine what that opportunity could look like. It can look next door. Syria emerged from war with far less institutional continuity than Lebanon possesses, yet within two years Damascus opened the door to Gulf capital and began delivering: billions committed to power generation, ports and trade corridors. Syria is banking the results of decisions. Lebanon is still debating who gets to make them.
This is bigger than one Emirati delegation. The regional order around Lebanon is changing, and the war is accelerating that change. Lebanon’s place in what comes next will be decided by the alliances it chooses and whether it finally decides that sovereignty is not negotiable.
Choosing wisely means recognizing the difference between partnerships that build a state and relationships that simply rearm the next war.
The choice, ultimately, is for peace, but peace cannot be reduced to a slogan or a ceasefire. Peace is a set of decisions: consolidating the state’s monopoly on arms, dismantling IRGC networks, securing the country’s borders, and delivering the stability investors need to put their money into Lebanon.
The UAE’s own signals the office, the lifted ban, the delegation have already been sent. But patience is not infinite, and opportunity is not an entitlement.
The offer is already on the table, with a date attached: August 26. The real question is whether Lebanon is prepared to become the country that can receive it.
Because the choice before Beirut could not be simpler: the market or the battlefield, the airport gate or the missile launcher. For once, Lebanon is not being asked to choose between two wars. It is being offered a chance to choose peace, and to build something with it.
**Elissa E Hachem is a journalist and political writer specializing in regional affairs and governance. Former Regional Media Advisor at the U.S. State Department’s Arabic Regional Media Hub, with broad experience in strategic communication across government and private sectors.

Lebanon Explores Ways to Hold Israel Accountable… Mitri: Legal Restrictions Hinder Prosecution
Al-Markazia/August 27, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in Beirut held a dialogue session entitled “Israeli Violations of International Humanitarian Law,” with the participation of Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Tarek Mitri, and MPs Inaya Ezzeddine, Ibrahim Mneimneh, and Michel Moussa. The session focused on the process of documenting Israeli violations of international humanitarian law during the last war on Lebanon, in addition to the methodology and mechanisms adopted by the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law in collecting information, documenting violations, and verifying them. Yassin
The session was opened by Dr. Nasser Yassin, Director of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies – Beirut, who noted that “since the beginning of the last war on Lebanon, the Center in Beirut has been working to highlight Israeli violations and the cost of the war, particularly the direct and indirect damage to various vital sectors in Lebanon. This has been achieved through holding dialogue sessions and workshops, in addition to preparing and publishing situation assessment reports, position papers, and research papers addressing the education, health, and agriculture sectors.” He added, “Today, we are in dire need of activating respect for international law by respecting civilians and their lives, and by not targeting those working in the health or humanitarian fields.” He commended the government’s efforts, saying, “We must return to our senses in a world that is becoming normalized with genocide in all its forms, as if what is happening, whether in Gaza or Lebanon, is acceptable.”
Metri
For his part, Metri addressed “Israel’s crimes and its violations of international human rights law,” recalling “its long record and the statements of the enemy’s leaders and their threats to turn Lebanon into another Gaza.” He addressed the issue of “the cultural and environmental genocide being perpetrated against Lebanon, and Israel’s crimes against humanity, and the documentation of Israeli crimes and violations in order to pursue legal action against Israel for its crimes.” He called on “civil society organizations, NGOs, and all those who have worked on documenting Israeli crimes to share their research and documented reports with the government to enrich the reports the government is preparing,” emphasizing “the necessity of unifying efforts and endeavors on this matter.” He commended “the volunteers who have been working without compensation so far at the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law to document Israeli crimes,” noting that “the government is working to establish a permanent center to accomplish this task.”Regarding the possibility of prosecuting Israel before the International Criminal Court, he pointed out that “Lebanon is not a party to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court, which prevents the Lebanese state from resorting to it to prosecute Israel under the current circumstances.” He explained that “the International Criminal Court can, under specific conditions and mechanisms, accept jurisdiction to consider crimes committed during a specific period, even if the state concerned has not fully acceded to the Rome Statute.” He noted that “the previous government had approved joining the Rome Statute, before later reversing its decision, which prevented the completion of the necessary procedures to enable Lebanon to resort to the International Criminal Court.” He pointed out that “the current government has been unable, during the past year, to reopen this path or return to the decision to join, which has kept the legal restrictions in place to prevent any official Lebanese action before the Court.” He stressed that “the Lebanese state’s current inability to approach the International Criminal Court does not negate the right of Lebanese individuals to pursue legal action against Israel before a number of European courts, such as those in Spain, Belgium, and France, where some European judicial systems, under specific conditions, allow for the filing of lawsuits related to international crimes or grave violations.” He affirmed that “some have already begun taking such a step.”
Azz El-Din
For her part, Azz El-Din emphasized “the importance of protecting intangible heritage, collective memory, and cultural identity,” considering that “their destruction strikes at the very roots of societies and is difficult to compensate for.” She noted that she had previously called, in a speech before UNESCO, for training local experts to document and reassemble this heritage. She criticized the performance of the Lebanese negotiators, stressing the need to adopt a more efficient legal and historical approach and not to separate Israeli attacks from their historical context in confronting the Israeli narrative.
Mneimneh
Mneimneh said: “The process of documenting Israeli attacks constitutes an essential part of the process of obtaining our rights, and it is a process of establishing the concept of international law, which provides an international cover that we cannot deviate from.” He pointed out that “what is happening in the south, with the systematic destruction of villages and town landmarks, is nothing but an expression of Israel’s violation of all international standards and laws,” demanding “a clear framework for the process of documenting the attacks, in order to condemn the Israeli enemy for its actions.”
Yassin
In conclusion, Yassin called for “the necessity of unifying documentation efforts and initiatives across multiple sectors,” urging “the formation of some kind of coalition or coordination between official bodies and civil society,” and commending Metri’s role in “pursuing this file with impartiality and patriotism, despite the challenges and difficulties.”

A Government, Two Lebanons, and Who Is Subjugating Whom?
Rafiq Khoury/Nidaa Al Watan/August 27, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The Lebanese scene is a mixture of tragedy and surrealism. We are in one government, yet two Lebanons exist, with no bridge left between them: one engaged in direct negotiations with Israel under American auspices and with the support of Europe and our Arab brethren; the other demanding that the state immediately halt negotiations and rescind the Cabinet's decisions regarding the disarmament of Hezbollah and the outlawing of its military and security activities. The first seeks a "sustainable peace," knowing full well that it will achieve nothing without disarming and dismantling its military infrastructure, both above ground and in the tunnels. The second is part of a project of perpetual war with Israel and America, even if it pauses occasionally, and understands that what is required of it is not only to relinquish its weapons but also to withdraw from the war project altogether. Nothing is more costly than direct negotiations with Israel except the cost of halting them. The price of negotiations is not merely stumbling at the beginning, middle, or near the end, and thus achieving nothing, but rather the imposition of conflict between the two Lebanons, or at the very least, a complete breakdown in communication. The cost of inaction begins with confronting the risks of playing into Israel and America's hands, and extends to the continuation of the occupation and the confirmation of Arab and international reluctance to provide aid, reconstruction, and the return of displaced persons. This, in turn, deepens the social, financial, and economic crisis and re-establishes Hezbollah's control over the political situation and the decision of war and peace. The Lebanese are no more patriotic than the Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians, and Syrians. These latter groups have entered into direct negotiations with Israel at high levels, and some are still negotiating or demanding negotiations. The problem, however, is that the "Islamic Resistance" is a central element in a larger project that encompasses more than just Hezbollah and its other arms, and more than just resisting the temporary Israeli occupation and the permanent Israeli threat. The Ali Taher hill incident is merely a detail in a larger battle linked to the conflict between Iran, America, and Israel. And the commander of the Quds Force, General Esmail Qaani, who has a direct role in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen, does not conceal the fact that "the axis of resistance, led by the Islamic Republic, will continue its work in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Palestine until the reappearance of the Hidden Imam and the formation of his global government." The current focus of the conflict, as we await the arrival of the Mahdi, is on who will subdue whom and what? The "Islamic Resistance" axis seeks to mold West Asia in its own image. America, along with regional powers striving for lasting peace in Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, finds its urgent task to be subduing Iran and its axis, so that everything conforms to its vision of regional peace. Since war, according to Clausewitz, is "a continuation of politics by other means," negotiations can sometimes be a continuation of war by other means.Lebanon's waiting for the post-election period in Israel and the US is merely a delaying tactic, because the obstacles to negotiations will persist after the elections, regardless of whether Netanyahu remains in power, Eisenkot takes over, or someone else assumes office. Israel currently has no desire to engage in a lasting peace, and Hezbollah cannot declare an end to the war, even if all its demands are met. The framework agreement is contingent upon internal arrangements within a broader regional and international context. All of this is merely speculation. The problem lies with what Mohammed Arkoun calls "the manual mind".

The Farce of an “Iranian Citizen” to Fill the Time
Abdul Wahab Badrakhan/Al-Nahar/August 27, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The current phase is dedicated to wasting time, and this does not mean that it does not also need management. On the contrary, it can be squandered by waiting or by pointless actions, as is the case with Lebanon—the state—or by continuing bombings and attacks in the south, as the Israeli enemy does, as well as by repeating its transgressions in Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank. The United States has reformulated its “maximum pressure” policy on Iran, making it appear new and unprecedented, and it could be called “economic isolation/strangulation,” or even “economic victory day sanctions,” given that “military victory” is impossible. Iran is rebuilding its capabilities to shift from defense to offense, and its goal remains preventing the export of Gulf oil as long as its own oil is besieged and held. To explain this wasted time, the affected parties are urged to understand the circumstances. Israel and the United States have elections they must win before resuming the same policies, while Iran doesn't need an election to proceed. An understanding between the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard is sufficient. The Guard maintains its "revolutionary" title because it is entrusted with "exporting the revolution" and continues to manage its followers in Lebanon and Yemen, while also successfully protecting their weapons in Iraq. No new round of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel is on the horizon. No one in the Israeli Security Cabinet wants to hear the word "withdrawal," especially before the elections. Negotiations have become a sterile debate, lent only a semblance of seriousness by the participation of an American general, but it's merely a stalling tactic. Added to this is the debate over who will be responsible for "verifying" what is being done in "experimental zones," in the absence of any "verification" or accountability for the enemy's destruction of infrastructure in the south. If a semblance of agreement emerges on the "verification body" (Italy), the problems arise: When? Before or after the takeover of Ali Taher Hill (the Iranian one)? Before or after the elections? What if Benjamin Netanyahu wins but fails to form his extremist coalition to remain in power? What if any winning coalition is unable to succeed him as long as Israeli racism counts the Knesset majority without the representation of Arab "citizens"? Any political crisis in Israel, whether long or short, will mean the perpetuation of the occupation and the postponement of any solutions. Any government will be bound by the new fallacies and pretexts used to justify "security zones," and no government has ever stopped or hindered the occupation and settlement projects. In this context, the tense stances of US Ambassador Mike Huckabee seem more representative of the administration than the babbling of his counterpart, Tom Barrack, who contradicts himself. But their pronouncements are useful in this phase of wasting time. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are preoccupied with their elections as if they were certain they would actually take place, even in Jerusalem and Gaza, as if nothing had happened in Gaza or isn't happening in the West Bank. In fact, some are even preparing to win in Gaza to facilitate the American "Riviera" project. In Lebanon, the "Mohammad Reza Sheibani affair" has resurfaced. This Iranian ambassador was declared persona non grata—allegedly by agreement among the ruling parties—but the insistence of Hezbollah kept him in Beirut. Then, by another "agreement" among some ruling factions, the General Security Directorate extended his expired visa and classified him as an "Iranian citizen." If this isn't a farce, it's certainly a dark joke. The important thing is that the "weapons control" process not be conducted in this manner.

Transgender woman in Lebanon allowed to change gender in rare case
Agence France Presse/27 August ,2026
A Lebanese judge told AFP on Wednesday that he has allowed a transgender woman to update her personal status record and change her gender, a rare move in a country where LGBTQ issues remain highly taboo. Lebanon has never been a safe haven for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer people, but the community has long been visible and outspoken, defying crackdowns on its bars, nightclubs and community centers. Lebanese law stipulates that official documents may be changed by a judge to represent a person's reality. Judge Wassim Zahreddine said he based his ruling on a decision by Beirut's court of appeals in 2016 that said a transgender man had the right to change his name and gender on his legal records. "I acted out of conviction, I applied the law, and out of my own humanity," judge Wassim Zahreddine told AFP by phone.
His ruling to approve the change may still be appealed. It was filed in April, six years after the woman filed her request, but fear of a backlash led to it only being published in a Lebanese judicial magazine in July with her approval.The decision was criticized by some clerics, said Zahreddine, but he added that he believed the case of legal gender change remained "within restrictions" as "it is not easy to undergo gender-change surgery, financially or medically".The transgender woman got a medical report in Thailand in 2019 proving that she had gender dysphoria, and underwent gender-affirming surgery, according to Zahreddine.She filed for a change in her personal status record in Lebanon in 2020, vying to have her legal status correspond with her physical and behavioral status. The judge said that when the woman went through a security checkpoint, "they would ask her why her ID said she was a man when she was a woman," adding that her having to repeatedly explain her case constituted a legal breach of her right to privacy. While Lebanon is considered one of the Middle East's more liberal countries where lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people enjoy a more lax atmosphere, a vaguely worded law that punishes "unnatural" sexual relations has been used to clamp down on the community.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on August 27-28/2026
White House says no negotiations happening with Iran, all options on table
Reuters/27 August ,2026
The United States and Iran are not currently in talks to end the war as Washington focuses on pressuring Tehran economically, but all options remain “on the table,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an interview with Fox News on Thursday. “What President Trump’s number one goal has been and will always be is to ensure that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. Period. And so, we’ve had Operation Epic Fury to destroy their military. Now we have Operation Economic Outcast to destroy their economy,” Leavitt told the “Fox & Friends” program.
“No negotiations are happening right now, and this will continue until the president feels that maybe they come to the table in a meaningful way. We have not seen that yet,” she said. “He of course continues to retain all options on the table, and the naval blockade continues to be in effect as well.”
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had warned countries on Monday to cut their financial ties with Iran or face secondary sanctions as part of what had been billed as “economic D-Day,” but the Treasury Department stopped short of actually imposing penalties. Qatar’s prime minister visited Tehran on Thursday in a bid to relaunch diplomacy after the US and Iran traded recriminations over Washington’s promise to increase economic pressure, a move one Iranian official described as “all-out economic war.”

Iran unable to import fuel amid US blockade: Official
AFP/27 August ,2026
Iran has been unable to import enough fuel to make up for insufficient domestic production because of a US naval blockade, a senior Iranian official said. “Fuel production is insufficient, and because of the US naval blockade, we cannot import it,” the official IRNA news agency quoted Vice President Mohammad Jafar Ghaempanah as saying on Wednesday. The remarks came as Iranians have in recent days queued outside fuel stations, with the war with the United States increasingly shifting towards economic pressure on Tehran. On Monday, the Iranian president’s chief of staff Mohsen Haji-Mirzaei said fuel quotas would be reviewed, without elaborating. War broke out between Iran and the United States on February 28. Tehran has since seized control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, with Washington imposing a naval counterblockade on Iranian ports. Ghaempanah criticized the distribution of highly subsidized fuel in Iran, saying the current system disproportionately benefits people who own multiple vehicles. “The distribution of fuel in the country is inequitable. Owners of several vehicles benefit from subsidies, unlike those who do not own one,” he said. Iran, a major oil producer with some of the world’s cheapest fuel, has for years heavily subsidized fuel, making any changes to pricing politically sensitive.

Iran’s president reiterates Tehran ‘did not start the war’ as mediation efforts continue
Al Arabiya English/27 August ,2026
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday reiterated that his country did not start the war in February, as regional diplomatic efforts intensified to ease tensions between Tehran and Washington.“We did not start the war. We defended ourselves,” Pezeshkian said in a speech at the International Islamic Unity Conference in Tehran. Pezeshkian also accused the US and Israel of launching a war against Iran while negotiations with Washington were still underway. “Defending the country is a legitimate right and is not an act of hostility toward neighboring countries,” he said, adding that Iranian authorities had exercised that right.His comments came as Pakistan, Qatar and Oman continued diplomatic efforts aimed at narrowing differences and reducing tensions between Tehran and Washington. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said earlier on Thursday that Islamabad was continuing to coordinate with friendly countries on mediation efforts between the United States and Iran. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani is also expected to visit Tehran on Thursday as part of efforts to revive the diplomatic track. Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi visited the Iranian capital several days ago for talks that included the situation surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump says Putin will not attack NATO territory, downplays Ratcliffe trip
Reuters/27 August ,2026
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that Russian President Vladimir Putin will not attack a NATO country, and he played down media reports that CIA Director John Ratcliffe warned Russian officials against such an attack earlier in the week. “He’s not going to attack a NATO territory,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. Earlier in the day, Trump told Axios in a phone interview that there would be no such attack, and that Ratcliffe had not been dispatched to Moscow to deliver any particular message. “Ratcliffe sees his Russian counterpart once every six months or once every year. They have a very good relationship. There was no message and there was nothing unusual,” Trump told the news outlet. European and US intelligence officials have long monitored Russian sabotage and gray zone attacks in Europe that fall below the threshold of full-on war and are generally aimed at weakening NATO’s unity and its member states’ willingness to support Ukraine against Russian aggression.

Qatar PM pursues mediation in Tehran as US ramps up ‘economic war’
Al Arabiya English/27 August ,2026
Qatar’s prime minister visited Tehran on Thursday in a bid to revive diplomacy as the US and Iran traded recriminations over Washington’s latest sanctions drive, described by one Iranian official as “all-out economic war.”A Gulf neighbor of Iran, Qatar has served as a back-channel negotiator for the warring parties and played a direct role in securing a June ceasefire that briefly led to a cessation of hostilities.The visit comes as the war nears its sixth month with fighting largely paused but no diplomatic breakthrough in sight. Both sides are at odds over control of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for global oil supplies that Tehran has used as leverage. The White House said there were currently no negotiations happening between the United States and Iran as Tehran had not yet “come to the table in a meaningful way.” Iran has repeatedly said it has never left the negotiating table.
Unblocking Hormuz
Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, who is also his country’s foreign minister, held talks in Tehran with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, according to Iran’s foreign ministry channel on Telegram. The two discussed a proposed phased framework that includes establishing a temporary joint Iranian-Omani shipping corridor through the strait and carrying out a joint project to clear mines from the waterway, Qatar’s foreign ministry said. A memorandum of understanding reached between the US and Iran in June to end the conflict broke down in part because of differences over the strait between Iran and Oman, where one-fifth of the world’s oil supplies passed before the war began on February 28. Tehran has said the strait will remain shut unless the US meets Iranian conditions agreed under the June interim ceasefire. Those conditions include an end to the US blockade on Iranian ports, compensation and removal of sanctions. The two officials also reviewed the latest developments in the region and efforts to de-escalate tensions and create conditions for dialogue, the Qatari ministry said.
‘No negotiations happening’
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Thursday that President Donald Trump “continues to retain all options on the table” with regard to Iran. “We’ve had Operation Epic Fury to destroy their military. Now we have Operation Economic Outcast to destroy their economy,” Leavitt said in an interview with Fox News. “No negotiations are happening right now, and this will continue until the president feels that maybe they come to the table in a meaningful way,” she said. “We have not seen that yet.”While direct military strikes on Iran have halted, Washington this week piled on the economic pressure by announcing plans to cut Iran off from its trading partners with increased sanctions. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf called on Thursday for national unity in the face of what he described as “all-out economic war,” warning that internal division was “exactly what the enemy wants.”Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s national security committee, said the sanctions were an “inhumane and hostile act” which nonetheless had lost their effectiveness. Tehran has lived under various forms of US sanctions since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Oman-Iran Hormuz deal
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said on Wednesday that Iran and Oman had agreed on how to share the Strait of Hormuz and its revenues, but a senior Iranian source later said the two countries were still working on the details of an agreement. The Strait of Hormuz was open to free navigation before the war, but Iran has since clung to its control of the waterway as leverage and a revenue source, seeking to charge ships a commission, which the US has opposed. Despite an aerial bombardment earlier in the war that severely diminished Iran’s conventional forces, Tehran has maintained enough missile and drone capability to attack neighboring countries and disrupt oil tankers in the strait. The International Maritime Organization has reported 70 incidents in the Strait of Hormuz since February 28 that have killed 19 seafarers.Thousands of others have died, mostly in Iran and Lebanon, since the US and Israel attacked Iran with the stated goals of denying Iran a nuclear weapon, helping Iranians topple their government, and destroying Tehran’s missile program.With Reuters

Faltering diplomatic efforts to end Iran war continue
Associated Press/27 August ,2026
Pakistan said Thursday it was continuing diplomatic efforts to help resolve the crisis between the United States and Iran and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said at a news briefing that Field Marshal Asim Munir’s recent visit to Tehran was aimed at reviving the June memorandum of understanding to reopen the strait.Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has also continued diplomatic outreach during Munir’s visit, speaking with his Turkish, Egyptian, and other regional counterparts, Andrabi said. Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani is expected in Tehran on Thursday for talks with Iranian officials on “ways to de-escalate tensions & create the conditions conducive to dialogue,” Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said on X. The discussions, confirmed by Tehran, will also address “freedom of navigation” in the Strait of Hormuz and the need to return to the prewar status quo, according to Majed Al Ansari, an agency spokesperson.But U.S. President Donald Trump told Al Jazeera by phone Wednesday that he has “no time schedule” to wrap up the conflict that will reach the six-month mark on Friday. Trump told the Qatar-based broadcaster that he believes the United States is “winning very big.”
- Iran’s Foreign Ministry calls US sanctions “pure parody” -Esmail Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, wrote late Wednesday in a social media post that the U.S. had made a coalition with Bahrain, calling it a country with “virtually no meaningful economic exchange with Iran.”In another social media post on Wednesday, Iran’s top negotiator and parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf thanked China for rejecting the U.S. “economic D-Day” policies against Iran.“We welcome China’s principled statement rejecting illegal sanctions against Iran," Qalibaf said.Earlier this week, Tehran had warned that it would respond harshly to expanded U.S. sanctions, including measures against countries it sees as cooperating with Washington. Iran has repeatedly targeted Bahrain and other Gulf countries with missiles and drones since the U.S. and Israel launched the war on Feb. 28.

Israeli strikes kill three people in Gaza, medics say
Reuters/27 August ,2026
Israeli strikes killed at least three Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, health officials said. Medics said an Israeli airstrike killed one person near Qarara town in the southern Gaza Strip, and another killed a man at a house in the Beach refugee camp in Gaza City. Another airstrike on Gaza City later on Thursday hit a motorist, killing one person, they said. The Israeli military did not immediately comment on any of the incidents. An October 2025 US-backed ceasefire halted major fighting in the shattered territory, but it failed to end strikes by the Israeli military, which it said aimed to thwart attacks by Hamas and other Gaza militants. Hamas accuses Israel of violating the ceasefire and undermining efforts to implement a broader plan by US President Donald Trump to end the Gaza conflict, which also includes Israeli withdrawals and Hamas disarmament. More than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the ceasefire took effect last October, according to Gazan health officials, while the Israeli military says four Israeli soldiers have been killed.

Syria Kurdish women fighters discuss merger with interior ministry
Al Arabiya English/27 August ,2026
The Syrian Kurdish Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) said on Thursday it had discussed with the interior ministry integrating their fighters into the government’s forces. The announcement came two days after the head of Kurdish fighters in Syria, Mazloum Abdi, announced the dissolution of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) – which includes the YPJ – under an agreement with Damascus.The YPJ said in a statement that its leadership met on Wednesday with a delegation from the interior ministry, during which “the possibility of integrating the Women’s Protection Units, as a special and organized force, into the structure of the interior ministry, was confirmed.”It said meetings would continue “in order to complete and finalize the integration process” as part of the agreement signed between Abdi and Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in January. After Syria’s conflict erupted in 2011, Kurdish women fighters fought on the front lines against ISIS, particularly in the 2016 battle to drive the extremists from Raqa, their de facto capital in Syria.The women fighters later took on administrative and security responsibilities at the al-Hol and Roj detention camps in northeast Syria for relatives of suspected extremists, including thousands of foreigners.While former Kurdish fighters are to be integrated into Syria’s army, the military does not currently accept women in its ranks. A Kurdish military source told AFP on condition of anonymity that 1,500 women fighters would be integrated into an interior ministry force. On Tuesday, Abdi announced the end of the SDF’s mission and “their dissolution as an independent military force” following “the completion of the process of integrating our forces into the brigades of the Syrian army.”The move closes a key chapter for Syria’s Kurds after the SDF, backed by a US-led military coalition, spearheaded the fight against ISIS at the height of Syria’s civil war.Kurdish officials have previously said that at the height of the conflict, women made up around a third of all Kurdish forces. Syria analyst Nanar Hawach of the International Crisis Group earlier this year estimated the overall number of Kurdish fighters at 20,000 to 30,000.The SDF was the de facto army of the semi-autonomous administration which the Kurds set up in north and northeast Syria after seizing territory battling ISIS. But Washington has grown close to Syria’s new Islamist authorities who overthrew longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.The integration of Kurdish fighters into the state is part of al-Sharaa’s push to extend state control across the country. With AFP

Russia launches missiles and drones at Ukraine, authorities say
Reuters/27 August ,2026
Russia launched missiles and drones at Ukraine overnight on Thursday, with the capital Kyiv and other cities coming under a massive attack, Ukrainian authorities said. Ukraine’s air force said the barrage included two Oniks anti-ship cruise missiles, 258 drones, and an unspecified number of ballistic missiles.
The air force said that nearly 90 percent of the drones were downed, as well as one Oniks and seven ballistic missiles. Russia has escalated its air strikes on Ukraine in recent months, with Kyiv short of US-made Patriot interceptors capable of downing ballistic missiles. “This week, our European allies made important decisions to strengthen Ukrainian air defense,” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on X, calling for additional support packages. “Everything that strengthens the protection of our skies effectively saves the lives of Ukrainians every day,” Zelenskyy said. He said this week Ukraine has recently received a small batch of the interceptors.Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the massive strike targeted ports, grain storage, energy, industry, and other infrastructure.In Kyiv, debris fell in two districts, damaging a school and shattering windows in a healthcare facility in one of them, Mayor Vitali Klitschko said. Explosions had earlier reverberated in the city, a Reuters witness said. In the surrounding region, two people were injured as Russian missile and drone attacks caused a fire in warehouse premises and damaged other warehouses, as well as private houses, the regional governor said.
Drones cross into Moldova
Russia’s defense ministry said Moscow hit facilities of Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, metallurgical and oil-refining industries, logistics centers and infrastructure facilities at the ports in Odesa region intended to support the Ukrainian armed forces.The attack on the Black Sea port city of Odesa lasted almost all night and morning, a local official said, adding that infrastructure, an educational facility and a multi-story building were damaged. Three people were injured in the city, the official said. Five drones crossed into the air space of neighboring Moldova amid the attack on Ukraine, Moldova’s authorities said. In the central Poltava region, industrial businesses and an energy facility came under attack, cutting power to seven settlements, the regional governor said. In Kryvyi Rih, a steel-and-mining hub in central Ukraine and Zelenskyy’s hometown, three people were injured as two missiles hit an industrial facility. Three more people were wounded in the southern city of Zaporizhzhia, officials said.

Saudi FM calls for OIC reform, stronger Islamic cooperation and solidarity
Al Arabiya English/27 August ,2026
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan stressed on Thursday the “urgent need” for greater Islamic cooperation and solidarity, while underscoring the importance of serious reforms within the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in the coming period. The OIC is the world’s second-largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations. It has 57 member states and describes itself as the collective voice of the Muslim world. Prince Faisal also said that no country can confront today’s interconnected challenges alone, while reaffirming Saudi Arabia’s longstanding positions on the Palestinian cause. Saudi Arabia strongly condemned Israel’s announcement of plans to establish new settlement units. Riyadh also rejected any attempts to impose a temporal or spatial division of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, according to the Saudi foreign minister. Prince Faisal further stressed the need to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches Gaza without obstruction.

Iraq says bringing all weapons under state control is ‘irreversible’
Al Arabiya English/27 August ,2026
Iraq’s armed forces on Thursday reiterated their commitment to implementing the government’s plan to bring all weapons under state control, describing the issue as a sovereign matter with “no turning back.”Sabah al-Numan, spokesperson for the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, said the government remained committed to regulating weapons and ensuring they fall under the authority of the state and its official security institutions. He said a specialized committee had been formed and that talks were ongoing on how to regulate weapons “in a way that preserves them,” adding that the matter was a sovereign demand. “We will not allow a return to sectarian rhetoric or the spread of malicious rumors,” al-Numan said.
September 30 deadline
On the US-led international coalition, al-Numan said its mission would end on schedule on September 30. He added that the withdrawal of coalition forces was accelerating and was being carried out in close coordination with the relevant Iraqi authorities. Separately, Defense Ministry spokesperson Yahya Rasool said the government had established a new Jazira and Badia Operations Command in Samawah province. He said the command would be based in the province and would be responsible for covering the surrounding area and strengthening the security presence there. Rasool also said the commander-in-chief had directed that priority be given to equipping Iraq’s air defense forces, as part of efforts to strengthen the armed forces, improve their readiness to confront security challenges and protect Iraqi airspace.

Trump signs order to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America
Reuters/27 August ,2026
US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America, a change he said would take effect immediately. A White House aide said the order directs the Department of the Interior and Secretary Doug Burgum to make the change.
One of the five Great Lakes of North America, Lake Ontario borders both the Canadian province of Ontario and the US state of New York. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trade talks between the US and Canada collapsed last week with each side blaming the other for derailing three days of intensive negotiations.

Death toll rises, rescuers search for 1,400 missing after Nepal-Tibet floods
AFP/27 August ,2026
Rescue teams waded through mud on Thursday searching for more than 1,400 people missing after flash floods and landslides struck the Nepal-Tibet border, as the death toll rose sharply to at least 362, with entire villages swept away. Experts warned of the risk of further floods a day after the devastating tsunami-like wall of freezing water and mud wiped out towns under a torrent of sludge, engulfing homes, smashing bridges and dams, and sweeping vehicles away like toys. Many of the missing are foreign tourists, including scores of Hindu pilgrims to Tibet’s sacred snow-capped Mount Kailash. According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), the disaster was caused by a glacial collapse that triggered a vast flow of icy debris. Emergency teams were racing to pluck survivors from affected zones, while Nepali soldiers used sniffer dogs to search for bodies buried under the suffocating dirt. “Everything is finished,” Omkar Joshi, a 35-year-old Nepali customs agent rescued from a hilltop in the border town of Timure, told AFP. “It is a giant graveyard. All that is left are sand and pebbles, soaked red by human blood.” Nepali police said they had recovered 359 bodies.Another 910 people, including 517 foreign tourists, were out of contact in the country. Beijing said 100 Chinese citizens are missing in Nepal. In China, state media said the “mudslide disaster” at the Gyirong Port in Tibet killed three people, while 558 people, including 260 foreigners, are missing. Chinese Premier Li Qiang visited the area on Thursday, state media said, to oversee “emergency rescue and relief work, and to visit rescue workers and affected people.”Li Qipu, a member of China’s paramilitary People’s Armed Police, cited “the instability of a reservoir lake upstream” and “the narrow mountain road” as elements complicating rescue efforts.
China’s Tibet Autonomous Region is largely inaccessible to foreign journalists.
‘Inland tsunami’
Prime Minister Balendra Shah, who urged the Himalayan nation to “stand together” hours after the disaster, visited some of the hardest-hit areas on Thursday. Shah told local authorities to “provide immediate relief to displaced families” and to open blocked roads, his office said in a statement.
The foreigners out of contact included Indians and others from Australia, Britain, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, South Korea and the United States, Nepal’s tourism board said. The sudden rush of mud and debris was “like an inland tsunami,” traveling nearly 170 kilometers (105 miles) south into Nepal, said environmental historian Ruth Gamble, of Australia’s La Trobe University. Rasuwa, in the north of Nepal, was the first district to be affected, but deaths were reported as far south as Chitwan, on the border with India. Buddhist spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, who lives in exile in India, said he would “pray for all those who have lost their lives.”Chinese government officials in Tibet mobilized nearly 800 emergency workers, as well as sniffer dogs and speed boats to help the rescue efforts, the official Xinhua news agency said. Promises of aid and assistance came in soon after reports of the scale of the disaster.The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said it was sending emergency supplies including blankets, first aid kits, stretchers and body bags.
Glacial collapse
The USGS said the flood was sparked by a glacial collapse, which caused seismic activity and the “catastrophic” downstream impacts in Nepal and Tibet. “This event was initially reported as a magnitude 4.4 earthquake,” it said, but the seismic recordings were analyszd and it was found instead to be a “glacial collapse and debris flow.” Climate change is causing glaciers to melt worldwide, increasing the risks of glacial lake floods and glacial collapses. Fears of more potential floods remain, with water trapped by the immense piles of debris blocking the valley. “With a blockage still lodged upstream on the Nepal-China border river, authorities warn a second flood may occur,” said Qianggong Zhang, head of climate and environmental risks at the Kathmandu-based International Center for Integrated Mountain Development. Katmandu’s Flood Forecasting Division issued a “special notice” on Thursday, warning of a growing lake behind debris left by the landslide. “Residents of downstream areas of the Bhote Koshi River, travellers, rescue personnel, and all concerned are requested to exercise extreme caution,” it said. Scores of Hindu devotees from across the world are among the hundreds missing on the border, Indian spiritual leader Sadhguru said on Thursday. They were returning from a holy pilgrimage to Mount Kailash, on the Chinese side of the frontier, when they were caught in the floods at an immigration post. “The entire group was there in the building,” Sadhguru said in a video message to his millions of followers, weeping as he spoke from Tibet, with the anguished wails of other pilgrims heard in the background. “This is a terrible and extraordinary event.”

UN urges child-safe design across all social media, after Meta settlement
LBCI/27 August ,2026
The United Nations called Thursday for child-safe design across the social media industry after tech giant Meta agreed to sweeping limits on teen use of Facebook and Instagram in some U.S. states.
"The design changes that Meta has now agreed to implement on its social media apps align with what my office has been calling for," U.N. rights chief Volker Turk said on X. "But we're not there yet. Safe design should be applied across the industry."AFP

Visa, Mastercard launch international card payments in Syria
Al Arabiya English/27 August ,2026
Visa and Mastercard carried out their first international card transactions in Syria on Wednesday, a major step in reconnecting the country with global payment networks days after Washington removed it from its state sponsors of terrorism list. The near-simultaneous moves by two of the world’s largest payment networks offer one of the clearest signs yet of Syria’s accelerating reintegration into the global financial system after decades of sanctions and isolation. Qatar’s QNB Group said it and Mastercard had completed what it described as the world’s first end-to-end international card payment in Syria, while Visa said separately it had tested its first live international transaction in the country with Lebanon-based Fransabank. Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa took part in the Visa test, making a card payment at a restaurant in Damascus’ historic Old City, according to a video published by Syria’s state-run Syrian Response. Central Bank Governor Mohammed Safwat Raslan was seated alongside him. US designation had been major deterrent to banks. The transactions came just two days after the US formally removed Syria from its list of state sponsors of terrorism. The designation, imposed in 1979, had remained a major deterrent to international banks and investors even after Washington dismantled its broader sanctions program against the country. Washington terminated comprehensive sanctions on Syria in December last year while retaining targeted measures against former president Bashar al-Assad and his associates, rights abusers, drug traffickers, ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates and Iranian proxies. But Syria’s continued designation as a state sponsor of terrorism carried restrictions on financial transactions and remained a source of legal and compliance risk for banks considering doing business there. The US formally removed Syria from the list on Monday.Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani told Reuters before the removal that Damascus hoped lifting what he called the “last obstacle” would reconnect Syria with the global financial and economic system and boost investment. “There is no longer any obstacle to investment, doing business and rebuilding economic life in Syria,” he said. Al-Sharaa’s government has made restoring access to global finance and attracting foreign investment a central part of its economic strategy since opposition forces led by him toppled al-Assad in December 2024.
Step toward wider acceptance
Visa said it planned to enable international visitors to use their cards while in Syria, and described the test as a step towards wider international card acceptance in the country. QNB said its system now allows Syrian merchants including hotels, restaurants and government entities to accept international Mastercard credit cards through its point-of-sale terminals. It will gradually add eligible merchants as part of a phased rollout, subject to regulatory approvals. Visa’s transaction was carried out in cooperation with Fransabank Lebanon as the acquiring financial institution and Paymera, a Syrian payments technology company owned by the state’s sovereign fund. With Reuters

Ratko Mladic, ex-Bosnian Serb warlord who oversaw atrocities in Bosnia, dies at 84
The Associated Press/27 August ,2026
Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb general who oversaw atrocities in Bosnia in the 1990s, has died in prison at age 84, the Serbian state RTS television and the official Bosnian Serb television reported. The reports said that Mladic died in a UN prison hospital in The Hague, Netherlands. A family member of Mladic, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, confirmed the reports for the AP and said Mladic’s son, Darko Mladic, was on the way to the Hague.UN court officials told the AP in a statement that they could not immediately confirm Mladic’s death. The UN tribunal for war crimes committed during the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s sentenced Mladic to life in prison in 2017 in what was considered a key step toward bringing justice to the victims. He had been in custody since 2011 after many years on the run. The ruthless, blue-eyed former communist officer-turned nationalist warlord, was one of the most notorious figures of the conflict that left more than 100,000 people dead and over 1 million homeless. He commanded his troops to “scorch the brains” of the Bosnian Muslims and boasted of being a “Serbian God.”When the ethnic war in Bosnia started in 1992, Mladic became the commander of the Bosnian Serb troops and took control of large swaths of the country to form a Serb mini state. Serbs under Mladic’s control laid siege to the capital, Sarajevo, and other cities and villages, established concentration camps for detained non-Serb civilians and enemy soldiers, and systematically killed prisoners. In Sarajevo, Serb troops kept the city isolated while killing civilians with snipers. In 1995, Mladic’s troops slaughtered more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica — the only post-World War II case of genocide in Europe. But Mladic himself and his admirers among the Serbs have never repented. He was seen by many as a patriot fighting for the first pan-Serbian state. Defiant, Mladic acted bullishly during his trial and yelled at the judges when sentenced to life in prison. Mladic was born March 12, 1942, in the tiny Bosnian village of Bozinovici, in the hills 40 kilometers (25 miles) south of Sarajevo. Like other protagonists in the Yugoslav conflict, he imbibed nationalism from his family’s fate in World War II — his own father was killed by Croats.A communist-era officer, Mladic sided with the Serbs as Yugoslavia disintegrated in the war. Mladic first led a Serb insurgency in Croatia before taking over the Bosnian Serb army that was backed by Serbia and then-President Slobodan Milosevic, who also died in the custody of the Hague court in 2006 while on trial for genocide. Mladic was known for his obsession with his nation’s history. He saw Bosnia’s war as a chance for revenge against the onetime 500-year-long Ottoman occupation of Serbia. He often referred to Bosnia’s Muslims as Turks and boasted of revenge when his troops overran the protected UN enclave of Srebrenica in 1995.

The Latest LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on August 27-28/2026
The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement and the rise of South-South cooperation
Cornelia Meyer/Al Arabiya English/August 27/2026
When the tectonic plates of geopolitics shift, new alliances are formed. The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement is a case in point. Three majority-Sunni Muslim nations – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey – ratified a defense pact on August 7 in Mecca.
The Iran war may have contributed to the new alliance, but its origins lie in the agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan of September 2025 – before Israel and the United States began an outright war on Iran.
Pakistan’s increased involvement in addressing regional issues is evident in its role as a mediator in the Iran war.Saudi Arabia has long been one of the most important leaders in the Islamic world as well as the global economy, while Turkey has steadily increased its clout in the region.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey cooperated on Syria – again before the outbreak of the Iran war – when, after the al-Assad regime was overthrown, Ahmed al-Sharaa became president. Al-Sharaa was known to Ankara as a competent administrator of neighboring Idlib province and to Riyadh as a man who was born in the Kingdom. Saudi Arabia also helped al-Sharaa gain standing in the Western world, particularly with US President Donald Trump. It also helped Syria’s international standing and regional stability when Saudi Arabia and Qatar paid off the country’s debt to the World Bank in full.
The agreement
The agreement brings together Pakistan, which has a battle-proven military and nuclear weapons; Saudi Arabia, which is home to Islam’s two holiest sites and is the world’s largest oil exporter, with enormous financial strength and technological know-how; and Turkey, which has the second-largest army in NATO as well as a strong defense industry. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif all attended the signing ceremony in Mecca, a testament to the importance all three nations attach to the new alliance. Institutional, operational and industrial cohesion are the three pillars of the agreement. There will be institutionalized mechanisms of cooperation between defense ministers, foreign ministers and chiefs of general staff or armed forces commanders. The defense pact will also allow for joint military exercises involving land, air and naval forces, as well as defense industry cooperation. The latter will be of particular significance to Saudi Arabia and Turkey because it will focus on cooperation in development, technology and production.
Egypt has been mentioned as a potential candidate for an expansion of the alliance, a prospect that appears to be welcomed by Ankara. Saudi Arabia has longstanding, strong relations with Egypt, whose armed forces are among the largest and strongest in the region. Regional cooperation makes sense in an environment riddled with conflict. It is meant to support stability – not foster conflict. Turkey in particular has made clear that the Mecca agreement should not replace existing alliances, which is particularly important to Ankara in light of its NATO membership. The agreement has a collective defense clause, which Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan interpreted as similar to NATO’s Article 5, whereby an attack on one is considered an attack on all. How this clause will be interpreted in practice will depend on future developments and precedents that have yet to be established.
South-South cooperation
The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement can also be seen in the context of South-South cooperation. There are other institutions that foster cooperation among nations of the Global South in the realms of economics, defense and development. These include OPEC, founded in 1960; the Islamic Development Bank, founded in 1975; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, founded in 2001; and, of course, BRICS, which was, oddly enough, the brainchild of former Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim O’Neill.However, as Victor Hugo once wrote: “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”All of these constructs take various legal forms and have different goals, but their overall aim is to foster cooperation among nations of the Global South. It makes sense for the larger regional powers to cooperate both economically and on defense. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have longstanding mechanisms of cooperation, as do Egypt and the Kingdom. Therefore, it is positive to see Ankara and Riyadh establishing avenues of communication and cooperation.Dissonance, strife and war are part and parcel of everyday life in the greater Middle East. In that sense, the more cooperation we see among nations with the willingness and power to bring about stability, the better. Lastly, the US should not feel threatened by the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan are US allies, and Washington has for a long time asked its allies to share the physical and financial burden of defense. The Mecca agreement brings about just that: military, industrial and broader defense cooperation. Dr. Majid Rafizadeh put it very well in a recent op-ed in Al Arabiya English: “Riyadh has chosen to forge formal coalitions that bind partners through reciprocal obligations. This approach reflects a mature diplomacy that prioritizes consultation, shared responsibility, and institutional mechanisms.”

Sam Mansi: The Upcoming Elections Will Determine Trump's Fate... and Tehran Will Not Accept US Demands
Basel Eid/Al-Arabi Newspaper/August 27, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
No sooner had the United States launched its package of severe sanctions against Iran under the title of "economic pariah," declaring its goal to "strangle Tehran economically," than the latter rushed to ridicule them, justifying this by stating that none of the sanctions it has faced in recent decades have been able to shake the foundations of its regime or undermine its internal cohesion. However, between the continuous American threats against Iran, whether economic or military, and US President Donald Trump's occasional talk of adopting a diplomatic solution with it, observers find themselves facing a state of both astonishment and suspicion. So where does Trump really stand on Iran? What is his true position? And what is the secret behind this contradiction that has made his image, before his domestic audience as well as the world, appear different from what he has promoted about himself as a decisive figure who imposes his decisions and does not compromise?
Basel Eid/Al-Arabi Newspaper/August 27, 2026 In this context, writer and political analyst Sam Mansi believes there has been no clear American policy toward Iran from the beginning until today, noting that this becomes even more apparent, at least, after the war that broke out between Iran, the US, and Israel in June 2015. Speaking on the "Bil Arabi" platform, he explained that there is no clear American policy, vision, or strategy regarding what is required of Iran, just as there is no clear vision of what Iran wants from the United States. He said: "Neither the Americans know what they want from Iran, nor do the Iranians know what the United States wants from them. Consequently, there is confusion in American foreign policy toward Iran, manifested in these contradictory actions and statements, ranging from extreme severity, violence, threats, and the use of strong language, to a return to soft, diplomatic rhetoric and expressions of a desire for understanding." Mansi believes this contradiction is evidence of the lack of a clear vision, pointing out that one of the direct reasons driving US President Donald Trump to adopt this approach is related to the upcoming elections, which will determine his fate, not just that of his party. Regarding the extent to which the severe US sanctions on Iran, particularly the "economic pariah" campaign launched by Washington, can achieve their objectives, he said that these sanctions "may bear fruit," considering them serious, severe, and difficult, and making life in Iran a tragedy. He noted, however, that the Iranian regime does not take these matters seriously, because as long as the sanctions do not lead to its downfall or threaten it with collapse, they will not have a decisive impact. He pointed out that Iran has been subjected to sanctions of varying levels for nearly 40 years, but they have not yielded the expected results. He added that the Iranian regime remains committed to its tools and regional influence, noting that the situation in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen has not stabilized, and that Tehran continues to rely on its proxies, alliances, and allied militias in confronting the United States, in addition to exerting pressure on neighboring countries. Regarding the possibility that the new sanctions could lead to a change in the behavior of the Iranian regime, he said that it was "possible," but he ruled out the possibility of results appearing as quickly as we imagine or at the time we expect, considering that sanctions alone do not necessarily mean that the Iranian regime will become ready to sit at the table for serious negotiations.
Mansi indicated that the Iranian regime is ready to enter negotiations, and that its ambition and goal is to open the door to negotiations. He stressed, however, that opening the door to negotiations does not guarantee reaching results, because, in his estimation, the Iranian regime cannot accept the demands put forward by the United States. Conversely, he believes that the Republican administration in the United States also cannot agree to the Iranian demands, considering that any significant concession in this direction could reflect negatively on Trump's political image and bring back memories of the era of former US President Barack Obama. Regarding Donald Trump's image both domestically and internationally, Mansi said that his image has declined significantly even among his supporters, explaining that even those who dislike or do not support him have never had a positive or favorable view of him since his first term. He noted, however, that Trump has many groups of supporters inside and outside the United States, particularly in our region, considering that this image is "certainly declining," and that there is, at the same time, caution and fear surrounding Donald Trump. Mansi pointed out that Trump was confusing allies as well as adversaries, arguing that confusing adversaries led to confusion among allies. Therefore, he said, everyone is waiting, unsure of the outcome of this policy. He stated that no one can predict where current US policy toward Iran will lead tomorrow morning, given the ongoing contradiction between escalation and threats on one hand, and a return to negotiation and diplomatic solutions on the other. Between severe sanctions and escalating threats, and repeated returns to negotiation and diplomacy, the US stance toward Tehran remains governed more by contradiction than by a clear vision. While Trump is betting on economic pressure to force Iran to change its behavior, the questions seem to outweigh the answers: What does he really want from Tehran, and where might this vacillating approach lead?

America's New Scam?: Hamas Elections by Another Name is Still Hamas
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute./August 27, 2026
Hussein al-Sheikh, vice president of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and deputy chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), revealed this week that Hamas... has reached an understanding with the US permitting figures affiliated with the terrorist organization to participate [in the upcoming November 29 PA elections] through a "new political framework."
If this account is accurate, the scheme amounts to a dangerous exercise in deception.
Changing Hamas's name does not change Hamas. Pretending that Hamas-affiliated election candidates are somehow different from Hamas because they are running under another banner is a scam.
Perhaps they could call themselves the "Palestinian Peace Movement," or the "Palestinian Party for Democracy and Transparency"?
Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist. It has never accepted the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." It rejects the Oslo Accords. Its ideology remains centered on "resistance" and the claimed "liberation" of Palestine — which in fact has never existed — wishfully from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Most importantly, Hamas has still not demonstrated that it is prepared to surrender its weapons and cease functioning as an armed organization.
Hamas will promise anything if doing so helps it survive and return to political legitimacy.
Hamas has proved itself adept at telling outsiders what they want to hear while pursuing its long-term objectives.
The same danger applies to elections
Why, after October 7, should anyone, let alone the Trump administration, be searching for formulas to facilitate Hamas's return to Palestinian political life?
Why, nearly three years after October 7, 2023, does a terrorist organization such as Hamas continue to be treated by various international and regional parties as some kind of indispensable political actor? Hamas officials continue to participate in negotiations and meetings through regional mediators, while discussions increasingly seem aimed not at removing Hamas from Palestinian political life but at finding ways to accommodate it.
There can be no loophole called "Hamas-affiliated independents." There can be no cosmetic rebranding and no supposedly "new political framework" designed to disguise the identity of candidates who continue to embrace Hamas and its jihadist ideology.
Stop the deception. Stop searching for ways to sneak Hamas back into Palestinian political life through the back door. It is not good for either their election or America's.
Changing Hamas's name does not change Hamas. Pretending that Hamas-affiliated election candidates are somehow different from Hamas because they are running under another banner is a scam. If candidates are affiliated with Hamas, support Hamas or subscribe to its extremist ideology, what difference does the name of their electoral list make?
If reports about an agreement between the United States and Hamas concerning the terrorist group's participation in the upcoming Palestinian Authority elections are true, the arrangement is not only outrageous, it is a fraud.
Hussein al-Sheikh, vice president of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and deputy chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), revealed this week that Hamas would not participate in the November 28 parliamentary elections under its own name or in its current form. According to al-Sheikh, Hamas has reached an understanding with the US permitting figures affiliated with the terrorist organization to participate through a "new political framework."
If this account is accurate, the scheme amounts to a dangerous exercise in deception.
Changing Hamas's name does not change Hamas. Pretending that Hamas-affiliated election candidates are somehow different from Hamas because they are running under another banner is a scam. If candidates are affiliated with Hamas, support Hamas or subscribe to its extremist ideology, what difference does the name of their electoral list make?
Would indirect affiliation with Hamas somehow be acceptable? Would Hamas supporters become moderates simply because the word "Hamas" does not appear on the ballot?
Perhaps they could call themselves the "Palestinian Peace Movement," or the "Palestinian Party for Democracy and Transparency"? Would that suddenly transform an Islamist terrorist organization committed to jihad (holy war) against Israel into a collection of liberal democrats?
This farce has been tried before. In January 2006, Hamas contested the PA parliamentary election not under the name Hamas, but under the seemingly innocuous banner Change and Reform. It won 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, compared to 45 for the ruling Fatah faction.
What "change" and "reform" did Hamas ultimately bring?
The "change" was the establishment of a heavily armed Islamist regime in the Gaza Strip after Hamas violently seized control of the territory in 2007.
The "reform" consisted of building tunnels, manufacturing and smuggling rockets and other weapons, recruiting terrorists and indoctrinating generations of Palestinians in jihad and hatred of Israel.
The world saw the ultimate expression of Hamas's "Change and Reform" on October 7, 2023, when Hamas and other Palestinians invaded Israel, murdered 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals and kidnapped hundreds more, and committed atrocities that triggered a devastating war whose consequences have been disastrous for Israelis and Palestinians alike.
After nearly three years of bloodshed, are Washington and other international actors really contemplating another experiment in pretending to rebrand Hamas?
The 2006 election should have taught everyone a lesson.
At the time, the United States and its European allies did not require Hamas, as a condition for participating in the election, to recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and accept agreements signed between Israel and the PLO.
These conditions should have been imposed before Hamas was allowed to enter the political system, not after it had won control of parliament.
Hamas's participation was especially cynical because the elections themselves were rooted in the Oslo Accords, which Hamas had always rejected.
The 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement, "Oslo II," explicitly provided for "direct, free and general political elections" for the Palestinian Legislative Council and the head of its executive authority. It also established detailed arrangements governing Palestinian Authority elections.
Hamas, in other words, rejected Oslo while exploiting the political institutions created by Oslo to reach power.
Now history appears in danger of repeating itself. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has made clear that Palestinian political factions seeking participation in the political system must accept the PLO's political program and international obligations, United Nations resolutions, and the principle of one authority, one law, and one legitimate security force.
Hamas, in practice, accepts none of these conditions. Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist. It has never accepted the PLO as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people." It rejects the Oslo Accords. Its ideology remains centered on "resistance" and the claimed "liberation" of Palestine — which in fact has never existed — wishfully from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Most importantly, Hamas has still not demonstrated that it is prepared to surrender its weapons and cease functioning as an armed organization.
So, what exactly would qualify a Hamas-affiliated candidate to participate in elections? A declaration signed on a piece of paper?
Hamas will promise anything if doing so helps it survive and return to political legitimacy.
Before October 7, 2023, Hamas persuaded many people that it was just eager to improve economic conditions in the Gaza Strip. Hamas insisted that it was only interested in preserving the relative calm, increasing the number of Gazans permitted to work in Israel, and securing additional aid. Hamas, presumably as part of its deception, even publicly punished Gazans who tried to break the intermittent ceasefires.
Then came October 7, 2023. That event should have destroyed forever the fantasy that Hamas's tactical behavior can be confused with ideological moderation. Hamas has proved itself adept at telling outsiders what they want to hear while pursuing its long-term objectives.
The same danger applies to elections. A Hamas candidate does not stop being a Hamas candidate because he removes the Hamas logo from his campaign posters. A terrorist organization does not become moderate because it establishes a front party, recruits self-proclaimed "independent" candidates, or hides behind "technocrats."
If al-Sheikh's description of the understanding with the Americans is correct, the question Washington needs to answer is simple: Why?
Why, after October 7, should anyone, let alone the Trump administration, be searching for formulas to facilitate Hamas's return to Palestinian political life?
Why, nearly three years after October 7, 2023, does a terrorist organization such as Hamas continue to be treated by various international and regional parties as some kind of indispensable political actor? Hamas officials continue to participate in negotiations and meetings through regional mediators, while discussions increasingly seem aimed not at removing Hamas from Palestinian political life but at finding ways to accommodate it.
This message tells Palestinians, Hamas and other designated groups that terrorism carries no lasting political price — an outcome the Taliban in Afghanistan are enjoying all too well.
The lesson all these groups -- including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) savagely ruling Iran -- will inevitably draw is that if you survive long enough, the world will rehabilitate you.
The international community should instead make one principle clear: Hamas cannot remain both an armed terrorist organization and a legitimate political actor. There can be no loophole called "Hamas-affiliated independents." There can be no cosmetic rebranding and no supposedly "new political framework" designed to disguise the identity of candidates who continue to embrace Hamas and its jihadist ideology.
Stop the deception. Stop searching for ways to sneak Hamas back into Palestinian political life through the back door. It is not good for either their election or America's.
**Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
**Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

When Hormuz Becomes a Strategic Loss for Iran
Hassan Fahs/Independent Arabia/August 27, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The West Asia region is currently experiencing its most intense period of tension, threatening to ignite a wider war. The economic, financial, and trade embargo declared by US President Donald Trump against Iran, which he described as an absolute embargo "the likes of which the world has never seen," has heightened fears among the parties involved in the region that the last remaining avenues for a return to the diplomatic and negotiated path to end the war and confrontation that began with the events of October 7, 2023, have collapsed. This conflict, which has lasted for more than four decades, as Trump himself described the relationship between his country and the Iranian regime, has failed to bring an end to it.
Iran, which is facing a cumulative and complex economic crisis as a result of ongoing US sanctions and a chronic inability to manage and address these crises, may not be able to withstand the repercussions of this new package and mechanism of sanctions. With its energy exports dwindling to a near standstill, and its inability to provide basic necessities for its citizens due to the stringent naval blockade imposed by the US Navy on Iranian ports, the Iranian leadership, foremost among them the new Supreme Leader, has become convinced that the current phase of its relationship with the US administration is no longer limited to the military option. The rise of the economic option pursued by the White House, as announced by Treasury Secretary Scott Bisnett, could transform into a genuine threat, necessitating the development of mechanisms to contain or mitigate it. This conviction was reflected in the points published on the Supreme Leader's media website regarding his meeting with President Masoud Pezeshkian, which lasted over seven hours. The meeting emphasized the need to adopt new policies to address the economic and social needs of the Iranian people. Based on this conviction, the leadership views this blockade as a new form of warfare aimed at weakening the regime, ultimately forcing its surrender to US demands or leading to its internal collapse.
The unprecedented and suffocating siege that Washington seeks is, at best, not a challenge the Iranian regime can accept; rather, it could turn into the worst nightmare it has faced in its history of conflict with Washington. The Strait of Hormuz card, which Tehran viewed as its most effective bargaining chip, capable of destabilizing the global economy and negatively impacting it, could backfire if Washington succeeds in enforcing its siege and compelling other countries to comply under the threat of secondary sanctions, forcing them to sever their economic and trade relations with Iran.
In contrast to this conviction within the political leadership, there are still elements within the decision-making circle, specifically the hardliners in the military establishment who influence the decision to go to war, who advocate maintaining the military option in any confrontation. For example, this is reflected in the statements of Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, who threatened to halt the flow of oil from the region and to treat any country that adheres to the sanctions as an enemy. Based on their own assessment, they believe that the internal situation in the United States, the approaching midterm congressional elections, and the decline in US strategic military stockpiles give Iran an advantage in any future confrontation. Therefore, they argue that Iran should not make any concessions at this stage and should maintain its hardline stance in negotiations, insisting on a return to the text of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. Perhaps the most dangerous idea these elements are considering is the possibility of reverting to old policies of circumventing sanctions. Several Iranian officials, notably Economy Minister Ali Madani Zadeh, have already asserted that their country is fully prepared for US sanctions and that the government has developed two-year plans to counter the new US pressure. This means a return to policies that cripple the Iranian economy and reproduce an environment conducive to further corruption and financial and economic setbacks, especially since the current sanctions differ from previous ones. There are no alternatives to circumvent the maritime blockade, in which ports constitute the main artery of the Iranian economy and the daily lives of its citizens. Iranian maritime trade accounts for approximately 80 percent of market needs, while the remaining 20 percent is secured via land routes. This shift in supply chains and the elimination of maritime trade, both imports and exports, will raise the cost of a single container to $12,000 by land instead of $3,000 by sea. Therefore, maintaining the previous volume of 2 million containers entering through the ports means an additional cost increase of approximately $18 billion, which will be borne by a domestic market for basic goods and medicine valued at less than $15 billion. This will be compounded by the elimination of Iranian exports due to their unprofitability resulting from the high shipping costs. These facts and challenges may provide insight into the diplomatic efforts undertaken by Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir and Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, their visit to Tehran, and their meetings with President Masoud Pezeshkian and chief negotiator, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. While the talks between the two sides yielded positive results, the visit's significance lies in General Munir's phone call to the US President before his trip to Tehran, as well as the meeting in Islamabad between Minister Naqvi and US Chargé d'Affaires Natalie Baker upon his return from Tehran, demonstrating a serious commitment to reviving the Islamabad track and implementing the memorandum of understanding between the two parties. However, the timing of the Pakistani visit, coinciding with that of Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, suggests a growing willingness on the part of Iran to demonstrate greater flexibility in facilitating agreements with the United States. The joint Iranian-Omani statement outlining an understanding on mechanisms for transit through the Strait of Hormuz and temporary and permanent passages, consistent with Article 5 of the Islamabad Understanding, constitutes an Iranian message to Washington about its readiness to return to negotiations and work towards solutions that end the current escalation. However, it also reveals the extent of Iranian concerns and anxieties regarding the accelerating negative effects of the naval and economic blockade imposed by Washington. This situation presents a historic opportunity to capitalize quickly on the crisis of the Strait of Hormuz closure, and to avoid relinquishing this strategic asset, which has been a vital reserve for Iran and its regime. Any delay in utilizing this weapon could backfire and negatively impact all potential solutions, further complicating the situation and potentially leading to the loss of all gains achieved, if not paving the way for internal collapse.

Pezeshkian's Maximum Possibilities!
Hazem Saghieh/Al-Sharq Al-Awsat/August 27, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Many American films, especially those directed or starring Clint Eastwood, end like this: a thief or murderer, somewhat deranged, kidnaps a child and points a gun at his head, hoping to escape security forces who have guns pointed at him. Iran today finds itself in a similar situation. Exhausted and isolated, it seizes the Strait of Hormuz and holds a gun to the head of the global economy, hoping that those besieging it and pointing guns at its head will lower their weapons and allow it to escape. But the film's "hero" usually succeeds, with astonishing speed, in fatally wounding the kidnapper in the head, thus ensuring the child's survival. With Iran, however, the "hero's" situation is far more ambiguous, and the factors dictating his actions are far more complex. However, a mediator might occasionally appear, persuading the kidnapper to hand the child over to the security forces, since death is the only likely outcome, and even if the kidnapped child is killed, it is ultimately only a matter of time. In the Iranian case, President Masoud Pezeshkian was perhaps the voice calling for the child's return to his family, despite being the weakest link in a regime dominated by the Revolutionary Guard. He is, most likely, by virtue of his position as president, the one most aware of the people's suffering and the one best positioned to understand the potential impact of the new sanctions. But he is also, according to strong indications, the least ideologically committed of the regime's figures, and the least convinced that "blood triumphs over the sword," or of the other mystical notions of death as life and defeat as victory. Thus, we saw him call, much to the surprise of many, for an end to the war with America "today," while preemptively deterring those who might try to outdo him, asserting that his country was in a "position of strength and dignity," and emphasizing his refusal to yield and his determination to continue the confrontation "until the last breath." Much of Pezeshkian's published and well-known biography reflects this stance and may contribute to understanding some of the reasons for his divergent views. Like other senior figures in the regime, he possesses the required religious education, but he is also the son of an Azerbaijani father and a Kurdish mother, and he has previously called for granting Iranian ethnic groups their linguistic and cultural rights, arguing that current policies provide "excuses for separatists and dissidents."
After assuming the presidency, he increased the representation of minorities, including women, in high-ranking official positions. His entry into politics stemmed from three sources: administration, where he served as governor; academia, where, as a physician, he headed Tabriz University of Medical Sciences; and parliament, where he was elected five times and served as its first deputy speaker for five years.
His first government post was as deputy minister of health, before assuming the ministerial post himself, under the reformist president Mohammad Khatami. His path to the presidency was fraught with serious obstacles, suggesting he was not among the favorites. He withdrew from the race in 2013, his candidacy was rejected in 2021, before finally winning in 2024, defeating Saeed Jalili, a prominent hardliner. Pezeshkian has taken positions at odds with those of the Revolutionary Guard, though he has occasionally shifted his stance and aligned himself with them. He criticized the brutality of the response to the 2009 uprising and deemed the handling of the 2018 protests "scientifically and intellectually flawed." After the 2022 protests, he called for the formation of a team "for evaluation and clarification." In the current war, he apologized to neighboring countries for the attacks they suffered, stating that his country "has no enmity with the countries of the region." Despite his inability to implement his assurances to neighboring countries, hardliners criticized him, labeling his apology a "show of weakness," and some responded by reaffirming their commitment to aggressive policies.
In these positions, both those he later retracted and those he maintained, Pezeshkian aligns with a line of thought articulated by Khatami. The latter was the most vocal opponent of the war among semi-official figures. According to him, the people cannot continue their normal lives and manage society under a state of perpetual war, nor can the state be built on the logic of "revenge" and emotion. Therefore, "prudence and calculated diplomacy" are necessary with regard to America, which he said he does not trust, and with regard to Israel, which he believes seeks to perpetuate tension. Another prominent figure in this faction, former President Hassan Rouhani, also argued that the continuation of the state of war is unsustainable, calling for the use of diplomacy and national unity, and criticizing the ongoing insecurity that makes economic growth and investment impossible. Rouhani claimed that the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei did not seek war and had previously prevented its outbreak, warning against a minority within society that believes escalating and expanding the conflict could hasten the appearance of the Mahdi. In a speech before the President, Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Imam Khomeini, supported reaching an agreement with America, recalling the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with the polytheists of Quraysh. Last July, 268 prominent figures, including the former governor of the central bank, diplomats, and former members of parliament, signed a statement titled "We Do Not Want War," affirming that "the overwhelming majority of Iranians want peace." Will these figures, represented by Pezeshkian, succeed in mediating the child's return to his family, or will the extremists succeed in escalating the military conflict they have threatened, especially given Mohsen Rezaei's allusions to nuclear weapons? The first possibility is a defeat for Iran, perhaps accompanied by an acknowledgment of the mediator's efforts, while the second is more likely to result in the demise of both the kidnapper and the mediator.

Hamas: Hostility with the Arabs
Ayman Khaled/Al-Arabiya/August 27, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The relationship between Hamas and Iran began early on with visits by Hamas delegations to Tehran. These visits later led to the Iranian parliament drafting what was then called the "Law for the Protection of the Islamic Revolution of the Palestinian People" on May 9, 1990. This placed Hamas under the official Iranian umbrella, and Iran, according to its own internal laws, became an influential force in the Palestinian political arena. This was followed by the convening of the Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada, entitled "The International Conference in Support of the Islamic Revolution of the Palestinian People," held in Tehran from October 19-22, 1991. The Iranian conference came at a sensitive time, just days before the Madrid Peace Conference, which began on October 30 of the same year. This was followed by the Iranian announcement of the opening of an official Hamas representative office in Tehran. The logistical arrangements were finalized with an official announcement of its opening in March 1992, thus establishing Hamas's first representative office abroad. All of these events occurred before the Marj al-Zuhur incident, during which Israel deported 415 Palestinians, including leaders from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to southern Lebanon on December 17, 1992. This incident left a number of Hamas leaders abroad before most of the deportees were allowed to return due to international pressure. The timing of this event is crucial. Hamas's external wing had already established its relationship with Iran before the Marj al-Zuhur incident. More precisely, the relationship between Hamas and Iran was fully developed when the West Bank and Gaza were under complete occupation. Therefore, Hamas's recently fabricated narrative that "Arab and Islamic abandonment drove the movement to a close alliance with Iran" is inaccurate. When Hamas allied with Iran, it controlled no part of Palestine; it was merely a collection of cells, like any other Palestinian organization. Thus, Hamas's belated claim that the Arabs abandoned it demonstrates a poorly crafted and misleading narrative. The relationship between Hamas and Iran predates the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference and the 1993 Oslo Accords, which later facilitated this relationship. Hamas emerged publicly after Gaza and parts of the West Bank were liberated as a result of that agreement. Historically, Hamas exploited the acquisition of weapons, and its first act was to legitimize internal fighting, then stage a coup against the Palestinian Authority, and seize sole control of Gaza since 2007. This led to a series of wars, culminating in the October 7th war and its disastrous consequences for the Palestinian people, consequences that continue to this day in both Gaza and the West Bank, particularly in the West Bank refugee camps, whose residents have been living in the open since January 2015, and whose return Israel still refuses. In practice, Hamas's current rhetoric attempts to evade accountability by absolving itself of responsibility for the numerous disasters it has inflicted upon the Palestinian people since its inception, including its involvement in foreign projects devoid of any national character. The practice of blaming Arab states stems from the Muslim Brotherhood's approach of fabricating a misleading narrative to justify the animosity the group needs in its daily conduct to maintain its original ideology. Through this approach, the disasters they have perpetrated, as in Gaza, are forgotten, while the wave of international sympathy for the Palestinian people and the recognition of their rights are presented as achievements of the group. This means that no established facts, texts, evidence, or anything else prevents this group from crafting a misleading narrative, repeated ad nauseam, in which a broad segment of its elite participates to create a distorted image in the public consciousness.
What Hamas and the group wanted from Iran, they got. Hamas acquired weapons and struck the Palestinian Authority at its core, prevented the completion of the Oslo Accords, contributed to the rise of the extreme Israeli right, and moved from a war of attrition to a war whose result over the past decades has been nearly 400,000 dead, wounded, missing, and tens of thousands of detainees. But what Iran wanted from Hamas, it got, by giving it justifications for intervention in the region through militias that were established, developed, and trained on one basis, which is to undermine Arab national security under the pretext of liberating Jerusalem.

Pearls, a Sick World, and Pigs
Aql Al-Awit/Facebook/August 27, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Someone says: Neutralizing Lebanon and achieving peace there may be almost impossible in the foreseeable future, fraught with horrors and calculations. But there is much that can be easily accomplished "on the ground," something within reach, yet no one—minister, official, government, or state—is doing anything to achieve it. This is what provokes disgust, anger, frustration, and so on.
In one day, in less than 24 hours, ten or more people were killed in horrific traffic accidents on Lebanon's roads. Why? Is there any "noble reason" other than the complete breakdown of order and the rule of law? And so on: chaos, hunger, exorbitant prices, looting, and an unbearable life. And so forth.
The same person says: ... As for you, you have wasted your life on literary writing and the chivalry of journalism. Tell me, what is the use of poetry? And the novel? And literature as a whole? And journalism?! You withdraw for a month, two, three, a year, two years to write a poem, a novel, or a piece of writing. Why? Do you imagine that your readers number in the hundreds or thousands, and that you'll earn millions?
I know that you know (and this is the speaker's own opinion) that readers of literature are not that numerous. Their number in Lebanon, the Arab world, and among Arabic-speaking readers across the globe, doesn't exceed a few hundred. And sometimes, as in these dark times, they don't even number more than a handful. You would be fortunate if you had even one reader, one who delves beneath the surface of the words, who seeks out their meanings and hidden depths, and who sends you a message that signifies their connection with you through reading, even their participation in the act of writing... through reading, interpretation, and critique. The speaker answers himself, as if he were someone else: I don't want to convince you of any of the assumptions you've made above, my friend. I am convinced that a single appearance on a talk show or podcast can instantly elevate you to fame and status, placing you on a pedestal. For them, the "real world" belongs to the image, to influencers, to social media pioneers, to the people of WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, X, and Instagram, who, for the most part, care nothing for literature or those who practice it. For them, the "real world" is no longer for poetry, nor for literature in all its forms, nor for the humanities, nor even for philosophy and thought. It belongs to fads, quips, and hasty, impulsive stances, to reactions and comments akin to waves crashing against a rock.The same speaker says: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces" (Matthew 6:7).And you, the knowledgeable one, see that poetry is not written for money or status, but for you, for itself, for an unknown reader (perhaps nonexistent), and as a tribute to language, life, and humanity. Poetry is a complete genre, a passion, a desire, an ecstasy. And the poet will continue to write poetry because he is a poet, and he will urge poets, novelists, and writers to write, even if they never earn a penny or find a single reader. The world is poor, shallow, and trivial without poetry, my friend. The world needs poetry (whether it likes it or not), the poetic language that is created each time, each day, as if it had never been created before.The rock "loves" to be caressed. It is human, and it "feels." And it must one day yield to a wave, gentle or raging. It makes no difference. In spite of this "sick world," here's the first drop: "The Sun Is All in My Face," "The Severed Hand Fleeing on Its Fingers and All the People Remaining Under the Rain," both available in bookstores.And soon, "The Roads Return With Us." We will rejoice and celebrate with poetry. And in Tishrin, there are countless poems and novels, and a poem about the Lebanese, and Levantine, hell... and "Like Life in Hell." Just as pearls are not offered to swine, neither literature, art, poetry collections, nor novels will be offered to the shallow-minded!

Selected Face Book & X tweets on August 27/2026
Dr Walid Phares
"Orderly Kurdish disintegration"
The "orderly" disintegration of the Kurdish and minorities self defense forces (Ex SDF), into a "Jihadi order" has been imposed in Syria.Sorry, this is a post for historians when they will write their textbooks in the future. We abandoned the Kurds and minorities to the Jihadists, period. There is no other versions. Just retweet with your comments.

dahlia kurtz ✡︎ דליה קורץ
https://x.com/DahliaKurtz/status/2092680192569299424/video/1
A new report says the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated Canadian institutions.
I've told you for years. Canada is the fastest radicalizing country on the planet.
I'm sure not designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization has nothing to do with it!
"These are Muslim [Brotherhood] values. These are Canadian values."

Yossi BenYakar
HARVARD HAS BEEN CONQUERED.
At graduation, a Muslim woman reads a verse from the Quran that emphasizes submission to Allah.
Harvard was founded in 1636 with one clear purpose: to educate ministers and Bible teachers. For generations, its mission was inseparable from the Bible, Christian theology, and the training of religious leaders.
https://x.com/YossiBenYakar/status/2092686222925697101/video/1
Look at Harvard today.

Amjad Taha أمجد طه
Congratulations. A win for humanity. Trump to declare Palestine Action, formed by the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK, a GLOBAL TERRORIST group. Britain, time to ban the Muslim Brotherhood. Antisemitism isn’t an opinion. It’s a CRIME.
The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in the UAE, but not in Britain. Let that sink in.

Board of Peace
The Board of Peace’s High Representative for Gaza @nmladenov
tells the U.N. Security Council: “For the first time, Hamas and the armed factions in Gaza have agreed to hand over their weapons and to transfer full governing authority—civilian and security—to a transitional administration recognized by the United Nations. We now have the opportunity to dramatically improve life in a sustainable way for Palestinians in Gaza; to provide durable security for Israelis; and to move from a conflict that has destabilized the region to an environment that offers peace, prosperity and economic opportunity for the entire Middle East.”

Beirut Wire
A public exchange erupted today between U.S. Ambassador Michel Issa and former MP Walid Jumblatt over the U.S backed “Trilateral Framework” governing the emerging negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. Asked about Jumblatt’s position on the agreement, Issa said Jumblatt is “one day for it and one day against it,” adding that he would contact him soon.
Jumblatt quickly responded that the ambassador had apparently been too busy with his “cultural and political activities” to read his position, making clear that he rejects the Trilateral Framework and wants it replaced by the 1949 Lebanese-Israeli Armistice Agreement referenced in the Taif framework and UN Resolution 1701. The disagreement goes beyond a war of words: the U.S backed framework signed in June links the restoration of Lebanese state authority and disarmament of non-state armed groups to a progressive Israeli redeployment, ultimately envisioning an end to the state of war between Lebanon and Israel.

Khaled Hassan
London is the headquarters of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is the root and inspiration of every Muslim terrorist group, including Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and many others.
When the UAE, the most successful country in countering terrorism warns us that this is suicidal, we should listen.