English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News &
Editorials
For July 03/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.july03.26.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
You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but
you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous generation
asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 16/01-04/:"The
Pharisees and Sadducees came, and to test Jesus they asked him to show them a
sign from heaven. He answered them, ‘When it is evening, you say, "It will be
fair weather, for the sky is red." And in the morning, "It will be stormy today,
for the sky is red and threatening." You know how to interpret the appearance of
the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times. An evil and adulterous
generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of
Jonah.’ Then he left them and went away."
Titles For Latest English
LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on 02-03 July/2026
The Framework Agreement Between Lebanon and the State of Israel Is the
Last Opportunity to Liberate Lebanon from Iranian Occupation, and Israel Is a
Friend, Not an Enemy/Elias Bejjani/July 03/2026
Canada Day: Gratitude for a Free Nation and Hope for a Sovereign Lebanon/Elias
Bejjani/July 01/2026
A Prayer for the Deliverance of Lebanon from Mercenaries/Elias Bejjani/June 30/
2026
The Hundred Days' War Anniversary/Edmond Chidiac/Facebook/July 2, 2026
Lebanese president says will not yield ‘a single inch’ of territory to Israel
Al-Shaibani Concludes His Visit to Lebanon: Damascus and Beirut "Take a New
Step" in Bilateral Relations
Al-Shaibani: We are establishing a new phase of bilateral relations with Lebanon
Syria’s top diplomat reassures Lebanese leaders on Beirut visit
Antonios Abu Kasem: The framework agreement is a sovereign achievement and
Lebanon is outside the path of Islamabad
From Baghdad to Beirut/Abu Arz/Facebook//July 2, 2026
A senior US official remained in Lebanon… What is happening behind the scenes of
the “framework” agreement?
Israeli Army Announces Discovery of Hezbollah Tunnel and Explosive Devices
Israeli Report: Zamir Meets with US Official Regarding Hezbollah
Israeli Bombings in Haddatha and Beit Yahoun, and the Killing of a Hezbollah
Member in Ali Taher
Israeli Raids on Nabatieh and Bint Jbeil… Aoun: Negotiations Were Imposed by the
Cost of War
Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Yehiel Leiter: Our Withdrawal Is Not
Contingent on a Timetable, But on the Dismantling of Hezbollah
Hezbollah’s New Deployment Map Revealed… Where Does Its Military Center Now
Stand?
France and Italy Move to Deploy International Force in Southern Lebanon with US
Support
Geagea: What's happening is a deception of public opinion; the agreement is the
only option.
Berri Breaks Silence: The Door to a Settlement Remains Open… and Preventing
Strife is the Priority
Berri, deeply moved by Khamenei's passing: “Your flesh is my flesh… and your war
is my war!”
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports
And News published on 02-03 July/2026
Where do US, Iran talks stand after Doha negotiations?
US informed Tehran of its rejection to any changes in Strait of Hormuz: Al
Arabiya sources
IRGC says it killed Kurdish militants in northwest Iran
Congress urges Trump administration to lift Syria’s state sponsor of terror
listing
US Sources: Washington Prevented Israel from Assassinating Araqchi and Qalibaf
Trump: Iran Agreed to Everything We Wanted on the Nuclear Issue
Doha Brings Washington and Tehran Together Again… Progress in Implementing the
Memorandum of Understanding
Israelis commemorate the 1,000th anniversary of October 7 with demonstrations
and divisions
Bomb blast at Damascus cafe kills at least six, wounds 22
US resumes dollar transfers to Iraq after months-long suspension/The
announcement comes after Iraq launched an anti-corruption campaign earlier this
week that saw several officials arrested.
Russian strikes kill 21 in biggest ever attack on Kyiv, mayor says
Ukraine will ‘definitely’ retaliate for Russian attack on Kyiv, Zelensky says
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on 02-03 July/2026
L’État libanais et l’épreuve des limites/Charles Chartouni/©Ici Beyrouth/02
Namouz/2026
The Lebanese State and the Test of Its Limits/Charles Chartouni/Ici Beyrouth/June
02/2026
Gulf States Sanction Hezbollah, but Qatar Has a Flawed Record on Terror Finance
Enforcement/Natalie Ecanow/FDD- Policy Brief/July 02/2026
How Trump’s Understanding With Iran Echoes Obama’s 2015 Nuclear Deal/Tzvi Kahn/FDD-Insight/July
01/2026
Why Hasn’t the Trump Administration Complied with the Law on Reporting Iran
Agreements to Congress?/Duncan Hollis and Orde Kittrie/ Small Wars Journal/July
01/2026
For Tehran, negotiation is war by other means ...Iran’s rulers think Trump is as
beatable as his predecessors/Clifford D. May/The Washington Times/July 01/2026
Why Negotiating With Terrorist Regimes Such as Hamas and Iran Is a Terrible
Idea...Needed: Unconditional Surrender, as After World War II/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone
Institute/July 02, 2026
Latest English LCCC Lebanese &
Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on 02-03 July/2026
The Framework Agreement Between Lebanon and the State of Israel Is the
Last Opportunity to Liberate Lebanon from Iranian Occupation, and Israel Is a
Friend, Not an Enemy
Elias Bejjani/July 03/2026
The essence of Lebanon’s crisis is no longer hidden from anyone. The problem is
neither a disputed border issue, nor a temporary internal political
disagreement, nor a governance crisis that can be resolved through another
short-lived compromise. The core of the crisis is that Lebanon has been under
the hegemony of the Iranian jihadist and imperial project for decades, through
its terrorist army composed of Lebanese mercenaries falsely and blasphemously
called "Hezbollah."
Hezbollah is not an ordinary Lebanese political party with which Lebanese
citizens may agree or disagree. It is, in every practical sense, an Iranian army
of Lebanese mercenaries operating on Lebanese soil and implementing an agenda
that has nothing to do with the concept of the Lebanese state or the interests
of the Lebanese people. Without this Iranian mercenary army, Lebanon would not
have become a failed state, its institutions would not have collapsed, its
sovereignty would not have been confiscated, and its strategic decisions would
not have become hostage to the will of the rulers in Tehran.
For this reason, the Framework Agreement signed under American sponsorship
between the State of Israel and the Lebanese government carries exceptional
significance that goes far beyond its security or border-related dimensions.
This agreement is not merely a technical arrangement. It represents a historic
turning point that opens the door to restoring Lebanese sovereignty,
reestablishing state authority over all Lebanese territory, and bringing an end
to the era of Hezbollah's occupation.
The Lebanese government must implement this agreement in full, without clever
maneuvering, political gamesmanship, evasions, or attempts to buy time. The era
of political maneuvering is over. There is no longer room for the traditional
tactics that Lebanon’s ruling class has perfected for decades. What is required
is the actual and practical implementation of all obligations undertaken by the
Lebanese state, alongside the full enforcement of international resolutions and
the elimination of all illegal weapons outside state authority.
Any attempt to obstruct the implementation of the agreement or strip it of its
substance will lead to only one outcome: Israel remaining in the South and
Lebanon continuing as a state with incomplete sovereignty under Hezbollah’s
domination. Neither the international community is prepared to turn back the
clock, nor is the United States willing to tolerate further delays, and Israel
will not accept a return to the reality that enabled Hezbollah to transform
southern Lebanon into an advanced Iranian military base.
The current reality that many in Lebanon and the Arab and Islamic countries are
trying to ignore, whether out of fear, subservience, sectarianism, or ideology,
is that the vital interests of Israel and those of a free, sovereign, and
independent Lebanon have converged in an unprecedented way. Israel seeks the
permanent removal of the Iranian threat from its northern border, while Lebanon
seeks liberation from the disguised Iranian occupation that has usurped its
state, its decision-making process, and its future. At this specific point, the
interests of both countries, Lebanon and Israel, meet directly and unmistakably.
The past years have demonstrated that the Lebanese state is incapable, on its
own, of confronting the military machine that Hezbollah has built with massive
Iranian support. Experience has also proven that all efforts at accommodation,
dialogue, and internal political settlements have failed. Therefore, the
Framework Agreement—with its American sponsorship, international guarantees, and
new realities on the ground—represents the most serious opportunity in decades
to end Hezbollah’s occupation and control over Lebanon’s national
decision-making process.
As for the rhetoric still promoted by Hezbollah and its media mouthpieces
regarding victories, resistance, and so-called steadfastness, it has collapsed
under the weight of reality. After decades of slogans, Lebanon has harvested
nothing but destruction, economic collapse, isolation, poverty, emigration, and
the loss of sovereignty. The so-called “Axis of Resistance” has brought Lebanon
nothing except deeper dependence on Iran and additional wars and confrontations
that do not serve Lebanon’s national interests.
The liberation of Lebanon begins by acknowledging the reality and truth as is:
Hezbollah is an Iranian mercenary army controlling Lebanon’s sovereign
decision-making process through force, intimidation, terrorism, criminality, and
fully occupying the country. Therefored the Framework Agreement provides the
most realistic path toward ending this occupation and restoring the authority of
the state. Any delay in implementation will only prolong the crisis and deepen
the suffering of the Lebanese people.
Today, Lebanon faces a clear historic choice that leaves no room for ambiguity:
either a free, sovereign, and independent state that governs itself and honors
its international commitments, or continued submission to Iranian jihadist and
malign schemes through Hezbollah. Unless the Lebanese state makes its choice
through action rather than words, Lebanon will remain captive to Iranian
domination regardless of changing slogans and political narratives.
As for the opposition to the Framework Agreement by figures such as Nabih Berri,
Walid Jumblatt, Suleiman Frangieh, Gebran Bassil, and others who oppose
Lebanon’s sovereignty for whatever reason, they should be held politically and
legally accountable for positions and actions that have contributed to
undermining Lebanese sovereignty and perpetuating foreign influence over the
country.
In conclusion, Israel stands today as the only power capable of helping liberate
Lebanon from the grip of Iranian-backed jihadist occupation. Consequently, from
both a strategic standpoint and the perspective of Lebanon’s true national
interest, Israel should be openly recognized as a vital partner and friend
rather than an adversary.
The message is clear: anyone invested in Lebanon's future and genuinely
dedicated to its liberation must now listen and act.
**The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist
Author’s Email: Phoenicia@hotmail.com
Author’s Website:
https://eliasbejjaninews.com
Canada Day: Gratitude for a Free Nation and
Hope for a Sovereign Lebanon
Elias Bejjani/July 01/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/07/155716/
“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” (Psalm 33:12)
As Canadians celebrate Canada Day from coast to coast to coast, I join millions
of citizens in expressing gratitude for a nation that has become a beacon of
freedom, democracy, pluralism, and human dignity. For my family and me, this
celebration carries a special meaning. Since immigrating to Canada in 1986, we
have experienced firsthand the blessings of living in a country where the rule
of law prevails, human rights are protected, and citizens are empowered to
pursue their aspirations in peace and security. Canada welcomed us not merely as
immigrants, but as future citizens and partners in building a prosperous
society. It offered us opportunities, stability, and a sense of belonging. Here,
diversity is embraced as a source of strength, and freedom is not a slogan but a
living reality. On this occasion, I am reminded of the words of Holy Scripture:
“Give thanks to the Lord, for He is good; His love endures forever.” (Psalm
107:1) And:“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” (Psalm 33:12). These
verses capture the profound gratitude I feel toward God for the privilege of
calling Canada home.
Yet while celebrating Canada’s freedom and sovereignty, my thoughts inevitably
turn to Lebanon—the homeland of my birth, a nation I continue to love despite
its long and painful ordeal. The contrast between the Canadian experience and
the Lebanese reality could not be more striking. While Canada flourishes under
democratic institutions and national sovereignty, Lebanon has spent decades
struggling under successive occupations and foreign domination. Armed
Palestinian organizations once transformed large parts of the country into
military strongholds outside state authority. This was followed by the Syrian
occupation, which imposed political, military, and security control over Lebanon
for nearly three decades, undermining its institutions and suppressing its
independence.
Although the Syrian military withdrew in 2005 following the Cedar Revolution and
the sacrifice of Lebanon’s sovereignty martyrs, true independence remained
elusive. Iran quickly filled the vacuum through Hezbollah, its most powerful
proxy in the region. Today, Hezbollah functions as a state within the Lebanese
state. Armed, financed, and directed by the Iranian regime, it monopolizes
decisions of war and peace, undermines state institutions, and subordinates
Lebanon’s national interests to Tehran’s regional agenda. For decades, Hezbollah
has dragged Lebanon into destructive wars and conflicts that the Lebanese people
neither chose nor approved. It has participated in regional military campaigns,
most notably in Syria, while maintaining an arsenal that stands above the
authority of the Lebanese government and armed forces.
The consequences have been catastrophic: political paralysis, economic collapse,
international isolation, mass emigration, and the erosion of state sovereignty.
Millions of Lebanese have paid the price for policies imposed by an armed
organization whose loyalties extend beyond Lebanon’s borders.Yet despite these
tragedies, the Lebanese people’s aspiration for freedom remains unbroken.
Lebanon’s history is one of resilience. Time and again, its people have
demonstrated extraordinary courage in defending liberty, coexistence, and
democratic values. They deserve a country governed by one constitution, one
legitimate authority, and one national army—not by competing centers of power or
foreign-sponsored militias. The future of Lebanon can only be secured through
the full restoration of sovereignty, the exclusive authority of the state over
all weapons, the independence of national decision-making, and the reaffirmation
of the principles that once made Lebanon a beacon of freedom in the Middle East.
As we celebrate Canada Day, I also reflect on the words of the Prophet Isaiah:
“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed.” (Isaiah 1:17) And the
promise found in Scripture: “Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness
and peace kiss each other.” (Psalm 85:10). These values—justice, freedom, peace,
and human dignity—are not only the foundation of Canada’s success. They are also
the values that must guide Lebanon’s rebirth.
Today, I offer my heartfelt thanks to Canada for the opportunities, freedoms,
and security it has provided to my family and to countless others who arrived
seeking refuge from oppression and instability. At the same time, I pray for
Lebanon: that it may finally be liberated from all forms of foreign domination,
whether direct or indirect; that it may reclaim its sovereignty and
independence; and that it may once again become a homeland of freedom, peace,
prosperity, and hope.
May God continue to bless Canada. And may God grant Lebanon the freedom,
sovereignty, and peace for which its people have struggled and sacrificed for so
long.
“So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:36)
Happy Canada Day.
A Prayer for the Deliverance of
Lebanon from Mercenaries
Elias Bejjani/June 30/ 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155672/
Lord, enough is enough. Lebanon and the Lebanese people have suffered for
decades because of the cowardice, corruption, treachery, and moral bankruptcy of
those who have sold their loyalty to foreign regimes and ideologies. Grant our
homeland deliverance from the mercenaries who have polluted Lebanon’s identity
and from all the merchants of the false “resistance” narrative who have
transformed our country into a battlefield for others.
Free Lebanon from those who have willingly subordinated its sovereignty to the
Iranian regime and its expansionist project, and from every politician who has
bartered the nation’s independence for power, personal gain, or sectarian
interests. The Lebanese people’s true enemies are not only those who carry
weapons against the state, but also the political class that has enabled them,
protected them, and legitimized their domination.
Among those who bear historical responsibility are Michel Aoun, his son-in-law
Gebran Bassil—sanctioned for corruption—Nabih Berri, Walid Jumblatt, and the
entire leadership and apparatus of Hezbollah, which serves as the armed arm of
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps rather than the interests of Lebanon.
They are joined by the remnants of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the
Baathists, the heirs of the failed Arab nationalist movements inspired by Gamal
Abdel Nasser, Muammar Gaddafi, and Yasser Arafat, along with segments of the
radical left and Islamist movements that have consistently placed foreign
agendas above Lebanon’s sovereignty and the welfare of its people.
The list is long, but the truth is simple: no nation can survive when its
identity is replaced by imported ideologies, when its institutions are held
hostage by illegal weapons, and when loyalty to foreign powers supersedes
loyalty to the homeland.
May God restore Lebanon’s freedom, sovereignty, neutrality, and constitutional
order. May He give courage to those who still believe in the Lebanon of
coexistence, liberty, and the rule of law, and may He liberate our beloved
country from every occupier, every mercenary, every corrupt leader, and every
ideology that seeks to erase its unique identity.
May Lebanon once again belong only to the Lebanese people.
The Hundred Days' War Anniversary...
Edmond Chidiac/Facebook/July 2, 2026 (Google
translation from Arabic)
On the anniversary of the Hundred Days' War, a salute to the Triangle of
Steadfastness: Furn El Chebbak - Ain El Remmaneh - Ashrafieh, and to all our
comrades who fell beside us and those who stood firm and never retreated an inch
from accepting the challenge. And to every person who remained steadfast with
us.Never before was our community as cohesive as it was during those hundred
days. Every person was your brother, your father, your mother, your sister, and
everything was shared by all. Our morale was sky-high, and the community was a
single cell working for one cause: freedom. Never once did anyone in this
triangle fear, retreat, or think that there was any possibility of an outcome
other than steadfastness and victory. The centers became permanent homes for the
young men who competed to serve and confront the enemy. Glory and eternity to
our heroic martyrs, and glory to a free and proud society that kneels only at
the foot of the cross.
Lebanese president says will not yield ‘a single inch’
of territory to Israel
AFP/Published: 02 July ,2026
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun defended on Thursday negotiations with Israel,
saying they were not a betrayal and he would not surrender “a single inch of
Lebanon’s territory,” according to the presidency. Israeli Defense Minister
Israel Katz said on Wednesday that the Israeli army would remain “until further
notice” in what it describes as “security zones” in Lebanon, Syria and the Gaza
Strip.Lebanon signed last week a US-backed framework agreement with Israel with
the aim of securing peace between the two countries -- a move that has been met
with major protest from Iran-backed Hezbollah.Negotiations with Israel are not
“treason but a diplomatic war without unnecessary bloodshed,” Aoun said on
Thursday. The latest war erupted on March 2 when Hezbollah launched missiles at
Israel in retaliation for US-Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader.
Israel responded with airstrikes and a ground invasion that have killed more
than 4,200 people in Lebanon, according to the authorities. The Lebanese
president said that Beirut has decided to engage in talks “to guarantee Israel’s
withdrawal from its territory.”“We will not yield a single inch of Lebanese
territory,” Aoun declared. The framework agreement envisions the Lebanese army
gradually establishing its authority over south Lebanon as Hezbollah disarms and
Israel withdraws, but does not set a timeline for this. The process will be
detailed in a security annex, the contents of which have not been made public.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on a visit to the so-called “security
zone” in south Lebanon on Tuesday, reaffirmed that forces would remain there so
long as Hezbollah remained a threat.
Al-Shaibani Concludes His Visit to Lebanon: Damascus and
Beirut "Take a New Step" in Bilateral Relations
Al-Markazia/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani concluded his official visit to
Lebanon with a message of thanks to the Lebanese officials and political and
religious figures he met, emphasizing that the visit represents a new step in
the relationship between the two countries. Al-Shaibani expressed his gratitude
to President Joseph Aoun, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, Prime Minister
Nawaf Salam, Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Latif Derian, and Maronite Patriarch
Cardinal Mar Bechara Boutros al-Rahi, as well as Walid Jumblatt, Kataeb Party
leader Sami Gemayel, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, Tripoli Mufti Sheikh
Mohammed Tariq Imam, and Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri, appreciating the
warm welcome and hospitality he received. He also extended special thanks to the
people of Tripoli for their enthusiastic reception, considering it a reflection
of the deep fraternal ties between the Syrian and Lebanese peoples. Al-Shaibani
affirmed that Damascus and Beirut are "taking a new step today" in their
bilateral relations, based on mutual respect for sovereignty, good
neighborliness, and constructive cooperation that serves the common interests of
both countries. He noted that the two sides signed an agreement establishing the
Syrian-Lebanese Joint Higher Committee, which will serve as a permanent
institutional framework to enhance cooperation and coordination in the
political, economic, security, cultural, and social fields, in addition to
transportation, energy, water, health, and communications. Al-Shaibani concluded
by emphasizing that Syria will remain an active partner in consolidating
stability and promoting development, considering direct dialogue with the
Lebanese state and practical cooperation on shared issues as the path to
building a more secure and prosperous future for both countries and the region.
Al-Shaibani: We are establishing a new phase of bilateral
relations with Lebanon
Riyadh - Al-Arabiya.net/July 2, 2026
Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani affirmed on Thursday that his country
and Lebanon are establishing a new phase of bilateral relations based on mutual
respect for sovereignty, good neighborliness, and constructive cooperation that
serves the common interests of both peoples. In a post on his "X" account, al-Shaibani
stressed that direct dialogue with the Lebanese state and practical cooperation
on issues of common interest represent the path to building a more secure and
prosperous future for both countries and the region. He also stated that this
phase is embodied in the signing of the agreement to establish the
Syrian-Lebanese Joint Higher Committee, which will serve as a permanent
institutional framework to enhance cooperation and coordination between the two
countries in the political, economic, security, cultural, and social fields, in
addition to the transportation, energy, water, health, and communications
sectors. He added that Syria will remain an active partner in consolidating
stability and promoting development. At the conclusion of his visit to Lebanon,
al-Shaibani expressed his sincere thanks and appreciation to the senior Lebanese
officials and leaders for their hospitality and warm welcome. He also thanked
the residents of Tripoli for the warm welcome, considering their generosity and
hospitality a reflection of the deep fraternal ties between the Syrian and
Lebanese peoples. Meanwhile, Lebanese Information Minister Paul Morcos affirmed
that Lebanon and Syria have opened a new chapter in their bilateral relations,
noting that the agreement signed between the two countries stipulates respect
for each other's sovereignty. In statements to Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath channel, the
minister said that the Lebanese government will review all agreements signed
with the previous Syrian regime to align them with the new phase in relations
between the two countries. It is worth noting that the Syrian Foreign Minister
visited Beirut earlier on Thursday, where he met with Lebanese President Joseph
Aoun and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. The visit comes at a time of
increasing activity in Lebanese-Syrian relations, following the Lebanese
authorities' transfer of two groups of convicted Syrian prisoners to Damascus,
in implementation of a bilateral agreement signed between the two sides last
February.
Syria’s top diplomat reassures Lebanese leaders on
Beirut visit
Al Arabiya English/02 July ,2026 (Google translation
from Arabic)
Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani told Lebanon’s president on Thursday
that Damascus had no intention of intervening militarily in his country despite
US pressure to do so, according to the Lebanese presidency. Al-Shaibani, who
also invited President Joseph Aoun to Syria, is visiting Beirut, where he met
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, for the first time. US
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that Syria could “take care of
Hezbollah,” criticizing Israel’s strategy in its war with the Iran-backed
militant group. But Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who came to power in
December 2024 after leading a coalition that toppled longtime ruler Bashar
al-Assad, has stated that he has no intention of intervening or reopening old
wounds. Al-Shaibani told Aoun he wanted “to clear up the confusion sparked by
reports of a potential Syrian military intervention in Lebanon,” adding that
“Syria had no intention of undertaking such a move,” the presidency said in a
statement.Al-Shaibani also extended to Aoun an invitation from al-Sharaa to
visit Syria, which would be a first. After meeting Berri, al-Shaibani told
reporters that he did not rule out the possibility of a meeting with Hezbollah
in the future. Al-Shaibani had previously visited Lebanon in October – the first
visit by a senior Syrian official since al-Sharaa’s coalition took power in
Damascus, opening a new chapter in relations between the two countries.Lebanese
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, for his part, travelled to Syria in May. At a joint
appearance with al-Shaibani on Thursday, Salam announced the creation of a
high-level committee tasked with developing economic partnerships and security
agreements between the countries. The new Syrian authorities are hostile to
Hezbollah, which was allied with al-Assad, and have announced arrests of alleged
cells affiliated with the group. Hezbollah denies having any presence in Syria.
Since late 2024, Hezbollah’s former Syrian supply routes have been cut and
Damascus authorities say several attempts to smuggle weapons to Lebanon have
been foiled. The Syrian army intervened in Lebanon during its civil war in 1976
and exercised tutelage over its neighbor for decades, where it was accused of
numerous assassinations. During his trip, al-Shaibani met with the leaders of
Christian parties that had opposed Syrian tutelage. “This visit lays the
foundation for a new phase in relations with Lebanon and the different Lebanese
political factions based on partnership and cooperation,” he said.Samy Gemayel,
head of one of the Christian parties, said it had “sacrificed thousands of
martyrs in the fight against the al-Assad regime,” but was “welcoming today the
representative of the new Syria.”With AFP
Antonios Abu Kasem: The framework agreement is a
sovereign achievement and Lebanon is outside the path of Islamabad
Saout Lebanan/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The professor and professor of international and constitutional law, lawyer
Antonios Abu Kasem, discussed in the “Evening Mansheet” program on Voice of
Lebanon and the vdl24 screen the constitutional and legal framework of the
so-called framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel under American
sponsorship, explaining its nature as a commitment to behavior and good faith,
touching on the importance of the state regaining its sovereignty in the
negotiations away from foreign interference or armed organizations, while
comparing the current agreement to the 1949 Armistice Agreement and Resolution
1701. He also discussed implementation mechanisms. field and the role of the
Lebanese army, in addition to analyzing Article 13 related to international
prosecution and the possibility of moving towards Doha 2 in light of the current
regional balances. Among what he said: “We are before an agreement, which is an
agreement of good intentions and commitments to a certain behavior, and it does
not entail direct obligations, and in its content there are no pledges to
demarcate borders or compensation, nor is there a commitment to a ceasefire or
truce, and it has legal and constitutional value, and it is better for it to be
subject to approval and conclusion in the Council of Ministers.” He added: “The
importance of the framework agreement lies in the sovereign achievement, as
Lebanon is negotiating on its own behalf. There are those who wanted there to be
a unity of path and destiny with Syria, while others wanted to negotiate in its
name, and another wanted to attach Lebanon to Islamabad’s path, but President
Aoun, with his boldness, violated these three fronts to liberate Lebanon,”
calling for no bidding in this context. He stressed that the framework agreement
is a sovereign achievement and a gateway to a truce and peace, and Lebanon. He
did not do anything exceptional, and anyone who follows the negotiations sees
the army’s behavior and seriousness, and the mere visit of US Admiral Cooper to
Lebanon means that there is seriousness in this path.
In response to a question, he said: “Resolution 1701 is a founding resolution,
and during the support war we abandoned it, and after the UNIFIL forces leave
Lebanon, Resolution 1701 will no longer have any value.” He added: “To get out
of formalities and show our internal unity, and for our priority to be building
the state,” stressing that the weapons project will lead us into problems, and
from here came President Trump’s reference to the Syrian role in controlling it.
He said: “We are concerned with the Shiite constituent component in the country,
and we are keen on it, and I am with one, unified Lebanon.” Abu Kasem explained,
“The framework agreement did not refer to the Armistice Agreement, Resolution
425, Resolution 1701, or the 2024 Agreement, so it cannot be compared to the
Armistice Agreement,” reiterating that this agreement is a framework. Lebanon
has not yet spoken about peace or the truce, considering that because of our
behavior, we lost the truce, Resolution 425, Resolution 1701, and the October 27
Agreement. 2024, asking about the privileges we obtained through maritime
demarcation?” He pointed out that the most important thing is for Israel to
ratify the agreement because it will be the one that will commit to the
withdrawal and the return of the prisoners, and the framework agreement’s
importance also lies in American mediation. In response to a question, he
stressed that the Lebanese regime cannot be harmed. Regarding the constitutional
mechanisms of the framework agreement, he said: “This agreement is an agreement
of intent, and it is best for the Lebanese authority to ratify it and enshrine
it in the Council of Ministers and then inform the House of Representatives of
it, based on the authorization paper for direct negotiation. He stressed that
Lebanon is not bound by Islamabad’s path and that the Lebanese state has not
expressed its approval of it. He concluded by noting that the situation is
unstable in Iran and that the 60-day deadline is a “warrior’s rest” period,
stressing However, the framework agreement is sovereign and the Lebanese state
did not involve itself.
From Baghdad to Beirut
Abu Arz/Facebook//July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The Iraqi Prime Minister is leading a broad anti-corruption campaign targeting
high-ranking officials, from members of parliament and ministers upwards.
We are following this rare event in our region and congratulate Iraq on this
courageous step. We join our people in asking loudly: When will we have the
same?
Labbayk_Lebanon
A senior US official remained in Lebanon… What is
happening behind the scenes of the “framework” agreement?
Janoubia/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Well-informed Lebanese sources revealed that the commander of the US Central
Command (CENTCOM), Brad Cooper, discussed with Lebanese officials during his
recent visit the principles that will be adopted in the pilot areas from which
Israel will withdraw. The sources told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper that one of
Cooper’s senior aides remained in Lebanon to monitor the implementation of the
framework agreement, a move reflecting continued direct US oversight of the
agreement’s implementation phases and coordination with the Lebanese side.
Israeli Army Announces Discovery of Hezbollah Tunnel and
Explosive Devices
Janoubia/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Israeli army spokesperson Ella Wawiya announced in a post on her X account that
the 91st Division continues its operations within what she described as the
"security zone" in southern Lebanon, with the aim of locating weapons. She
stated that in recent days, fighters from the 401st Brigade discovered an
underground tunnel opening and an arms and ammunition depot in the town of
Taybeh, which she claimed contained rockets and mortar shells. She added that
during another operation in the Maroun al-Ras area, fighters from the Yiftach
Reserve Brigade (679) found explosive devices, weapons, and additional combat
equipment. Wawiya claimed that these weapons were intended for use by Hezbollah
operatives against Israeli army forces. She concluded by affirming that the
Israeli army "will continue to work to eliminate every threat targeting its
forces and will not allow Hezbollah to harm the citizens of the State of
Israel."
Israeli Report: Zamir Meets with US Official Regarding
Hezbollah
Al-Modon/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The Jerusalem Post quoted the Israeli army as saying that Chief of Staff Eyal
Zamir is discussing with a senior US military official ways to enhance
coordination regarding Lebanon and the strategy for dealing with Hezbollah.
According to the newspaper, the return of the US military coordinator to the
Lebanese file indicates progress in efforts to deploy the Lebanese army in new
areas of southern Lebanon and remove Hezbollah from them. The newspaper reports
on a meeting held Wednesday between Israeli Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General
Eyal Zamir, and the commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command,
Lieutenant General Joseph Clearfield, to discuss coordination mechanisms related
to Lebanon, involving Israel, the Lebanese Army, and Hezbollah. According to the
newspaper, Israeli and American officials have held a series of meetings in
recent days to advance efforts to deploy the Lebanese Army in additional areas
of southern Lebanon, ensuring those areas are cleared of Hezbollah and allowing
for partial Israeli troop withdrawals. Prior to the 2016 war, Clearfield served
as the top U.S. official and chief coordinator between Israel and Lebanon on
this issue, supported by a team of approximately 30 U.S. military officials.
Until recently, specifically on June 25, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) had not
yet decided whether Clearfield and his team would return to their previous roles
or whether the nature of those roles would be modified. During the meeting,
Zamir emphasized several positions that Israel has consistently conveyed to
officials. The Americans recently, as he and other officials did during previous
meetings with the commander of U.S. Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper. He
stressed that de-escalation measures, securing areas from Hezbollah's presence,
and implementing partial Israeli withdrawals must be carried out independently
of any Iranian influence, according to the newspaper. The Israeli Chief of Staff
also asserted, according to the newspaper, that Hezbollah is experiencing a
period of historical weakness and that, from the Israeli perspective, the
Lebanese government is closer to Israeli positions than ever before. He argued
that these circumstances should not be squandered in a way that allows the party
to rebuild its military capabilities.
Israeli Doubts About the Lebanese Army's Capabilities
The newspaper reports: "Despite this positive atmosphere, the Israeli army
remains skeptical of the Lebanese army's ability to maintain its presence and
prevent Hezbollah from regaining its influence, based on past experiences. The
newspaper states that during the last months of 2024, the Israeli army
complained that the Lebanese army was hesitant to confront Hezbollah and did not
deal firmly enough with the violations that Israel reported regarding breaches
of the ceasefire." But by April 2025, the Israeli army informed the newspaper
that the Lebanese army's performance had improved and that it had addressed some
500 separate complaints filed by Israel against Hezbollah. However, according to
the Israeli account, this improvement did not last. By July 2025, the Israeli
army stated that the Lebanese army's performance had reached a point of
stagnation and that its resolve to confront Hezbollah had begun to wane.
Structural Factors
The Hebrew newspaper argues that "part of the problem stems from structural
factors, as a large percentage of the Lebanese army's personnel belong to the
Shiite sect and sympathize with Hezbollah, which they see as the main force
representing their sect against the Sunni and Christian components in Lebanon.
It also points to another factor: that Hezbollah still possesses better weaponry
and is perceived as more prepared for combat than the Lebanese army."
Israeli Bombings in Haddatha and Beit Yahoun, and the
Killing of a Hezbollah Member in Ali Taher
Al-Markazia/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The Israeli army carried out a violent bombing operation targeting a number of
houses in the town of Haddatha, causing powerful explosions whose sound and
shockwaves reached neighboring towns and villages in the Bint Jbeil area.
Israeli warplanes were observed flying over southern Lebanon, while an explosion
was heard near the town of Beit Yahoun. A drone strike targeted the town of
Nabatieh al-Fawqa. Artillery shelling continued to rain down on the Arnoun al-Shaqif
area, accompanied by a sweep of the region. Heavy and light machine gun fire was
also heard in the Kfar Tebnit area. Later that night, Israeli warplanes launched
an airstrike on the town of Barashit in southern Lebanon. The Israeli army
announced that forces from the Egoz unit, operating under the command of the
36th Division, had earlier spotted a Hezbollah operative emerging from an
underground infrastructure opening in the Ali al-Taher Heights, within the
security zone where Israeli forces are deployed in southern Lebanon. The army
explained in a statement that the individual was considered an "immediate
threat" to forces deployed in the area, noting that the air force was directed
to target him in coordination with field units. It added that a warplane carried
out an airstrike on the location, resulting in the individual's death. The
statement emphasized that the operation was aimed at removing the threat to
forces operating in the area. Meanwhile, the Israeli army announced that the
Givati Brigade had completed its combat mission in southern Lebanon, and a
ceremony was held yesterday, Wednesday, at Camp Filun. The Givati Brigade
forces concluded their mission in southern Lebanon after eight months of
operations, during which they operated in the area of the villages of Khiam
and Bint Jbeil, north of the Litani River, and in the Beaufort Heights,
according to the Israeli army, which claims to have destroyed hundreds of
infrastructure sites, eliminated hundreds of Hezbollah members, and seized more
than a thousand weapons. The Northern Command chief said at the graduation
ceremony for the Givati Brigade: "Thank you on behalf of the residents of the
North – you have changed the security reality for many years to come and given
them great security." The Ministry of Health: A statement issued by the Health
Emergency Operations Center of the Ministry of Public Health announced that the
cumulative death toll from the aggression from March 2 to July 2 is as follows:
4,298 martyrs and 12,196 wounded. A bombing operation was carried out at dawn
today, Thursday, in the town of Beit Yahoun in the Bint Jbeil district of
southern Lebanon. At midnight last night, the sounds of heavy gunfire were
recorded coming from the town of Khiam, and could also be clearly heard in
neighboring towns.
Israeli Raids on Nabatieh and Bint Jbeil… Aoun:
Negotiations Were Imposed by the Cost of War
Al-Modon/July 3, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Had it not been for the confirmations of President Joseph Aoun and the Prime
Minister, the framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel would not
have transcended its media impact. It has proven to be merely a “sound bomb”
dropped on the Lebanese scene without any executive steps. Furthermore, the
insistence on not linking the settlement process to Islamabad will once again
marginalize the Lebanese government, as evidenced by the ongoing efforts in
Qatar to finalize the US-Iranian agreement, which has revived the details of the
Islamabad process. This comes in contrast to the waning momentum of the
framework agreement due to Israeli practices and reneging on commitments, in
addition to the Israeli press's assertion that Israel has benefited more from
the agreement than Lebanon.
Axios: Two Different American Paths
In parallel, Lebanon is caught in a tug-of-war within the US administration
between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President Jay D. Vance.
According to Axios, President Donald Trump, in his pursuit of a peace agreement
with Iran, finds himself caught between a more conciliatory advisor, Vice
President JD Vance, and a more hawkish Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Axios
quoted a senior Trump advisor as saying, "Marco and JD are two sides of the same
coin. There's the more pro-Israel side, which is Rubio, and there's the more
skeptical side, which is JD."
The divergence between Vance and Rubio became apparent during internal
administration deliberations regarding the historic memorandum of understanding
signed on June 17 between the United States and Iran. The report explains that,
under Rubion's approach, the parties worked to prevent Iranian interference in
Lebanon, while Vance's approach granted the Iranians a role in the ceasefire
arrangements between Israel and Hezbollah. The confusion became so profound that
Israeli and Lebanese negotiators last week asked American mediators to clarify
which of the two approaches represented official US policy. A senior US official
involved in the talks said that Vance and Trump ultimately agreed to Rubio's
deal. The 14-point memorandum of understanding signed between Iran and the US on
June 17 stipulates that Israel will withdraw from Lebanon as part of a final
agreement between the two countries. However, the agreement reached on Friday
allows for a phased Israeli withdrawal and requires the disarmament of
Hezbollah. Axios, describing the complex trilateral negotiations involving
Israel, Iran, and Lebanon, notes that the current negotiations are complicated
because they involve three parties and three agreements:
The memorandum of understanding signed on June 17 between Iran and the US.
The agreement reached by Vance with Iran in Switzerland on June 21 regarding
Lebanon.
The peace framework brokered by Rubio and signed by Israel and Lebanon on
Friday.
Peace: We are not dealing with a framework agreement!
Locally, Lebanon finds itself facing a range of interpretations of the framework
agreement, which could represent the beginning of a way out of the predicament
after Israel failed to fulfill its obligations. President Joseph Aoun stated
that the framework agreement resulting from the negotiations in Washington
upholds the principles of statehood and safeguards Lebanon's rights on both the
judicial and military fronts. He urged giving the process a chance instead of
prematurely dismissing it, adding, "If it is implemented, it will have achieved
its objective. If it is not implemented, it will collapse on its own, or Israel
will bring it down, not us."
For his part, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was more explicit, stating that the
term "framework agreement" is highly ambiguous. He emphasized that Lebanon is
not seeking an agreement by that name, but rather a "tripartite guiding
framework." Salam added, "We are not amateur negotiators, but we reached this
stage after two devastating wars." He pointed out that the first war caused
direct damages exceeding $7 billion, in addition to economic losses estimated at
around $13 billion, while the second war resulted in more than five thousand
deaths, describing it as a "revenge war linked to Khamenei." Regarding
Hezbollah, Salam affirmed that he is not seeking a confrontation with the party,
emphasizing that "neither I nor anyone in the government will succumb to its
blackmail. I am only asking Hezbollah to fulfill its commitments as stipulated
in the Taif Agreement, Resolution 1701, the Declaration of Cessation of
Hostilities, and the ministerial statement."
The situation on the ground contradicts the political process.
Meanwhile, Israel appeared detached from the Lebanese welcome of the agreement,
continuing its aggression and violations in the south. Occupation forces
established crossing points between the so-called "yellow zone," the border
area, and the area south of the Litani River. They also bulldozed roads
stretching from the Hamoul area to the town of Naqoura and on to the town of
Aita al-Shaab, cutting down mature trees along the roadsides. Furthermore, they
carried out demolition operations on a number of houses in the Beit
Yahoun-Hadatha area, in addition to demolishing other houses in the town of
Taybeh in the Bint Jbeil district.
Netanyahu: Remaining in the Buffer Zone
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel would remain in
what he termed the "buffer zone" in southern Lebanon "as long as necessary,"
while simultaneously claiming that his country was making efforts to reach a
peace agreement with Lebanon. This statement was made during a memorial service
for Israeli soldiers killed in Lebanon, according to the newspaper Yediot
Aharonot. The newspaper quoted Netanyahu as saying, "We will remain in the
buffer zone in southern Lebanon as long as necessary." He added, "For the first
time in years, Israeli representatives have been negotiating with Lebanon, and
we will do everything in our power to reach a peace agreement between the two
countries." For his part, Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz said during the
same ceremony, "The Israeli army will not withdraw and will remain in the
security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza indefinitely to protect our citizens
and communities." He added, "The events of October 7, 2013, proved a clear
truth: we should not wait for the threat to reach our doorstep. We have struck
Iran twice with preemptive strikes, and if necessary, we will strike it a third
time as well."
Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Yehiel Leiter: Our
Withdrawal Is Not Contingent on a Timetable, But on the Dismantling of Hezbollah
Al-Modon/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Yehiel Leiter, affirmed that the
framework agreement with Lebanon is not based on a timetable for Israeli
withdrawal, but rather is linked to what is achieved on the ground. He
considered the essence of the agreement to be the dismantling of Hezbollah, not
an Israeli withdrawal. According to a report by journalist Eidan Koller,
published on the Israeli website Walla!, Leiter, who led the Israeli contacts
regarding the agreement with Lebanon in Washington, spoke during an interview
with the Jewish People Policy Institute podcast about the content of the
agreement. He also directed sharp criticism at Israeli political statements that
he believes harm Israel's standing in the United States.
Israeli Conditions for Withdrawal from Southern Lebanon
Leiter stated that the agreement is not based on a timetable for Israeli
withdrawal, but rather on performance and developments on the ground. He
clarified that Israel will not withdraw from the security zone in southern
Lebanon until the area south of the Litani River is under the complete control
of the Lebanese army and free of any armed Hezbollah presence. He added, "The
focus of the agreement is the dismantling of Hezbollah, not an Israeli
withdrawal." These statements reflect the Israeli side's insistence on linking
any withdrawal from Lebanese territory to what it describes as a change in the
security and field reality south of the Litani, in contrast to Lebanon's demand
for Israel's withdrawal and its adherence to the agreed-upon arrangements.
Criticism of Ben-Gvir for Mistreating Activists
The most pointed parts of the interview focused on Leiter's criticism of figures
within the Israeli government, particularly Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, following
the latter's posting of videos showing activists on a pro-Palestinian flotilla
being mistreated.
The ambassador acknowledged that diplomatic protocol, in principle, prevents him
from criticizing elected officials, but explained that there are instances where
he has no other option. He stated, "If I see something that seriously damages
Israel's standing, embarrasses it, and lends credibility to our worst enemies,
then I will speak out." When asked about statements made by Ministers Bezalel
Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, and about the violence perpetrated by Jewish
settlers in the occupied West Bank, Leiter replied that "things that shouldn't
be said, shouldn't be said," regardless of the potential media damage. The
ambassador attempted to explain the internal Israeli context, noting that
Israelis have been living in a state of ongoing shock since the events of
October 7th, and the subsequent war, casualties, and displacement.
He added, "We are not even in the post-traumatic phase; we are still in the
shock."
Condemnation of May Golan's Remarks
Leiter also addressed Minister May Golan's remarks about Reform Jews, after she
mocked Knesset Member Gilad Kariv, saying he "marries dogs in strange
synagogues." The ambassador described Golan's words as "reprehensible" and
"unacceptable," revealing that he felt compelled to offer a personal apology to
Reform rabbis in the United States. He said he canceled scheduled meetings in
Congress and traveled to New York to address approximately 350 Reform rabbis at
the Stephen Wise Synagogue. He added: "I represent the government of Israel, but
I also represent the people of Israel to American Jews."
He stood by his position on J Street. In contrast, Leiter reiterated his
criticism of J Street, which he had previously described as "a cancer in the
Jewish community." The ambassador did not back down from the substance of his
position, but attempted to clarify it, arguing that an organization that
publicly supports Israel while working within Congress against Israeli
government policies, particularly regarding the arms embargo, places itself
outside what he called "the Jewish community." Leiter compared J Street to AIPAC,
saying that the latter supports the elected government in Israel, regardless of
its identity or orientation.
He denied a heated argument with Netanyahu. The Israeli ambassador denied a
report that he had raised his voice at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during
a discussion about the agreement with Lebanon. He said, "I am not raising my
voice at the Prime Minister," explaining that what transpired was an in-depth
discussion regarding the wording and terminology of the agreement. He added,
"Sometimes, we must explain why we chose a particular word over another,"
emphasizing that he did not pressure Netanyahu to sign the agreement.
Hezbollah’s New Deployment Map Revealed… Where Does Its Military Center Now
Stand?
Janoubia/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
In light of the transformations imposed by the recent war on the military
landscape in Lebanon, field data reveals significant changes in Hezbollah’s
deployment map, with its military center of gravity shifting from the border
strip to areas deeper inside the country. According to information obtained by
Eram News from a Lebanese military source, the party has redistributed its
military structure according to new priorities, including relocating command
centers, depots, and key units to the north of the Litani River, the Zahrani
region, and the Bekaa Valley, while maintaining a limited presence south of the
Litani. The military source told Eram News that Hezbollah no longer considers
the area south of the Litani River as its military center of gravity, but rather
views it as an open arena for attrition, surveillance, and continuous Israeli
pressure, while repositioning the core of its military structure in areas deeper
inside Lebanon. He explained that the core military force the party is working
to protect is currently concentrated in three interconnected belts: north of the
Litani River, the Zahrani region and its surroundings, and the Bekaa Valley
extending to the Syrian border. He indicated that this map does not signify a
withdrawal of the party from the south, but rather a redistribution of its
military tasks. He noted that the area south of the Litani has become a forward
operating base to maintain a field presence and a calculated level of
engagement, while the most sensitive depots, command and control centers, and
elements of elite units have been moved to deeper areas that are more difficult
to target with the same intensity without expanding the scope of the
confrontation. The source added that the Badr sector north of the Litani has
become the party's main operations center, whether in terms of deploying
firepower, defensive activity, or storing weapons and ammunition. He pointed out
that the majority of the Radwan Unit has redeployed to the area north of the
Litani and the Bekaa Valley, while maintaining a limited number of personnel
south of the river to preserve field readiness. He confirmed that the region
includes an integrated military network comprising short- and medium-range
launch platforms, observation posts, field communication centers, and internal
supply routes that allow for the rapid redeployment of ammunition and personnel
when needed. The source noted that the Zahrani area has gained increased
importance recently, transforming into a rear base for operations and support,
benefiting from its location connecting southern Lebanon to Sidon, Nabatieh, and
the Bekaa Valley, far from the direct front lines. As for the Bekaa Valley, the
source affirmed that it has become the party's most prominent strategic depth,
having transcended its role as a weapons depot to become a center for
reorganizing military capabilities and rebuilding what the party lost during the
war. He explained that the party emerged from the war weaker than before, having
lost a number of its leaders and thousands of fighters, in addition to a decline
in some of its logistical capabilities and freedom of movement. However, it
still retains military capabilities that allow it to influence the Lebanese
scene and obstruct any attempt to disarm it by force. The source concluded by
saying: “The South is no longer the heart of Hezbollah. The real heart is now
distributed between the Litani River North, Zahrani, and the Bekaa Valley, which
makes dealing with this structure more complicated than ever before.”
France and Italy Move to Deploy International Force in
Southern Lebanon with US Support
Al-Markazia/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Al-Hadath TV quoted the French Foreign Ministry as saying that Paris is working
in coordination with Italy to prepare for the deployment of an international
coalition force in southern Lebanon, as part of new security arrangements for
the region. According to the statements, this anticipated international force
will be deployed with US support, within the framework of arrangements
supposedly requested by Lebanon and aimed at supporting the Lebanese army and
strengthening its presence in the south. The French Foreign Ministry also
indicated that the deployment of these forces will be linked to a subsequent
phase following the end of the UNIFIL mission, thus opening the door to a new
transitional phase in the security situation in the south of the country.
Geagea: What's happening is a deception of public opinion;
the agreement is the only option.
Nidaa Al Watan/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea believes there is much confusion being
spread among the public regarding the framework agreement in Washington. He
said, "If the May 17 Agreement had remained in place and been implemented, how
much war and suffering would we have spared the Lebanese people for the past 45
years?" Geagea pointed out that "Lebanon is in a major predicament today under
the Israeli occupation, and we have one option: the framework agreement. I say
to some, 'If this agreement isn't good, then stop fighting.'" Addressing
Hezbollah, he said, "You're neither fighting nor do you want anyone to make a
framework agreement... What's happening is a deception of public opinion; the
agreement is the only available option to move from a state of war towards
building a country." Geagea revealed that he had entrusted Syrian Foreign
Minister Asaad al-Shaibani with a message to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa,
“the gist of which is to continue the same policy based on the fact that Lebanon
is a sovereign, free and independent state and must be dealt with on this basis,
and they can help us by removing Iranian influence from Lebanon,” adding: “The
Syrian side is a friendly side, but the Lebanese state must solve its problems
on its own, and it is capable of solving the Hezbollah problem if it wants to.”
Berri Breaks Silence: The Door to a Settlement Remains
Open… and Preventing Strife is the Priority
Janoubia/July 2, 2026
At a politically sensitive moment, one of the most critical in decades, and with
the escalating internal division surrounding the framework agreement signed in
Washington between Lebanon and Israel, and the fears it has raised about the
dispute spilling from the political arena onto the streets, Speaker of
Parliament Nabih Berri has emerged as a key player in containing the crisis and
preventing it from escalating into an internal confrontation that threatens
stability, the government, and state institutions. In an interview with the
newspaper “Al-Diyar,” Berri affirmed that the door to a settlement remains open,
emphasizing that his priority remains protecting internal stability and
preventing strife, and confirming his readiness to find solutions if the other
side is also willing.
Berri, deeply moved by Khamenei's passing: “Your flesh is
my flesh… and your war is my war!”
Janoubia/July 2, 2026
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri issued a message on the occasion of the
passing of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Imam Sayyid Ali Khamenei. He
began with a verse from the Quran, recalling his life and stances, and
considering him to be “a memory for generations and an eternal, unforgettable
role model.” Berri said that Imam Khamenei embodied the principles of
“supporting the oppressed” and “neither East nor West,” recalling the historical
relationship that united the Iranian Islamic Revolution with Imam Sayyid Musa
al-Sadr, Imam Ruhollah Khomeini, and the martyr Mustafa Chamran. Berri recounted
the details of his first meeting with Imam Khamenei in the early 1990s, noting
that he will never forget his words to him: “My brother, Professor Nabih… your
flesh is my flesh, your blood is my blood, your peace is my peace, your war is
my war, and unity, then unity, then unity.” He emphasized that this approach to
unity, as he put it, formed the basis for confronting Israel, pointing to the
destruction left by the wars in Lebanese villages and the fall of martyrs,
wounded, and prisoners. Berri also linked the commemoration of Imam Khamenei
with the atmosphere of the month of Muharram, considering the path of martyrdom
to extend from Imam Hussein to the "martyrs of the nation," adding that "the
noblest death is martyrdom." In closing his message, Berri affirmed that "the
wounds inflicted upon our brothers in the Islamic Republic of Iran are wounds
inflicted upon every honorable Lebanese," offering his condolences to the
leadership and people of Iran, and concluding with a prayer for the deceased:
"May the earth be blessed for him who is laid to rest within it... To God we
belong, and to Him we shall return."
The Latest English LCCC
Miscellaneous Reports And News published on 02-03 July/2026
Where do US, Iran talks stand after
Doha negotiations?
AFP/02 July ,2026
Iran and the United States concluded a round of indirect talks in Doha,
mediators said Thursday, as they kept up efforts to advance negotiations and
lower tensions following recent exchanges of fire.In June, Washington and Tehran
agreed a memorandum of understanding, brokered by Qatar and Pakistan, which
included a 60-day ceasefire pausing the war that broke out with US-Israeli
strikes in late February, as well as the reopening of the blockaded Strait of
Hormuz. The 14-point deal also set a timeline for talks to permanently end the
war and settle issues like arrangements for Hormuz, reconstruction funding for
Iran and the future of the Islamic republic’s nuclear program.Here is what we
know about the latest round of discussions:
What was agreed
Following the foes’ indirect discussions in Doha on Wednesday, US President
Donald Trump as well as mediators Qatar and Pakistan offered signs that
diplomacy was holding. “Qatari and Pakistani mediators concluded separate
meetings with the US and Iranian negotiators in Doha (Wednesday), with positive
progress made,” the two mediating nations said in a statement on Thursday. At
the talks’ conclusion, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who led
Tehran’s delegation, said an agreement had been reached to establish a
communications channel by Thursday to report and record alleged violations of
the memorandum. Gharibabadi said discussions also covered frozen Iranian assets,
whose release Tehran has demanded as part of any settlement. He said officials
reviewed the use of part of an initial $6 billion and agreed that goods needed
by Iran would be purchased and made available. Trump told reporters Wednesday
before boarding Air Force One that “the denuclearization of Iran is moving along
well.”A source familiar with the matter told AFP on condition of anonymity that
the indirect negotiations in Doha had focused more specifically on arrangements
for the Strait of Hormuz, with the nuclear issue slated for deeper discussion
later.
What comes next
The next indirect US-Iran talks will come after the Iranian supreme leader’s
funeral.
Ali Khamenei was killed aged 86 at his compound in the center of the Iranian
capital on February 28, the first day of the war. Power was swiftly passed to
his son Mojtaba. Ali Khamenei’s public funeral will begin on Saturday, with his
body lying in state at the colossal Grand Mosalla complex in central Tehran that
hosts major Friday prayers, official ceremonies and religious gatherings.Qatar
and Pakistan said in statements that the sides had agreed to keep talking, “with
the next meeting to be set at the earliest possible time following the funeral
processions.”Khamenei’s burial will take place on July 9 at the shrine of Imam
Reza in the northeastern city of Mashhad, his birthplace.
Movements on the ground
Since the signing of the US-Iran deal in June, both sides have traded sporadic
fire in the Gulf. Tehran’s enforcement of its claim to the Strait of Hormuz has
sparked repeated flare-ups. The latest came when US Central Command said over
the weekend that it had attacked 10 Iranian military targets over “continued
Iranian aggression against commercial shipping.”Iran said it retaliated with
strikes against US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain, which both condemned Tehran.
However, the exchanges of fire had calmed in the days leading up to the talks in
Qatar. On the Lebanon front, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has been
relatively quiet, though the National News Agency reported a strike in the
country’s southern city of Nabatieh on Wednesday evening, without mentioning any
victims.The Israeli military on Thursday said it had killed a Hezbollah
operative “who exited one of the access shafts of the underground terror
infrastructure” at the strategic Ali al-Taher Ridge, near Nabatieh. Lebanon is
still waiting for Israel to start withdrawing from “pilot zones” where the
Lebanese army is to deploy, as per a framework agreement between the two
countries. Tehran has insisted any deal should include an end to the parallel
conflict in Lebanon and a withdrawal of Israeli troops from its south, part of
which they have occupied.
US informed Tehran of its rejection to any changes in
Strait of Hormuz: Al Arabiya sources
Al Arabiya English/02 July ,2026
The US has sent Iran clear messages to Iran particularly regarding the situation
in the Strait of Hormuz, Al Arabiya sources said on Thursday after indirect
talks between the two countries concluded in Doha.
The US, the sources said, informed Iran of its rejection to any changes in the
current status quo in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington told Tehran that any
change would be considered a violation to the agreement, the sources added,
noting that the US considers Iran’s attitude and approach towards the situation
in Hormuz as the first test towards its commitment to the deal.The US is closely
monitoring Iranian movement in the strategic strait, the sources added, noting
that Tehran was informed that any progress with regrads to it frozen funds
remained conditional on its full compliance with the memorandum of
understanding. This comes as Iran said on Thursday that any US interference in
the Strait of Hormuz would trigger a "decisive and rapid" response, adding that
the continued presence of US air assets across the waterway endangered regional
security, state media reported. Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which
coordinates Iran’s armed forces operations, said all tanker and commercial
vessels must follow routes designated by Tehran for safe passage through the
strait, adding that deviations or failure to comply with navigation protocols
would face an immediate response. The next indirect US-Iran talks will come
after the late Iranian supreme leader’s funeral, mediators said Thursday, as
diplomacy inches ahead on ending the Middle East war. A senior source told Al
Arabiya that the next round of talks will take place on July 18. The interim
deal was agreed to reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz and end hostilities, but
major questions still need to be tackled in talks, including Iran’s nuclear
program. With agencies
IRGC says it killed Kurdish militants in northwest Iran
Al Arabiya English/02 July ,2026
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said it had killed five members
of the banned Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) in the country’s
northwest, state media reported on Thursday, amid heightened tensions between
Tehran and Kurdish militant groups. The IRGC said the group was ambushed after
entering Iranian territory in mountainous border areas near Piranshahr in West
Azerbaijan province, without specifying when the operation took place. According
to the Norway-based Kurdish rights group Hengaw, the clashes took place on
Wednesday evening. The PDKI has been involved in decades of intermittent
conflict with the Iranian government, and Kurdish armed groups in Iran have long
been viewed by Tehran as separatist threats. During the recent conflict with
Tehran, US and Israeli expectations that Kurdish fighters could play a ground
role against Iran quickly faltered amid mixed signals from Washington and
Israel, while Iranian threats and strikes against Kurdish positions in Iraq
deterred the groups from entering the war. A similar incident near Piranshahr
was reported by state media on Tuesday, with the IRGC saying it had killed six
members of what it described as an “opposition and separatist group.”On the same
day, state media also reported that two IRGC members were killed and two wounded
in a shooting in Kermanshah province in western Iran that occurred on Monday
evening.The attack was claimed by a newly formed Kurdish armed group seeking
retaliation for the IRGC’s role in suppressing a 2022 to 2023 protest movement,
according to Hengaw. With Reuters
Congress urges Trump administration to lift Syria’s state
sponsor of terror listing
Al Arabiya English/02 July ,2026
A bipartisan group of US lawmakers has sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco
Rubio urging the Trump administration to remove Syria from the State Sponsor of
Terrorism (SST) list. The letter, sent by Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Elizabeth
Warren, and Congressman Joe Wilson, says that maintaining the SST designation
had become a major obstacle to Syria’s economic reconstruction, counterterrorism
cooperation and long-term stability. Shaheen is the top Democrat on the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Warren is the top Democrat on the Senate Banking
Committee, and Wilson is a Republican lawmaker who has fiercely advocated in
support of Syria since the fall of the Assad regime. The lawmakers said the
legal basis for Syria's designation no longer applies under the new government
led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa, citing its continued commitment to
counterterrorism operations. “In addition to addressing ISIS threats, the Syrian
government has taken serious steps to degrade Hezbollah’s networks in Syria,
particularly by targeting transnational weapons and financial flows,” the letter
read. They said the “stunning reversal” by al-Sharaa’s government “changes the
balance of power in the region.”Additionally, the lawmakers said that removing
Syria’s designation would advance US national security interests by encouraging
responsible American and allied investment while pushing away the chances for
investment from Russia, China and Iran. The designation also discourages
American financial institutions from engaging in Syria due to the legal
ramifications associated with the SST listing. But removing the listing will not
stop, nor should it, Washington from pressing Damascus on certain priorities.
These include the need to take credible steps to limit and eventually end
Russia’s military presence in Syria, give proper rights to all communities in
Syria, ensure women have full rights, remove foreign fighters from leadership
positions, and designate Hezbollah as a terror group. “Syria’s SST designation
represents the most significant remaining legal impediment to Syria’s
reconstruction,” the letter read.
US Sources: Washington Prevented Israel from
Assassinating Araqchi and Qalibaf
Riyadh - Al-Arabiya.net/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
US sources revealed that American officials believed Israel had planned to
assassinate top Iranian negotiators, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi
and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, at a time when Washington was
engaged in sensitive talks with Tehran aimed at reaching an agreement to end the
war. The US administration intervened to prevent Tel Aviv from carrying out
these plans. A US official told The New York Times that President Donald Trump's
administration knew at the time that Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer
Qalibaf was at least on Israel's target list and asked Israel to refrain from
targeting him. According to the sources, targeting senior Iranian leaders has
been part of Israel's strategy since the beginning of the war, but US concerns
escalated particularly regarding the potential assassinations of Araqchi and
Qalibaf during the ceasefire negotiations that began in April. The sources added
that the United States, fearing that any assassination could derail the talks,
asked other countries in the region to warn Iran about the possibility of Israel
targeting these two officials.
Ghalibaf Survived Twice
The sources also stated that Ghalibaf survived two assassination attempts: one
during the 12-day war in June 2015, and another during the current conflict,
when Israel targeted a secret meeting of senior Iranian officials inside a
bunker under a mountain, according to three senior Iranian officials and public
statements by other officials. They added that Ghalibaf was rescued from the
rubble both times, according to the American newspaper. During the negotiations,
Iran took strict security measures to reduce the chances of its senior officials
being targeted by Israel. In April, Ghalibaf was scheduled to travel to
Islamabad to meet with US Vice President J.D. Vance, but Iranian security
officials expressed concerns that Israel might exploit the visit to carry out an
assassination targeting Ghalibaf or Araqchi in order to disrupt the talks,
according to the sources.
American Guarantees
Based on this, Iran sought guarantees from the United States, through
intermediaries in Pakistan and Qatar, that Israel would not carry out any covert
operations targeting the Iranian delegation. During the visit, Pakistani fighter
jets escorted the Iranian planes carrying a delegation of more than 70 officials
from the Iranian border to Islamabad, and again on the return journey. However,
during the delegation's return to Tehran, a new security threat emerged. Iranian
security services informed the plane carrying Qalibaf of intelligence indicating
Israel's intention to target it, coinciding with the entry of two Israeli
fighter jets into Iranian airspace from the west, near Iraq, according to the
same sources.
Mehdi Mohammadi, Qalibaf's advisor who accompanied him to Islamabad, confirmed
this account in a social media post.
Emergency Landing
Consequently, the plane made an emergency landing in Mashhad, the closest
Iranian airport to the Pakistani border, before the Iranian delegation returned
to Tehran by land in a journey that took approximately eight hours, according to
Mohammadi and the same sources. Despite these developments, Iranian officials
continued their diplomatic efforts. In late May, Qalibaf and Araqchi traveled to
Qatar for talks, and then in June to Switzerland for a second face-to-face
meeting with US Vice President J.D. Vance and the American delegation. It is
worth noting that the war that erupted on February 28 between Iran on one side
and the United States and Israel on the other resulted in the death of Supreme
Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of other senior officials. During the initial
phase of the war, US strikes focused on the Iranian navy and missile forces,
while Israel prioritized targeting the political and military leadership, aiming
to eliminate as many senior officials as possible. According to sources, these
operations included the assassination of figures considered more moderate and
expected to participate in negotiations with the United States, such as Ali
Larijani, Iran's top national security official, and Kamal Kharrazi, the former
Iranian foreign minister. Both were killed in Israeli airstrikes while involved
in negotiations with Washington.
Trump: Iran Agreed to Everything We Wanted on the Nuclear Issue
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he has been leading efforts to
dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons program for four months, asserting that Tehran
"agreed to everything we wanted." This statement came after the conclusion of
technical US-Iranian talks held over the past two days in Doha. In an interview
with CNBC, Trump added that what transpired with Iran was a campaign to disarm
its nuclear program, not a war in the traditional sense. He also explained that
Iran would use its frozen assets to purchase corn, wheat, and other goods from
the United States. He continued, "The US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has
not been breached," adding, "Not a single ship was able to reach Iranian ports
during the naval blockade." This followed the conclusion of a new round of
indirect talks between Iran and the United States in Doha, as announced by
mediators on Thursday, as part of diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions
following an exchange of strikes between the two sides. At the conclusion of the
talks, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who headed the Iranian
delegation, said that the participants agreed to establish a communication
channel by Thursday to report and document any potential violations of the
memorandum of understanding. Gharibabadi added that the talks also addressed
Iran's frozen assets, which Tehran has demanded be released as part of any
settlement. Since mid-June, Washington and Tehran have been engaged in
negotiations, scheduled to last 60 days and renewable, under the memorandum of
understanding they signed on June 17 with Pakistani and Qatari mediation. The
aim of these negotiations is to end the war in the Middle East and reopen the
Strait of Hormuz. The 14-point memorandum also outlines a timetable for talks
aimed at achieving a permanent end to the war and resolving issues such as
arrangements related to the Strait of Hormuz, financing for Iran's
reconstruction, and the future of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
Doha Brings Washington and Tehran Together Again… Progress in Implementing the
Memorandum of Understanding
Janoubia/July 2, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Qatari and Pakistani mediators concluded a series of separate meetings today in
Doha with the American and Iranian delegations, as part of efforts to follow up
on the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding signed in Islamabad.
According to Al Arabiya, positive progress was announced on a number of issues.
Dr. Majid Al-Ansari, spokesperson for the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
confirmed that the talks witnessed progress on the issues discussed, noting that
the parties agreed to continue the dialogue in the coming period. The date for
the next round will be set as soon as possible after the conclusion of the
funeral ceremonies for the former Iranian Supreme Leader. In the same context,
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi announced the conclusion of
the Doha talks, explaining that the participants agreed to establish a joint
communication channel to report and discuss any violations of the Memorandum of
Understanding between Tehran and Washington, thus strengthening the mechanisms
for monitoring the agreement's implementation. Meanwhile, the Qatari Cabinet,
during its meeting chaired by Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman, reiterated its
condemnation of the Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait, expressing Doha's
full solidarity with both countries and its support for the measures they are
taking to preserve their sovereignty and security. The Cabinet stressed the
importance of preventing further escalation in the region, ensuring freedom of
navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, continuing the approach of dialogue and
diplomacy, and building upon the achievements of the Memorandum of
Understanding, thereby contributing to the enhancement of regional security and
stability and supporting negotiations between the United States and Iran to
reach sustainable solutions through peaceful means.
Israelis commemorate the 1,000th anniversary of October 7
with demonstrations and divisions
Tel Aviv: Nazir Majli/Asharq Al-Awsat »/02 July/2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
On Thursday, Israelis commemorated the 1,000th day since the Hamas attack on
towns and military sites surrounding the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, with
demonstrations and activities that showed the depth of the rift in society, the
sharp differences over fundamental issues, and the disengagement with Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrators expressed through banners that
the Hamas attack was “a disaster for Israel, and the biggest disaster for the
Jews since World War II.” They also presented testimonies of those interacting
with the event and political commentators with different conclusions, including
that the army sharply changed its combat doctrine, after it appeared that the
mere success in occupying 21 towns and 11 military sites for several hours on
October 7, 2023, was considered a strategic failure, accusing it of exploiting
Hamas’ practices to respond with a war of genocide on Gaza that resulted in the
killing of more than 74,000 Palestinians, and expanding it into a war on Seven
fronts (Lebanon, the West Bank, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, in addition to Gaza).
At the popular level, Israelis lost confidence in their leaders and
institutions. In an in-depth survey by the National Security Research Institute
in Tel Aviv, it was found that about 80 percent do not feel personally safe.
Only 31 percent said they trust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and 25
percent said they trust the government (61 percent trust Chief of Staff Eyal
Zamir and 73 percent trust the army).
More wars
Although the war that has been going on for 1,000 days does not stop, and does
not end with political solutions as wars usually end, the majority of Israelis
demand more wars. According to the same poll, 57 percent said they oppose
withdrawal from Lebanon even if Hezbollah adheres to the ceasefire agreement, 59
percent said they support waging a war on Lebanon, and 42 percent said they
support waging a war with Iran even if that leads to a clash with US President
Donald Trump. With regard to Trump, despite his great support for Israel, its
participation in the war on Iran, its flooding of weapons, and its political,
financial, and military support, the Israeli majority declares Losing confidence
in him, and only 12 percent trust that Trump is truly committed to Israel’s
security, and 57 percent said that Trump supports Israel’s security only if this
support serves his interests.
Separation from the Palestinians
Despite this, the survey found that if rational proposals are presented to
change reality, a serious portion of Israelis respond. For example, the Israelis
do not offer peaceful solutions. They do not pay attention to the Palestinians
and the huge number of victims they have inflicted.
But when asked about the prospects for a solution to the Palestinian issue, 27
percent said that they support separation from the Palestinians, and 25 percent
said that they support the two-state solution. When they were also asked about
expanding the “Abraham Accords” on the condition that this includes the
establishment of a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel, the Israelis
were divided into two halves, with 42 percent answering in the affirmative, and
41 percent answering in the negative. It is known that Netanyahu brags about
wars and believes that they have achieved huge gains for Israel, and thanks to
his leadership, the face of the Middle East has changed. Writer Shahar Klein
commented on this in the Haaretz newspaper, saying: “The assassination of senior
leaders of the Iranian axis, the fall of the Assad regime, and the framework
agreement with Lebanon actually indicate that the Middle East has indeed
changed, but not necessarily in favor of Israel.” He saw that “the Houthis’
strength has increased, (Hamas) has held steadfast in Gaza, (Hezbollah) has held
firm in Lebanon, and Iran is still steadfast and imposing its will on Israel and
the United States.” Ben-Dror Yemini wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth: “We are a little
fond of the hackneyed saying (the whole world is against us). This statement is
inaccurate. It is true that many are against us, but not everyone is against
us... The problem is that we are against ourselves. “Foolishness is registered
in our name, and political defeat is of our own making.” He added: “When Donald
Trump, Israel’s greatest, most important and strongest ally in the world, at
least until two weeks ago, said to Netanyahu: ‘Everyone is tired of you’, he
embodied defeat.”
Bomb blast at Damascus cafe kills at least six, wounds 22
Al Arabiya English/02 July ,2026
A bomb blast at a crowded cafe in central Damascus killed at least six people
and wounded 22 others on Thursday, Syrian state media reported. There was no
immediate claim of responsibility. Syrian state television said an explosive
device had been planted at the cafe, near the Palace of Justice in the center of
the capital. Damascus Governor Maher Idlibi said the blast was caused by a
crudely made improvised explosive device, according to Syrian state media.
Videos that circulated on social media showed wounded people and blood on the
floors of a cafe, purportedly the site of the blast.The attack presents another
security challenge to the Syrian government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who
took control after overthrowing former president Bashar al-Assad in late 2024.
Al-Assad’s ouster effectively ended more than 14 years of civil war. Damascus
has witnessed a handful of security incidents since then, including a car bomb
that killed one Syrian soldier and wounded at least 18 people outside the
defense ministry in May.Although no group claimed responsibility for Thursday’s
blast, ISIS has sought to exploit the security vacuum created by al-Assad’s
ouster by reactivating sleeper cells, recruiting fighters and moving weapons as
the new government extends its authority across the country, security officials
had said. ISIS announced earlier this year what it described as a new phase of
operations against al-Sharaa’s government. The militant group is far weaker than
when it controlled large parts of Syria and Iraq before the collapse of its
self-declared caliphate in 2019. It remains, however, capable of carrying out
deadly insurgency-style attacks and is viewed by Syrian, Iraqi and Western
officials as one of the biggest threats to Syria’s transition.Al-Sharaa’s other
opponents include Assad-era officers and soldiers. In 2025, Syria was rocked by
fighting between the new government forces and insurgents from Syria’s Alawite
minority, and separately between government forces and Druze gunmen. With
Reuters
US resumes dollar transfers to Iraq after months-long
suspension/The announcement comes after Iraq launched an anti-corruption
campaign earlier this week that saw several officials arrested.
Al Arabiya English/02 July ,2026
The United States has resumed dollar shipments to Iraq, several months after it
suspended them, Al Arabiya English has learned. Washington in April had
suspended cash payments for oil revenue, which have been handled from the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York in an arrangement dating to the aftermath of
the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, as well as security assistance over a spate of
attacks on US interests. Haider al-Aboudi, a spokesman for Iraq’s new prime
minister, Ali al-Zaidi, earlier told the New York Times that the shipments had
resumed. Mudhar Muhammad Salih, a financial adviser to the prime minister,
confirmed resumption of the transfer, according to the NYT report. The
announcement comes after Iraq launched an anti-corruption campaign earlier this
week that saw several officials arrested. Al-Zaidi’s anti-graft raids came
before an expected visit to Washington, where he hopes to attract US investment
and is expected to renew his promise to ensure pro-Iran armed groups hand over
their weapons. With agencies
Russian strikes kill 21 in biggest ever attack on Kyiv,
mayor says
AFP/02 July ,2026
Russia launched its largest ever barrage on Kyiv early Thursday, according to
the city’s mayor, tearing open apartment buildings in an hours-long drone and
missile attack that killed at least 21 people. In Moscow, the Kremlin vowed to
further ramp up the “pressure” on Kyiv after the strike, sticking to its
no-compromise rhetoric as rescuers in Kyiv scoured the rubble for survivors. The
European Union’s top diplomat proposed new sanctions on Moscow, while Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked the United States for licenses to
manufacture Patriot air defense missiles. Russia has routinely launched waves of
missiles and drones at Ukrainian cities during its more than four-year invasion,
which has become Europe’s deadliest conflict since World War II. AFP journalists
in central and eastern Kyiv heard more than a dozen explosions and saw residents
– some with children and pets – rushing to shelter in metro stations. In the
morning, locals stood on the rubble of destroyed apartment blocks ripped apart
by the barrage, as smoke poured over the Kyiv skyline.At one spot, a mother
cried as she embraced her son in front of the smoldering debris. Blasts started
echoing out late on Wednesday, lasting into the early hours of Thursday as
Russian missiles and drones rained down on residential areas in the city center.
Mayor Vitali Klitschko described it as the “enemy’s most massive attack on the
capital,” without elaborating. The state emergency services said at least 21
people were killed and 85 were wounded, including two children.
Kyiv urged its allies to send more air defense. “Air defense supplies for
Ukraine are an absolute and critical priority,” Zelenskyy said in a post on
Facebook. “We also very much count on a decision by the United States regarding
licenses for Patriots.” Ukraine is seeking to manufacture munitions for the
US-made missile interceptor system, one of its only ways of defending against
Russian ballistic missiles, although defense experts say it will take time to
set up production domestically.
Struggling to sleep
Russia fired 496 drones and 74 missiles – including hard-to-intercept ballistic
projectiles – Ukraine’s air force said. It said it shot down 48 of the missiles
and 476 drones.AFP reporters met several Kyiv residents outside an apartment
building largely destroyed in the attack. “Half the building has been destroyed.
The roof is gone,” said 32-year-old factory worker Sabina Mambetova, standing
outside the rubble of her home in the eastern Darnytskyi district. “I’ve been
left without an apartment, alone with my child. I don’t know what to do now.” An
AFP journalist at the site saw rescuers extracting the body of another victim of
the attack, which ripped a multi-story building open. Some 52,000 people,
including 4,500 children packed into underground stations to protect from the
barrage – the highest number in recent years, according to the Kyiv metro.Others
hunkered down in basements or corridors through the night as blasts shook
buildings across the city.“It’s hard. My child is used to sleeping in complete
silence and darkness,” 32-year-old doctor Kateryna Kucheryava told AFP from the
metro as the attack was unfolding. “I picked her up and carried her down. She
woke up and now she’s not sleeping anymore.” Along station platforms, locals set
up tents, lay on air mattresses and camping chairs, while mothers tried to sleep
clutching babies to their chests.
Zelenskyy cuts short visit
The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas said she would propose new sanctions on Moscow
over the attack.But the Kremlin showed no signs it would back down, more than
four years into an invasion that has killed hundreds of thousands. The attack
came hours after Zelenskyy cut short a visit to Dublin on Wednesday, citing
intelligence reports of an impending Russian strike. Zelenskyy said Russian
President Vladimir Putin “has been preparing this massive strike against Ukraine
for some time now.”Ukraine has stepped up long-range drone attacks inside Russia
in recent weeks, targeting energy infrastructure and military targets. Russian
officials have reported repeated strikes in border regions, while Moscow has
said its air defenses have intercepted hundreds of drones from Ukraine in recent
days. US efforts to broker an end to the conflict have so far failed.
Ukraine will ‘definitely’ retaliate for Russian attack on Kyiv, Zelenskyy says
Published: 02 July ,2026
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy vowed Thursday to retaliate for Russia’s
strikes on Kyiv that killed at least 21 people and wounded dozens, as he visited
an apartment block partially destroyed in the attack. Asked by reporters whether
Ukraine would retaliate, Zelenskyy replied: “Definitely.” Zelenskyy also said
that a senior Ukrainian defense official, Rustem Umerov, and President Donald
Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner have held talks in the past two days. He said
that he still hoped Kushner and envoy Steve Witkoff would visit Ukraine even
though US-backed peace efforts to end the war have stalled for months. Zelenskyy
added that he hoped to have a meeting with Trump on the sidelines of a NATO
summit in the Turkish capital Ankara next week.
The Latest LCCC analysis & editorials
from miscellaneous sources published on 02-03 July/2026
L’État libanais et l’épreuve des limites
Charles Chartouni/©Ici Beyrouth/02 Namouz/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/07/155759/
https://icibeyrouth.com/articles/1339312/letat-libanais-et-lepreuve-des-limites
La signature de l’accord-cadre entre l’État libanais et son
homologue israélien constitue un point culminant après des décennies de conflits
ouverts. Il est marqué par le pacte avorté du 17 mai 1983, les accords restés
sans effet (2006-2026) et l’accord gazier du 11 octobre 2023. Tous ces accords
ont fini par échouer. La question lancinante qui se pose à l’heure actuelle est
celle de la viabilité de l’accord-cadre dans un contexte de polarisation extrême.
La signature de cet accord-cadre succède à 15 mois d’échec du moratoire convenu
sur le désarmement du Hezbollah.
Elle fait également suite aux manœuvres mensongères de l’armée libanaise qui ont
déjoué le cessez-le-feu du 26 novembre 2024. Ces dernières ont permis au
Hezbollah de reconstituer son arsenal, de remobiliser la communauté chiite
derrière lui, de réaffirmer ses liens de subordination à la république islamique
d’Iran, et de réactiver ses sources de financement. L’armée libanaise se voit
confier une fois de plus la charge de reprendre le contrôle des territoires du
Sud-Litani et de mettre en œuvre la dynamique de normalisation sécuritaire qui
lui est assignée dans le cadre de l’accord-cadre signé à Washington. C’est à
partir de cet actif, qui est lourd de complicité avérée, que les contradictions
au sein de l'armée libanaise se manifestent. Le rejet de la photo emblématique
des négociations révèle les failles aux niveaux militaire, politique et
national.
On peine à dissimuler les fractures profondes qui traversent de part en part
l’hypothétique communauté nationale et les instances étatiques. L’épreuve des
limites qui nous est imposée revêt une signification cruciale. Elle met l’État
libanais à l'épreuve et l’oblige à répondre à des défis sécuritaires et
stratégiques fondamentaux. Toute défaillance en la matière est une atteinte à la
souveraineté nationale aux conséquences désastreuses. Elle met en question la
paix civile, l’autonomie nationale et la viabilité du pays et de l’État libanais.
Autrement dit, nous faisons face à des défis majeurs qui peuvent mener à la
désintégration du pays.
L’administration américaine, en finalisant l'accord trilatéral, réussit une
double gageure. Elle a d'une part imposé la séparation des parcours
diplomatiques, ceux des trajectoires libano-israélienne et américano-iranienne.
Elle a mis fin à la politique fusionnelle qui projetait l’annexion du dossier
libanais à l’agenda iranien. Elle a, d'autre part, remis le Liban sur la voie
des négociations sur la base d’un traité de paix qui mettrait fin à une
dynamique conflictuelle pérennisée. Ce retournement politique majeur risque de
s’effilocher si le Liban fait état d’impuissance et se rétracte à l’endroit des
engagements politiques et militaires qui lui incombent.
En effet, l’opposition frontale de la communauté chiite réalignée sur les lignes
de rupture tracées par le tandem Amal-Hezbollah nous ramène aux sources de la
crise systémique de l’État libanais. Il s'agit de la légitimité nationale, de la
souveraineté territoriale et de l’autonomie morale battues en brèche par les
idéologies panarabes, panislamistes et palestinistes et de leurs articulations
stratégiques. C’est cette politique qui nous a valu 70 ans de conflits ouverts
qui ont détruit l’hypothétique communauté nationale, la paix civile et
transformé le pays en terrain de conflits de substitution. C’est un scénario
dont les séquences se répètent, reproduisant les mêmes tropes idéologiques
instrumentalisés par les politiques de puissance alternées de jadis et ceux de
l’avenir immédiat.
L'ouverture diplomatique est singulière dans cette conjoncture historique car
elle nous permet de mettre fin à un conflit destructeur et injustifiable à tous
égards. C’est un conflit éminemment idéologique qui a servi de locomotive aux
politiques iraniennes de subversion. Il nous reviendrait, comme Libanais, de
saisir cette dynamique inédite pour nous extraire des cycles de violence
institutionnalisée. La poursuite de la guerre au sud du Liban, ainsi que la
campagne de radicalisation politique poursuivie par le Hezbollah et ses alliés,
sont des éléments clés dans le conflit en cours. Le pouvoir libanais ne peut
aucunement composer avec des politiques résolument subversives qui se
ressourcent dans un projet idéologique qui méconnaît la légitimité nationale
libanaise et les impératifs de la paix civile.
Celui-ci pourfend le récit national libanais, remet en cause les fondements de
la démocratie consociative, la normativité des droits humanitaires et leur
retranscription sur le plan politique et institutionnel. En l'absence d'une
culture politique et civique commune, le Liban est dans l'impossibilité de
négocier des accords avec Israël et de tenir des engagements dans la durée.
Somme toute, on a "la politique extérieure de sa politique intérieure" et il est
inconcevable de s'en départir si jamais on est à la recherche d'une solution
négociée et viable. Les désaccords avec le Hezbollah sont de principe et ne
peuvent en aucun cas justifier des accommodements de circonstances. La fin du
conflit est faite d'arrangements sécuritaires encadrés par des choix
stratégiques qui mettent fin aux guerres différées.
Autrement, le Liban s’achemine vers des scénarios de chaos et des dynamiques
conflictuelles renouvelées. Le Hezbollah s’inscrit dans la mouvance politique
iranienne et ne fait que la reproduire sur la scène libanaise. Le défi actuel
est de sceller la rupture avec le diktat impérial iranien, de faire opposition à
la politique de subversion du Hezbollah, et de finaliser les négociations avec
l’État israélien. À défaut, les composantes nationales libanaises sont sommées
de trouver des solutions alternatives, de faire des choix de régimes, de
politiques de rupture et de réorientation stratégique. La paix civile et
l'avenir du Liban sont en question.
The Lebanese State and the Test of Its Limits
Charles Chartouni/Ici Beyrouth/June 02/2026
(Translated from French by on line translation sites)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/07/155759/
The signing of the framework agreement between the Lebanese state and its
Israeli counterpart constitutes a culminating point after decades of open
conflict. It is marked by the aborted May 17, 1983 pact, the agreements that
remained ineffective (2006–2026), and the gas agreement of October 11, 2023. All
of these agreements ultimately failed. The pressing question at present is that
of the viability of the framework agreement in a context of extreme
polarization. The signing of this framework agreement follows 15 months of
failure of the moratorium agreed upon regarding Hezbollah’s disarmament.
It also follows the deceptive maneuvers of the Lebanese Army that undermined the
ceasefire of November 26, 2024. These maneuvers enabled Hezbollah to rebuild its
arsenal, remobilize the Shiite community behind it, reaffirm its ties of
subordination to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and reactivate its sources of
funding. The Lebanese Army is once again entrusted with the task of regaining
control of the territories south of the Litani and implementing the security
normalization dynamic assigned to it within the framework agreement signed in
Washington. It is on the basis of this record, burdened with proven complicity,
that contradictions within the Lebanese Army become apparent. The rejection of
the emblematic photograph of the negotiations reveals shortcomings at the
military, political, and national levels.
It is difficult to conceal the deep fractures running through the hypothetical
national community and state institutions. The test of limits imposed upon us
carries crucial significance. It puts the Lebanese state to the test and compels
it to respond to fundamental security and strategic challenges. Any failure in
this regard constitutes an infringement upon national sovereignty with
disastrous consequences. It calls into question civil peace, national autonomy,
and the viability of the country and the Lebanese state. In other words, we are
facing major challenges that may lead to the disintegration of the country.
By finalizing the trilateral agreement, the American administration has
succeeded in a double feat. On the one hand, it imposed the separation of
diplomatic tracks, namely the Lebanese-Israeli and the American-Iranian
trajectories. It put an end to the fusionist policy that projected the
annexation of the Lebanese file to the Iranian agenda. On the other hand, it
placed Lebanon back on the path of negotiations based on a peace treaty that
would bring an end to a perpetuated conflict dynamic. This major political
reversal risks unraveling if Lebanon displays impotence and retreats from the
political and military commitments incumbent upon it.
Indeed, the frontal opposition of the Shiite community, realigned along the
fault lines drawn by the Amal-Hezbollah tandem, brings us back to the roots of
the systemic crisis of the Lebanese state. These involve national legitimacy,
territorial sovereignty, and moral autonomy undermined by pan-Arab,
pan-Islamist, and Palestinianist ideologies and their strategic articulations.
It is this policy that has brought us 70 years of open conflicts that have
destroyed the hypothetical national community, civil peace, and transformed the
country into a terrain of proxy conflicts. This is a scenario whose sequences
are repeated, reproducing the same ideological tropes instrumentalized by the
alternating power politics of the past and of the immediate future.
The diplomatic opening is unique in this historical juncture because it allows
us to put an end to a destructive and unjustifiable conflict in every respect.
It is an eminently ideological conflict that has served as a locomotive for
Iranian policies of subversion. It would be incumbent upon us, as Lebanese, to
seize this unprecedented dynamic in order to extricate ourselves from cycles of
institutionalized violence. The continuation of the war in southern Lebanon, as
well as the campaign of political radicalization pursued by Hezbollah and its
allies, are key elements in the ongoing conflict. The Lebanese authorities
cannot in any way accommodate resolutely subversive policies rooted in an
ideological project that disregards Lebanese national legitimacy and the
imperatives of civil peace.
This project attacks the Lebanese national narrative, calls into question the
foundations of consociational democracy, the normative framework of humanitarian
rights, and their translation into political and institutional practice. In the
absence of a common political and civic culture, Lebanon is unable to negotiate
agreements with Israel and uphold commitments over time. Ultimately, one has
“the foreign policy of one’s domestic policy,” and it is inconceivable to depart
from this principle if one is seeking a negotiated and viable solution.
Disagreements with Hezbollah are matters of principle and can in no way justify
circumstantial accommodations. The end of the conflict consists of security
arrangements framed by strategic choices that bring delayed wars to an end.
Otherwise, Lebanon is heading toward scenarios of chaos and renewed conflict
dynamics. Hezbollah is part of the Iranian political movement and merely
reproduces it on the Lebanese scene. The current challenge is to seal a break
with the Iranian imperial diktat, oppose Hezbollah’s policy of subversion, and
finalize negotiations with the Israeli state. Failing that, the Lebanese
national components are called upon to find alternative solutions, make regime
choices, adopt policies of rupture, and pursue strategic reorientation. Civil
peace and Lebanon’s future are at stake.
Gulf States Sanction Hezbollah, but Qatar Has a Flawed
Record on Terror Finance Enforcement
Natalie Ecanow/FDD- Policy Brief/July 02/2026
There may be a ceasefire in Lebanon, but Hezbollah’s pocketbook is still in the
world’s sights. On June 30, the United States and members of the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) jointly imposed sanctions on Hezbollah’s financial
infrastructure through the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center (TFTC). The
targets include Al-Qard Al-Hassan (AQAH), a financial branch of Hezbollah, and
Bayt al-Mal, which the U.S. Treasury described as the group’s “unofficial
treasury,” as well as senior leaders of both organizations. The United States
previously sanctioned all 31 entities and individuals targeted by the GCC.
The TFTC is a multilateral initiative co-chaired by the United States and Saudi
Arabia with representatives from Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United
Arab Emirates. While the joint action signals good intentions, it is not a
substitute for internal terror finance enforcement among GCC member states, like
Qatar, that are lagging.
Combating Terror Finance Was a Priority During Trump’s First Term
The TFTC was created in May 2017 when the first Trump administration signed a
bilateral counter-terror finance memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Saudi
Arabia. President Donald Trump had been in office for less than six months, but
countering terror finance was already emerging as a priority for his
administration. “As we deny terrorist organizations control of territory and
populations, we must also strip them of their access to funds,” Trump emphasized
upon inaugurating the TFTC in Riyadh.
Qatar subsequently signed a similar MOU with the United States in July 2017 —
one month after Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt
severed ties with Qatar, accusing Doha of “funding” extremist groups, among
other transgressions.
Qatar’s Fight Against Terror Finance Lost Steam
After signing the 2017 MOU, Qatar took a series of steps that suggested
follow-through, including placing more than two dozen individuals and entities
on a terrorism blacklist and issuing a new law to improve its anti-money
laundering and counter-terror financing efforts. Additionally, Washington and
Doha took coordinated action in 2021 against eight targets connected to a “major
Hezbollah financial network based in the Arabian Peninsula.” One of the entities
designated was a property management company based in Qatar “owned and managed”
by a known Hezbollah financier.
Despite this progress, Qatar’s efforts have stalled. The Financial Action Task
Force (FATF), an international money-laundering and terror-finance watchdog,
last assessed Qatar in 2023. In its report, FATF maintained that Doha had “not
demonstrated that it is effectively identifying, investigating, or prosecuting”
terror financing cases, noting that authorities hadn’t convicted a single terror
financier since 2018.
Conversely, FATF assessed Saudi Arabia in 2018 and found that terrorist
financing “investigations are routinely carried out … leading to an exceptional
number of investigations and convictions.” FATF upgraded Saudi Arabia’s
terror-finance sanctions rating in 2020 from “partially compliant” to “largely
compliant.”
Congressional Oversight Is Due
Maximum pressure on Iran and its proxies has largely defined the second Trump
administration’s counter-terror finance efforts. However, the recent TFTC
designations can kickstart renewed efforts with America’s GCC partners,
leveraging the momentum Trump built during his first term.
The text of the 2017 U.S.-Qatar MOU is not public, but then-Secretary of State
Rex Tillerson explained that the agreement “specifies the steps each country
will take to stop terrorism financing globally and sets a timeline for its
implementation.” Nearly a decade has passed, and there’s reason to suspect that
Qatar’s progress has stalled — or that Doha failed to meet certain benchmarks
altogether. In October 2023, for example, the U.S. Treasury Department
sanctioned a “Qatar-based financial facilitator” who “was involved in the
transfer of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas.”
As the second Trump administration continues to deepen its partnership with
Qatar, Washington should bring Doha into line with existing expectations.
Members of Congress can request that the U.S. Government Accountability Office
review Qatar’s progress implementing the 2017 MOU and assess overall enforcement
of the agreement.
**Natalie Ecanow is a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD). For more analysis from Natalie and FDD, please subscribe
HERE. Follow Natalie on X @NatalieEcanow. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a
Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on foreign policy
and national security.
How Trump’s Understanding With Iran Echoes Obama’s 2015
Nuclear Deal
Tzvi Kahn/FDD-Insight/July 01/2026
If you want to understand Iran’s negotiating posture for the new nuclear deal
with the United States, listen to what Washington and Tehran said about the
nuclear deal of July 2015.
At the time, President Barack Obama presented the accord, formally known as the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as a watershed in U.S.-Iranian
relations that could lead the clerical regime to moderate its policies beyond
the nuclear file. “They have the ability now to take some decisive steps to move
toward a more constructive relationship with the world community,” Obama said on
the day of the agreement’s finalization. In late 2014, the president argued that
a nuclear deal may “strengthen the hand of those more moderate forces inside of
Iran.”
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei begged to differ.
In fact, the supreme leader, whom Israel assassinated at the start of the latest
war with the Islamic Republic, maintained that his very definition of
negotiations dramatically differed from Washington’s. In October 2015, Khamenei
said he conceived of two types of negotiations: the “modern” type and the
American type. “Modern” negotiations, he asserted, “means a deal. It means
giving something and receiving something else in return.” For the Americans,
however, negotiations mean “opening the way for their penetration in economic,
cultural, political and security areas.”
In other words, Khamenei feared that the United States conceived of negotiations
as a ploy to fundamentally transform the character of the Islamic Republic —
from its radical Islamist ideology and its support for regional proxies like
Hamas and Hezbollah to its political system and its domestic repression. Obama’s
rhetoric likely strengthened this conviction. Accordingly, Iran’s dictator
contended that his negotiations with Washington were merely transactional — that
is, “modern.”
And that transaction was simple: Iran’s only “purpose of entering into the
nuclear negotiations is to lift sanctions,” Khamenei said weeks before the
JCPOA’s finalization — not to end its nuclear program, missile program,
terrorism, or theocratic tyranny at home.
Of course, Obama’s view was painfully naïve. He believed that merely concluding
the JCPOA, and providing its attendant sanctions relief, would motivate the
Islamic Republic to moderate. In this sense, unlike Tehran, the president
implicitly saw the negotiations as American, not “modern.” The clerical regime
thus scored a victory at the negotiating table: From the perspective of U.S.
interests, the JCPOA turned out to be fatally flawed, providing woefully
limited, temporary nuclear restrictions that preserved the bulk of Iran’s
nuclear infrastructure, thereby giving Tehran a patient pathway to the bomb.
Consequently, in August 2015, Khamenei boasted that his strategy — the “modern”
model of negotiations — had prevailed. America, he said, sought to use the JCPOA
“as a means to exert influence in our country, but we blocked their path and we
will definitely block their path in the future.”
The future has now come. And history is repeating itself.
The new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran
essentially amounts to another “modern” negotiation — but this time, both
Washington and Tehran are treating it as such. The two nations have engaged in a
transaction that meets the regime’s primary objective — sanctions relief and the
termination of America’s Strait of Hormuz blockade — without addressing the
underlying threat that truly lies at the heart of the conflict: the Islamic
Republic’s very nature.
In this sense, the parallel between President Donald Trump’s MOU and the JCPOA
is striking. But in a key way, the MOU is worse. While Obama merely spoke about
regime moderation, the JCPOA was silent on the matter. By contrast,
notwithstanding Vice President JD Vance’s own statements expressing eagerness to
transform America’s relationship with Iran, Trump’s MOU goes out of its way to
assure Tehran that Washington seeks no moderation in the regime aside from the
nuclear file: “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran
undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to
refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.”
That’s music to Tehran’s ears. It fundamentally reverses Trump’s previous
expressions of support for the Iranian people, moving prospects for regime
change off the table. It means Washington will not take meaningful steps to stop
Iran’s support for terrorist proxies in the Middle East, as Trump had originally
pledged to do.
In other words, it gives the clerical regime, crippled by sanctions as well as
Washington’s and Jerusalem’s military might, a new lease on life — precisely
when it’s the weakest it has ever been in its 47-year history.
To wit: Whereas Iran’s economy was severely degraded by sanctions in 2015, the
country’s economic situation today is even more dire. The U.S. blockade has cost
the regime hundreds of millions of dollars a day. Had Trump’s campaign
continued, Tehran’s grip on power would have severely declined. The MOU reverses
that progress.
This reality reflects another comparative weakness of the MOU. In the JCPOA,
Iran agreed to some — albeit inadequate — restrictions on its nuclear program in
exchange for sanctions relief. But in the MOU, Iran receives an end to the
Strait of Hormuz blockade merely for agreeing to talk about the nuclear program,
thereby enabling billions of dollars to flow back to the regime’s coffers.
Moreover, Washington has issued a general license that halts Iranian petroleum
sanctions, providing billions more in economic relief.
Mojtaba Khamenei, the new supreme leader and the son of the previous leader, can
now brag that his regime has outwitted Washington at the negotiating table just
as his father did. He has achieved his only goals for the “modern” negotiations
he pursued. Trump, by contrast, has achieved little at the bargaining table to
gloat about — save, perhaps, for lower oil prices that put the Republican Party
in better stead for the upcoming midterm elections.
That’s not a victory for Washington. It’s a strategic defeat.
**Tzvi Kahn is a research fellow and senior editor at the Foundation for Defense
of Democracies. For more analysis from Tzvi and FDD, please subscribe HERE.
Follow FDD on X @FDD. Follow Tzvi on X @TzviKahn. FDD is a Washington, DC-based,
nonpartisan research institute focused on national security and foreign policy.
Why Hasn’t the Trump Administration Complied with the Law
on Reporting Iran Agreements to Congress?
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/07/01/why-hasnt-the-trump-administration-complied-with-the-law-on-reporting-iran-agreements-to-congress/
Duncan Hollis and Orde Kittrie/ Small Wars Journal/July 01/2026
This article argues that the Trump Administration’s Memorandum of Understanding
with Iran is subject to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) but the
administration has not complied with INARA’s requirements for additional
materials submission, reporting, certification, and sanctions-relief delay. The
authors contend Congress should demand an explanation and ensure executive
adherence to existing statutory obligations.
Introduction
The Trump Administration has evidently decided that the Iran Nuclear Agreement
Review Act (INARA) is not applicable to its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with Iran. Its immediate provision to Iran of relief from statutory sanctions
appears inconsistent with INARA. Congress must both demand the White House
explain its position and require INARA compliance as necessary.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act
Congress passed INARA in 2015 to strengthen oversight of President Obama’s Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). INARA requires the President to submit any
U.S. agreement on Iran’s nuclear program to Congress within five days. For 30
days after that submission, the President is prohibited from relieving statutory
sanctions on Iran. The White House sent Congress the MOU on June 18. The
Treasury Department’s June 22 license pausing sanctions on Iranian petroleum
appears inconsistent with this prohibition.
The 30-day window was designed to provide Congress time to review the JCPOA, and
potentially reject it, prior to its implementation under U.S. law. However,
INARA does not have a sunset date; it remains the law of the land. Hence, it
appears to be just as applicable to the Trump MOU as it was to Obama’s JCPOA.
INARA covers any “agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran” involving
the U.S., “regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or
otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not.” The MOU
clearly relates to Iran’s nuclear program. In the MOU, Iran reaffirms that “it
shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons,” and agrees with the Unted States
on a framework to resolve the disposition of Iran’s stockpiled enriched
material. Iran also agrees to “maintain the current status quo of its nuclear
program” pending a final deal.
The U.S. – Iran MOU and the Lack of Compliance
The Trump Administration’s June 18 transmittal of the MOU to Congress
contradicts INARA in three ways. First, along with submitting the MOU itself,
INARA requires submission of “any additional materials” including “annexes,
appendixes, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and
guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements…” Vice
President Vance has said the deal includes “gentlemen’s agreements,” some
written and some oral. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly noted that a side
letter exists in which Iran invites the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
to inspect its nuclear sites and uncover Tehran’s enriched uranium locations. If
INARA applies to the MOU, the Administration should have submitted these
materials to Congress within five calendar days of the agreement being reached.
The public record reveals no signs that it has done so.
Second, INARA requires submission within that same five days of a “verification
assessment report” by the Secretary of State. Here too, there’s no evidence of
Executive Branch compliance. The “verification assessment report” must include
assessments of: (i) the Secretary of State’s capacity “to verify that Iran is
complying with” the MOU; (ii) the adequacy of the MOU’s “safeguards and other
control mechanisms and other assurances” to ensure Iranian activities will not
further “any nuclear-related military or nuclear explosive purpose…”; and (iii)
the IAEA’s capacity and capability to “effectively implement the verification
regime required by or related to the agreement…”
The MOU includes Iran’s assurances that, “it shall not procure or develop
nuclear weapons” and agreement, “to resolve the disposition of stockpile
enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon…
with the minimum methodology to be down blending on-site, under the supervision
of the IAEA.” The required “verification assessment report” must address whether
the MOU provides, or the IAEA otherwise has, sufficient access to Iran to verify
Iran’s implementation of these commitments. But the MOU does not contain any
“safeguards” or “other control mechanisms,” let alone a “verification regime,”
relating to these assurances (other than the vague reference to IAEA supervision
of the down blending). It would be important for Congress to see how this gap is
addressed by the required verification assessment report.
Third, INARA requires a presidential “certification,” including that “the
President determines the agreement meets United States non-proliferation
objectives, does not jeopardize the common defense and security, provides an
adequate framework to ensure that Iran’s nuclear activities permitted thereunder
will not be inimical to or constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense
and security.” The President has yet to submit such a certification.
In addition, INARA specifies that during the 30-day period following a covered
agreement’s transmittal to Congress, “the President may not waive, suspend,
reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory
sanctions with respect to Iran…or refrain from applying any such sanctions
pursuant to” the covered agreement. Yet the MOU’s paragraph 10 specifies that
“immediately” upon signing the MOU, “Treasury will issue waivers for the export
of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated
services…”
Former top attorneys from the George W. Bush and Barack Obama Administrations
were quick to warn that INARA prohibited such waivers for the first 30 days
following the MOU’s transmittal to Congress. Notwithstanding the 30-day hold
period required by INARA, however, the Treasury license implemented Paragraph 10
on June 22, thereby reportedly providing Iran with billions of dollars in oil
sanctions relief.
Do The Right Thing
Why hasn’t the Trump Administration complied with INARA? The Administration
appears to be acting on the basis of a Justice Department opinion that some or
all of INARA’s requirements do not apply to the MOU. But the Administration has
not made this opinion, or its arguments, public. Congress should insist on a
full explanation of this seemingly inexplicable opinion, so it can make its own
judgment and take action accordingly.
The two of us have worked on treaties and non-proliferation law for decades. Our
views differ on the right policy responses to dealing with Iran’s nuclear
program. But we agree that the Executive Branch must comply with INARA’s terms
or explain why it believes that INARA is inapplicable to the MOU. To date, the
White House has done neither.
*Duncan Hollis is a law professor at Temple University, editor of The Oxford
Guide to Treaties, and formerly the State Department’s attorney-advisor for
treaty affairs. Orde F. Kittrie is a law professor at Arizona State University,
a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and formerly the
State Department’s lead attorney for nuclear affairs.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/07/01/why-hasnt-the-trump-administration-complied-with-the-law-on-reporting-iran-agreements-to-congress/
Read in Small Wars Journal
For Tehran, negotiation is war by other means ...Iran’s
rulers think Trump is as beatable as his predecessors
Clifford D. May/The Washington Times/July 01/2026
President Trump has observed that Iran’s rulers have “never won a war, but never
lost a negotiation.” The question that should follow: Why is that?
One reason they don’t win wars: They have neither nuclear weapons nor an
adequate conventional force – despite what had been a fast-growing arsenal of
missiles and drones.
Last year’s Twelve-Day War – which culminated in Midnight Hammer, President
Trump’s deployment of B-2 stealth bombers to destroy subterranean nuclear
facilities – was followed by this year’s Operation Epic Fury, a 38-day air
campaign. These two brief armed conflicts significantly set back Tehran’s
nuclear and conventional weapons programs. Credit where credit is due.
One reason why Iran’s rulers consistently win negotiations: They’re adept at
weaponizing hostage-taking. This skillset traces back to the fall of 1979, just
months after the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran when followers of the
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran and held more than
four dozen Americans hostage – egregious violations of the most fundamental
international laws. Mr. Khomeini, by then Iran’s “supreme leader,” marveled – or
maybe sneered – that “America can’t do a damn thing against us.”
His analysis was confirmed in April 1980 when Operation Eagle Claw, President
Carter’s attempted hostage rescue operation, catastrophically failed.
Another reason Iran’s rulers have fared so well in negotiations: Most American
presidents and their advisors have chosen to see the regime not as it is but as
they’d like it to be.
On Jan. 5, 1979 — almost a month before Mr. Khomeini returned from exile in
France, and three months before the declaration of an Islamic Republic — the
late, great Michael Ledeen, a renowned scholar of fascism, published an op-ed in
the Wall Street Journal arguing that the ayatollah was as a “clerical fascist.”
This was based on Mr. Khomeini’s published works and recorded lectures.
“If you look at fascism as it started in Italy, it’s a war ideology, just as
radical Islam is,” Dr. Ledeen later explained. “Whereas the nation was the prime
category of European fascism, in the Iranian case, ultimate fealty was pledged
to Islam.”
The foreign policy establishment rejected this analysis. Perhaps that was
because, in World War II, Roosevelt and Churchill had established, at great
cost, that appeasing fascists — as Neville Chamberlain had attempted — was a
profoundly stupid strategy. So, to accept Dr. Ledeen’s label was to foreclose
the policy the bien-pensants were determined to pursue.
On Feb. 8, 1979, The New York Times reported that Andrew Young, President Jimmy
Carter’s ambassador to the U.N., had concluded that
Ayatollah Khomeini was “a Saint.”
On February 16, Richard Falk, a left-wing professor at Princeton specializing in
“global governance,” wrote an article in the Times titled “Trusting Khomeini.”
The depiction of the ayatollah as “fanatical, reactionary, and the bearer of
crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false,” he confidently declared.
Over the years that followed, facts on the ground should have made it undeniable
that when Iran’s rulers vowed “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” they
meant exactly what they said.
For example, in 1983, Hezbollah, Iran’s terrorist proxy in Lebanon, bombed the
Beirut barracks housing French and American peacekeepers, killing 241 U.S.
service members, 58 French paratroopers, and six Lebanese civilians.
In 1996, Tehran-backed terrorists struck Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia killing
19 U.S. Air Force personnel. During the U.S. intervention in Iraq beginning in
2003, Shia militias loyal to Tehran killed hundreds of American troops.
Washington’s response to such actions, under Republican and Democratic
presidents alike, was feckless. In 2009, President Barack Obama told Iran’s
rulers: “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” But
improving relations with the “Great Satan” was not on their to-do list.
President Trump, in his first term, took a different approach. He withdrew from
President Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the product of
negotiations in which Tehran’s envoys easily bested Washington’s. Under the
JCPOA’s “sunset clauses,” many of the deal’s restrictions would by now have
expired, leaving Tehran with an internationally sanctioned pathway to an
industrial-scale nuclear program.
Mr. Trump also ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the most skillful
of Iran’s terrorist masters, and he put serious economic pressure on the regime.
Starting in late February, Tehran played its one high card: using mines,
missiles, and drones to halt the transit of commercial vessels through the
Strait of Hormuz – an international waterway and energy chokepoint.
On June 17, President Trump signed a Memorandum of Understanding that gave the
regime a ceasefire and financial benefits in exchange for its promise to stop
holding the strait hostage.
Yet last Thursday and Saturday, Iranian drones again began striking commercial
vessels crossing the strait. The U.S. responded by striking Iranian military
infrastructure. Tehran retaliated by targeting U.S. bases in Bahrain and Kuwait.
On Saturday, President Trump warned on Truth Social: “There may come a point
when we are no longer able to be reasonable, and will be forced to militarily
complete the job that we very successfully started. If that happens, the Islamic
Republic of Iran will no longer exist.”
Soon after, both sides agreed to hold their fire and head to Qatar for new
talks. But on Tuesday, a spokesman for Tehran said Iranian diplomats would not
meet with American envoys – only with mediators. And Iranian Foreign Minister
Abbas Araghchi doubled down on his claim that the Strait of Hormuz is Tehran’s
private real estate – where rent will be collected and unwanted tenants evicted.
Iran’s rulers, who have never lost a negotiation, are betting that the current
occupant of the White House is as beatable as his predecessors. President Trump
knows what’s required to prove them wrong. He already told us.
*Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD), a columnist for the Washington Times, and host of the
“Foreign Podicy” podcast.
Why Negotiating With Terrorist Regimes Such as Hamas and
Iran Is a Terrible Idea...Needed: Unconditional
Surrender, as After World War II
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/July 02, 2026
The Trump Administration is making a big mistake by engaging in negotiations
with Hamas — as well as Iran. Instead of weakening the Iran-backed terrorist
group and its sponsors, these negotiations legitimize them as political actors
and, for Hamas, only strengthen their standing among Palestinians; and for
Iran's rulers, among countries that might have been hoping to move toward the
West.
Discussions have reportedly stalled over disputes concerning which weapons the
terrorist group Hamas would be permitted to retain. Instead of debating whether
Hamas should disarm, negotiators now appear to be debating how much of its
military capability it should be allowed to keep.
In short, Hamas, while remaining fully armed, continues to dictate conditions.
Meanwhile, intelligence assessments from Israeli and Western security officials
paint an alarming picture. This approach also sends a disastrous message to
every terrorist organization in the Middle East: massacre civilians, survive
military retaliation, refuse to disarm, and eventually the United States will
sit down and negotiate with you. That is precisely the opposite lesson to the
one Washington ought to be sending. Terrorist organizations do not usually
disarm through diplomacy. They do not abandon power because mediators ask
politely. They relinquish power only when they are no longer capable of
exercising it. The failure of the Palestinians' June 26 protests demonstrates
that Hamas remains capable of ruling the Gaza Strip through fear. Intelligence
reports show that it remains capable of rebuilding its military machine. The
latest negotiations show that it remains determined to dictate terms rather than
accept them. If deals are struck, no one is expecting Iran or Hamas to abide by
them anyway — so that even winning a deal would mean losing.
Instead of legitimizing terrorist groups that openly seek Israel's and America's
destruction, the United States should insist on the full implementation of its
own peace plans -- each with a firm deadline -- beginning with Hamas's
unconditional disarmament and removal from power, as well as the immediate
implementation of whatever the US needs in the Islamabad MOU.
Anything less merely strengthens the very terrorist organizations negotiations
are supposedly designed to defeat. The Trump Administration is making a big
mistake by engaging in negotiations with Hamas — as well as Iran. According to
Israeli reports, Trump administration adviser Aryeh Lightstone recently met with
senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya as part of discussions aimed at persuading
Hamas to disarm. Previous direct meetings reportedly involved US envoy Steve
Witkoff. Pictured: Al-Hayya meets with Iran's late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei in Tehran on February 8, 2025. (Image source: Office of the Iranian
Supreme Leader)
The Trump Administration is making a big mistake by engaging in negotiations
with Hamas — as well as Iran. Instead of weakening the Iran-backed terrorist
group and its sponsors, these negotiations legitimize them as political actors
and, for Hamas, only strengthen their standing among Palestinians; and for
Iran's rulers, among countries that might have been hoping to move toward the
West.
Reports that senior US officials have been holding direct meetings with Hamas
representatives come at a troubling time. The reports surfaced only days after
Hamas successfully crushed anti-Hamas uprising in the Gaza Strip on June 26,
thereby demonstrating that the terrorist group remains firmly in control and has
no intention of surrendering power.
The failure of the so-called Gazan "June 26 Revolution," and the uprising by
Iranian citizens on January 8-9 in Iran, should have served as a wake-up call to
Washington.
Thousands of Palestinians and Iranians must have prayed that their protests
would force Hamas and Iran's regime to disarm and relinquish control of the Gaza
Strip and change Iran to a civilian administration. Instead, both Hamas and
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) responded with overwhelming
force.
According to further reports from the Gaza Strip, Hamas and its allies in
Palestinian Islamic Jihad deployed armed operatives throughout the coastal
territory, threatened suspected organizers with execution, converted hospitals
into interrogation centers, confiscated mobile phones, and intimidated civilians
through religious decrees branding protesters as "agents of the occupation."
Fear, as well as public support for Hamas, apparently prevented the planned
protests from gaining momentum. Against this backdrop, news that the Trump
Administration has been conducting direct talks with Hamas sends precisely the
wrong message.
According to Israeli reports, Trump administration adviser Aryeh Lightstone
recently met with senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya as part of discussions
aimed at persuading Hamas to disarm. Previous direct meetings reportedly
involved US envoy Steve Witkoff.
Although the stated objective is to convince Hamas to surrender its weapons,
there is no evidence that the terrorist group has moved even one centimeter
toward that goal. On the contrary, Hamas has adopted an even tougher negotiating
position.
Discussions have reportedly stalled over disputes concerning which weapons the
terrorist group Hamas would be permitted to retain. Instead of debating whether
Hamas should disarm, negotiators now appear to be debating how much of its
military capability it should be allowed to keep.
That is exactly how terrorist organizations manipulate diplomacy.
The latest Hamas delegation to Cairo, headed by Zaher Jabarin, arrived not to
announce its surrender but to present new demands. Hamas officials insist that
Israel completely withdraw from the Gaza Strip, allow unrestricted
reconstruction, rebuild infrastructure, and implement political arrangements
leading to a Palestinian state before discussing the terrorist group's future.
In short, Hamas, while remaining fully armed, continues to dictate conditions.
This is not the behavior of an organization preparing to lay down its weapons.
It is the behavior of a movement convinced that time is on its side.
Meanwhile, intelligence assessments from Israeli and Western security officials
paint an alarming picture. Since the ceasefire went into effect late last year,
Hamas has reportedly rebuilt sections of its tunnel network, resumed
manufacturing explosives, anti-tank weapons and rocket-propelled grenades,
recruited thousands of new operatives, restored much of its command structure,
and begun incorporating lessons from the war into preparations for its next
confrontation with Israel.
Far from disarming, Hamas is rearming. Far from dissolving, it is rebuilding.
Far from abandoning terrorism, it is preparing for another war.
Iran's regime, for its part, according to retired US Army General Jack Keane,
has removed the rubble sealing tunnels where, before the hostilities, it had
hidden around 2,000 ballistic missiles and their launchers. The regime took
advantage of the ceasefire -- which President Donald Trump reportedly halted
just two weeks before degrading Iran's military capability — to place them back
around the country.
Washington nevertheless continues to negotiate. These negotiations carry
consequences far beyond Iran and the Gaza Strip. For many Palestinians, direct
American contacts with Hamas amount to political recognition. They signal that
the United States views Hamas as a legitimate interlocutor and potentially as a
future partner in determining Gaza's political and security future.
America's approach strengthens Hamas politically at the expense of Palestinians
who reject its Islamist dictatorship and its strategy of endless war.
This approach also sends a disastrous message to every terrorist organization in
the Middle East: massacre civilians, survive military retaliation, refuse to
disarm, and eventually the United States will sit down and negotiate with you.
That is precisely the opposite lesson to the one Washington ought to be sending.
Trump's 20-point peace plan for Gaza already calls for Hamas's demilitarization
and removal from power. If that remains American policy, why continue endless
negotiations with a terrorist organization that has repeatedly rejected
disarmament?
Every additional round of talks just buys Hamas more time to manufacture
weapons, rebuild tunnels, recruit fighters, strengthen its grip on Gaza, and
prepare for its next massacre in Israel.
History offers little hope that Hamas will voluntarily surrender its weapons.
Terrorist organizations do not usually disarm through diplomacy. They do not
abandon power because mediators ask politely. They relinquish power only when
they are no longer capable of exercising it.
The failure of the Palestinians' June 26 protests demonstrates that Hamas
remains capable of ruling the Gaza Strip through fear. Intelligence reports show
that it remains capable of rebuilding its military machine. The latest
negotiations show that it remains determined to dictate terms rather than accept
them. The Trump administration should draw the obvious conclusion: negotiating
with Hamas and Iran has failed. If deals are struck, no one is expecting Iran or
Hamas to abide by them anyway — so that even winning a deal would mean losing.
Instead of legitimizing terrorist groups that openly seek Israel's and America's
destruction, the United States should insist on the full implementation of its
own peace plans -- each with a firm deadline -- beginning with Hamas's
unconditional disarmament and removal from power, as well as the immediate
implementation of whatever the US needs in the Islamabad MOU.
Anything less merely strengthens the very terrorist organizations negotiations
are supposedly designed to defeat.
**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.
Selected Face Book & X tweets on 02 July