English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News &
Editorials
For July 15/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.july15.26.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
Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will
find; knock, and the door will be opened for you
Luke 11/09-13: “‘So I say to you, Ask, and it will be given to
you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For
everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone
who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your
child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? Or if the child asks
for an egg, will give a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give
good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the
Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”
Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials
published on 14-15 July/2026
Israel is a neighboring, friendly state, not an enemy/Elias Bejjani/July
14/2026
Steadfastness in Truth and Faith: The Path to Freedom and Dignity/Elias Bejjani/July
14/2026
Lebanon and the Free Lebanese People Mourn Senator Lindsey Graham Alongside All
Lovers of Peace and Freedom/Elias Bejjani/July 12/2026
What did Lebanon and Israel discuss in Rome talks?
Israel says ready to 'move forward' on 2 Lebanon 'pilot zones' in Rome talks
LBCI sources: Israel seeks clarification on pilot areas during Rome talks
US official says Lebanon-Israel talks in Rome to continue Wednesday
Berri says won't be upset if Rome talks lead to positive outcome
Trump urges Netanyahu to withdraw Israeli forces from Syria, Lebanon: Axios
High-Ranking Agent Arrested at Beirut Airport: He Infiltrated Hezbollah Leaders'
Inner Circle and Provided Mossad with Coordinates for the Assassination of Four
Top Leaders
Trump says Iran and Hezbollah could be added to Russia sanctions bill
Israeli violations in Lebanon: Latest developments
Aoun condemns attacks on Gulf states and Jordan
Aoun offers condolences in Doha over late emir
Syrian president stresses economic integration with Lebanon, minister tells LBCI
The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement explained/David Daoud/ FDD's Long War
Journal
Lebanon’s greatest strength is its unity/Hani Hazaimeh/Arab News/July 14, 2026
Titles For The Latest English LCCC
Miscellaneous Reports And News published on 14-15 July/2026
Netanyahu says Israel will deliver ‘decisive blow’ if Iran attacks
Iran says US strikes hit its Gulf island of Qeshm
Iran and US step up attacks, battle over control of Strait of Hormuz
Why it’s so difficult to fully reopen Strait of Hormuz
Saudi Arabia condemns Iranian attacks on neighbors and ships in Hormuz
Kuwait says four crew hurt in Iran strike on navy vessel
Trump hosts Iraq PM Ali al-Zaidi for talks on oil, US troop withdrawal and Iran
“This man PM Ali al-Zaidi is going to be a great leader in the Middle East,
beyond Iraq,” Trump said.
European defense groups unveil plan for homegrown missile shield interceptor
Trump suggests there was no foul play in Graham’s death
China says US taking Middle East to ‘precipice’ with Iran war
Russian oil refinery runs at 21-year lows after drone attacks, Kpler says
Czech Republic in talks for Israeli air defense systems, foreign minister says
Israel allocates $434m to build 34 new settlements in West Bank
Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials
from miscellaneous sources published
on 14-15 July/2026
Lindsey Graham: The senator, soldier and statesman who never backed
down/Mike Waltz/New York Post/July12/2026
Bahrain urges ‘firm’ UN Security Council response to Houthi and Iranian
‘blackmail’ attacks/Ephrem Kossaify/Arab News/July 14, 2026
The summit in Ankara: NATO and beyond/Cornelia Meyer/AlArabiya English/14 July,
2026
Italy’s Meloni suffers parliamentary defeat on election law reform/Osama
Al-Sharif/Arab News/July 14/2026
Palestinians between a rock and a hard place/Yossi Mekelberg/Arab News/July 14,
2026
Will Hamas concessions amount to a genuine transfer of power in Gaza?/GABRIELE
MALVISI/Arab News/July 14, 2026
Do the Math: Why Europe May Not Pull Through/Drieu Godefridi/Gatestone
Institute/July 14, 2026
Selected Face Book & X tweets on 14 July
Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese
Related News & Editorials published on 14-15 July/2026
Israel is a neighboring, friendly state, not
an enemy
Elias Bejjani/July 14/2026
To the hypocrites and 'Christian' opportunists of the 'LaCiforce' group, and to
all those who cloak themselves in a Christian guise of which they are innocent:
Israel is a neighboring, friendly state, not an enemy. You are the devils and
the enemies of Lebanon and the Church.
Steadfastness in Truth and Faith: The Path to Freedom
and Dignity
Elias Bejjani/July 14/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/07/155927/
Jesus Stresses the Importance Of persistence in life
Luke 11/05-08: “And he said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has a friend, and you
go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves of bread;
for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.” And he
answers from within, “Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my
children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.”I tell you,
even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend,
at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he
needs.”
In ordinary times, holding fast to principled positions may seem easy. However,
in times of pressure, threats, terrorism, and occupation, standing firm for the
truth becomes an act of courage and faith. This highlights the necessity for
every individual, and the people as a whole, to remain anchored to their
national and humanitarian convictions, no matter how difficult the circumstances
or how great the dangers. True faith is not limited to prayer and worship; it is
embodied in the rejection of injustice and subjugation, and in the defense of
freedom, sovereignty, and human dignity.
In the Lebanese context, rejecting terrorism and all forms of guardianship,
occupation, or foreign hegemony—foremost among them being Iranian hegemony over
Lebanese decision-making—should not be a situational stance dictated by the
balance of power. Rather, it must be a firm, principled position rooted in the
belief in justice and the right of peoples to determine their own destiny
freely. A person with a just cause does not retreat because the road is
difficult, does not remain silent because the price is high, and does not
compromise because the pressures are immense. Instead, they continue to carry
their national message, advocate for it, and defend it, because the truth is not
measured by the number of its supporters nor by the magnitude of the force
opposing it.
Experience has taught us that falsehood may swell and exert power for a time,
but it can never transform into truth. Power may impose a temporary reality, but
it cannot bestow legitimacy upon what is illegitimate. This is why free peoples
have struggled, generation after generation, in defense of their homelands,
believing that "the truth rises above and cannot be surpassed," and that "no
right dies so long as there is someone demanding it." The victory of truth may
be delayed, but it is never defeated. Its advocates may face persecution,
character assassination, or isolation, but the truth remains alive in the
conscience until it is realized.
From this perspective, steadfastness in the truth becomes a moral, spiritual,
and national virtue all at once. True persistence is not "blameworthy
obstinacy," such as insisting on an error; rather, it is a "sacred persistence"
that expresses firm faith, deep conviction, and a readiness to bear the
consequences of defending one's principles. Not every act of holding fast is
mere stubbornness or pride; it is loyalty to the truth. It requires moral
courage that makes one ready for confrontation when confident in the justice of
their cause. History has not progressed thanks to the hesitant or those who
surrender their principles, but thanks to the men and women who believed in the
truth and held onto it to the very end.
The Holy Bible has repeatedly emphasized the importance of perseverance—not only
in seeking material things, but in faith, prayer, and the defense of truth. The
Lord Jesus taught His disciples that a believer should not surrender at the
first obstacle, but should persist and knock until the door is opened. In the
Gospel of Luke, the Lord says: "Which of you who has a friend will go to him at
midnight... I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because
he is his friend, yet because of his impudence [persistence] he will rise and
give him whatever he needs." (Luke 11:5-8). In this parable, Jesus praises
"sacred persistence." The friend received what he asked for not only because of
their relationship, but because of his insistence and refusal to give up. This
teaches us that steadfastness in asking is a sign of faith, not a sign of
weakness.
The Gospel provides vivid examples of this perseverance:
The Canaanite Woman: Who did not retreat despite the apparent silence,
continuing to plead until she earned Christ’s admiration for her faith: "O
woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire."
The Blind Man on the Roadside: Who did not allow the rebukes of the crowd to
extinguish his hope, but cried out all the more until he stopped Jesus and
regained his sight.
The Persistent Widow: To whom the judge responded because of her perseverance,
leading Christ to emphasize that believers "ought always to pray and not lose
heart."
The actions urged by Christ: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you
will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" (Luke 11:9-10), are expressed in
a tense that implies continuity and persistence. It is a clear teaching that a
believer does not stop at the first obstacle but continues to strive toward the
truth until the goal is achieved.
The supreme example remains in the person of Jesus Christ Himself. When He stood
before Pilate and the religious and political authorities who sought to condemn
Him, He did not retreat from His mission nor compromise the truth He came to
testify to. He stood firm in declaring that His kingdom is not of this world,
and He accepted the suffering and the Cross without denying the truth He bore.
The world today needs people of principle, whose positions do not shift with
changing interests and whose convictions do not change under the pressure of
fear or temptation. Steadfastness in the truth is not fanaticism; it is moral
and spiritual commitment. When this steadfastness is built upon faith in God and
trust in His promises, it transforms into a power capable of changing reality
and shaping history. The believer is called to hold fast to the truth, for truth
does not triumph except through those with steadfast hearts who understand that
sacred persistence in the path of truth is the way to blessing and victory.
Lebanon and the Free Lebanese People Mourn Senator Lindsey Graham
Alongside All Lovers of Peace and Freedom
Elias Bejjani/July 12/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/07/155874/
“The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name
of the Lord.” (Job 01:21)
With profound sorrow and a heavy heart, we mourn the passing of Senator Lindsey
Graham.
His departure leaves a deep sense of loss not only among his family, friends,
colleagues, and fellow Americans, but also among countless Lebanese who regarded
him as a sincere friend, steadfast supporter, and courageous advocate for
Lebanon's sovereignty, independence, freedom, and democratic values.
Throughout the years, Senator Graham stood firmly in support of Lebanon's right
to remain a free and independent nation. He consistently voiced his support for
the Lebanese people's aspirations for dignity, liberty, self-determination, and
the preservation of their national integrity. His friendship toward Lebanon and
his concern for its future earned him the respect and gratitude of many Lebanese
across generations.
Today, Lebanon and its free people mourns the loss of a friend whose voice was
often raised in defense of freedom and whose commitment to democratic principles
resonated far beyond the borders of the United States. His legacy of public
service, conviction, and dedication to the values he cherished will long be
remembered.
In this moment of grief, our thoughts and prayers are with his family, loved
ones, friends, and the American people. We pray that God grants them strength,
comfort, and peace. As Christians, we find solace in the words of Holy
Scripture: “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in Me will
live, even though they die.” (John 11:25) And: “Blessed are those who mourn, for
they shall be comforted.” (Matthew 5:4)
We also remember the comforting promise: “He will wipe every tear from their
eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain.” (Revelation
21:4)
May the soul of Senator Lindsey Graham rest in eternal peace, and may perpetual
light shine upon him. His memory will remain alive in the hearts of those who
cherished freedom and in the gratitude of the Lebanese people who considered him
a dear friend.
May God receive him into His heavenly kingdom and grant him everlasting rest.
What did Lebanon and Israel discuss in Rome talks?
Naharnet/14 July , 2026
Lebanese Presidency sources said Tuesday that the Rome talks between Lebanon and
Israel were discussing the issue of the so-called pilot zones in order to issue
a decision regarding them. “Israel has demanded clarification on how the
Lebanese Army's deployment and control will be achieved,” the sources told Al-Arabiya
television. “Lebanon has provided answers regarding the army's ability to impose
its control and the focus is on the Israeli withdrawal being simultaneous with
the army's deployment,” the sources said, adding that “the emphasis is on the
pilot zones being located in occupied towns.”Baabda sources meanwhile told Al-Jadeed
TV that “the first step for Lebanon lies in recording an Israeli withdrawal from
the first inch of Lebanese territory.”“The discussions for Lebanon have focused
on how to establish the implementation mechanisms for the framework agreement,”
the sources said. Baabda sources meanwhile told MTV that “a specific
geographical zone will be designated for the Israeli withdrawal, with the
technical details to be left to a specialized committee if needed, in
preparation for its completion before the President's visit to the United
States.” “Lebanon, under the guidance of the Army Command, presented a
comprehensive plan addressing Israeli concerns regarding the army's ability to
fully control the area after any withdrawal. The Israeli side also presented its
concerns, and the details are currently being discussed under American
auspices,” the sources said.
Israel says ready to 'move forward' on 2 Lebanon 'pilot
zones' in Rome talks
Agence France Presse/14 July , 2026
Israel's foreign minister said Tuesday he expected ongoing talks in Rome with
Lebanon to help implement an agreement on two "pilot zones" in southern Lebanon,
referring to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from those areas."We are ready to
move forward implementing these two pilot zones. I hope and tend to believe that
this round of discussions in Rome will promote it," Gideon Saar told journalists
at a press conference in Jerusalem.
LBCI sources: Israel seeks clarification on pilot areas
during Rome talks
LBCI/14 July , 2026
Sources told LBCI that the Israeli delegation requested clarification during the
Rome negotiations on details related to the implementation of the proposed pilot
areas. Lebanon is expected to respond to the inquiries during Wednesday's
session. According to the sources, participants also discussed the establishment
of working groups to follow up on outstanding issues between Lebanon and Israel,
with several proposed formats currently under consideration. The sources added
that discussions and the exchange of ideas remained open throughout the Rome
negotiations, leaving participants with a positive overall impression of the
talks.
US official says Lebanon-Israel talks in Rome to continue
Wednesday
Al Arabiya English/14 July,2026
US-brokered talks between Lebanon and Israel will move into a second day, a
State Department official said on Tuesday. The opening talks of the latest round
of negotiations were held in Rome. The discussions revolving around the way
forward to implement the agreement signed in Washington last month that aims to
disarm Hezbollah and push Israel to withdraw from Lebanon were productive. They
were held in a “positive atmosphere,” according to the State Department
official. “Both sides are eager to move forward. Today’s conversations will
continue tomorrow,” the official added. Previous rounds of talks, launched by
the Trump administration earlier this year, were held at the State Department
and the White House. So-called pilot zones are being discussed by all sides,
where Israel would withdraw before being replaced by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF).
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is expected to visit the White House on July 21,
the White House previously told Al Arabiya English. Frustration in Washington
over Lebanon’s failure to disarm Hezbollah has been building for years,
particularly on Capitol Hill. That frustration was reflected in this year’s US
defense policy bill, which significantly reduced military assistance for the
Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). In May, the chairmen of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee also urged that US
aid to the LAF be cut unless the military takes tangible steps toward disarming
Hezbollah.
Berri says won't be upset if Rome talks lead to positive
outcome
Naharnet/14 July , 2026
Commenting on the renewed confrontation between Tehran and Washington, Speaker
Nabih Berri has said that "the atmosphere in the region is negative and gloomy
as a result of the current escalation," expressing hope that it "will be
contained before it worsens, especially since there is ultimately no alternative
to returning to negotiations and the implementation of the Memorandum of
Understanding."Asked whether the renewed U.S.-Iranian clash proves the validity
of the local arguments against linking Lebanon to the Islamabad track and the
insistence on the Washington track pursued by the government, he told al-Joumhouria
newspaper: "I wouldn't be upset if any track achieved a positive outcome that
contributes to halting the aggression and ending the occupation.""Let them show
me a real achievement, not an illusion ... I haven't seen anything yet," Berri
added, noting that "the direct negotiations that led to the framework agreement
did not yield any real benefits for Lebanon and its rights."“I would certainly
be pleased if they could achieve withdrawal, the return of the displaced, the
release of captives, and reconstruction, because what matters to me in the end
is achieving the desired outcome,” Berri said. Reiterating his rejection of the
so-called pilot zones, “which, if implemented, would mean that completing
withdrawal would take two years,” Berri observed that “most of the proposed
pilot zones are not occupied,” warning that “the intention might be to embroil
the army in internal confrontations and instigate strife that serves only the
Israeli enemy, which seeks to lure us into its trap.”“This is what we will
confront with all the strength and wisdom at our disposal,” Berri added.He also
showed no interest in the upcoming round of negotiations in Rome between the
Lebanese and Israeli negotiating delegations, suggesting that it would be “a
mere repetition and extension of the same deviated course.”
Trump urges Netanyahu to withdraw Israeli forces from
Syria, Lebanon: Axios
Arab News/July 14, 2026
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu to begin withdrawing Israeli forces from parts of Syria and Lebanon,
according to a report by Axios on Tuesday, citing US and Israeli officials. The
request came during a phone call last Thursday, during which Trump reportedly
warned that Israel's military presence in southern Syria risked increasing
tensions and could trigger further escalation, Axios said. According to the
report, Trump told Netanyahu that Israel should redeploy its forces from Syrian
territory because “they don't want you there,” and made a similar appeal
regarding Lebanon. Netanyahu, however, argued that Israel needed to maintain
security zones along its borders, his office said. The reported conversation
took place a day after Trump met Syria's interim President Ahmad Al-Sharaa on
the sidelines of the NATO summit in Turkey. The Trump administration has spent
months trying to broker a new security arrangement between Israel and Syria that
would have included a gradual Israeli withdrawal from territory seized after the
collapse of Bashar Assad's government in December 2024. US officials quoted by
Axios said those efforts stalled because Netanyahu was unwilling to make the
proposed concessions. The issue also comes as Washington seeks to advance a
separate security framework between Israel and Lebanon. Under an agreement
discussed by US mediators in Rome this week, Israel committed to withdraw from
two areas in southern Lebanon to allow the Lebanese army to deploy. Lebanon has
called for a timetable for further Israeli withdrawals, while Israeli officials
say any redeployment will depend on verifying that the areas are free of
Hezbollah weapons and infrastructure. The White House declined to comment on the
report but did not deny the account of the call. * With Reuters
High-Ranking Agent Arrested at Beirut Airport: He
Infiltrated Hezbollah Leaders' Inner Circle and Provided Mossad with Coordinates
for the Assassination of Four Top Leaders
Janoubia/July 14, 2026 (google translation from Arabic)
Amidst the ongoing military confrontations and rapidly evolving security
situation in Lebanon, Lebanese security and judicial authorities dealt a
significant and painful intelligence blow to Israeli spy networks. Official
judicial sources revealed the arrest of an agent described as "high-ranking,"
who served as a link and possessed highly sensitive information within
Hezbollah's inner circle.
Airport Operation: Surprise Arrest Before Escape to Iraq
According to Agence France-Presse (AFP), citing a prominent Lebanese judicial
source familiar with the investigation, the high-profile arrest took place last
week at Beirut's Rafik Hariri International Airport. The arrest came as a
surprise, just seconds before the detainee was to board a plane bound for Iraq.
He was immediately transferred to the judicial investigation unit before being
formally referred to the military court to begin his trial on charges of high
treason and espionage.
Who is this "high-ranking agent," and what were his duties?
A judicial source described the suspect's background and espionage activities to
AFP as follows:
Infiltration and Kinship: The detainee hails from southern Lebanon and is
married to an Iraqi woman. He enjoyed very close and intimate relationships with
senior Hezbollah leaders, which allowed him to possess a vast store of
information, including security details and the personal movements of these
leaders, due to the excessive trust placed in him. Travel Route and Meetings: He
frequently traveled between Lebanon and Iraq, using Iraqi territory as a base
for journeys to Turkey, where he held regular, clandestine meetings with
officers and operatives linked to the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad.
Target Bank Delivery: His tasks focused on gathering precise field and
logistical data about targets, facilities, and individuals in Beirut, and
delivering it to Mossad before those locations were later targeted by precise
air and missile strikes.
The Harvest of the Agent: Information Leading to the Assassination of 4 Top
Leaders
The judicial source confirmed that the highly sensitive and accurate information
provided by the detainee to the Israeli side was the decisive and most prominent
factor in carrying out successful assassinations targeting senior Hezbollah
officials, including four prominent top-tier security and military leaders. The
judicial source declined to reveal the specific identities of these security
leaders who were killed based on the agent's coordinates, or the precise dates
of the operations, due to the ongoing extensive investigations to determine if
the agent had other accomplices inside the country.
The Arrest Coincides with the Collapse of Field Security
The revelation of this serious security breach within Hezbollah's inner circle
comes at the height of a complex field escalation; As violent Israeli raids
continue on towns in southern Lebanon (particularly the Tyre district, Qalila
and Hadatha), political contacts and negotiations are taking place in Rome to
find a mechanism for the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern
areas and the deployment of the Lebanese army in their place.
Trump says Iran and Hezbollah could be added to Russia sanctions bill
LBCI/14 July , 2026
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he believes Iran and Lebanon’s
Hezbollah could be added to a Russia sanctions bill currently before Congress.
Reuters
Israeli violations in Lebanon: Latest developments
Naharnet/14 July , 2026
Israeli artillery shelling on Tuesday targeted the Wadi al-Hujeir valley in
southern Lebanon. Similar bombardment had at dawn hit the southern town of Byout
al-Siyyad. Israeli forces meanwhile blew up houses and civilian infrastructure
in the southern towns of Majdal Zoun and Haddatha and carried out detonations in
the valleys stretching from Majdal Zoun to Wadi Hassan and in the vicinity of
the southern towns of al-Tiri and Kounine, while opening fire from heavy-caliber
machineguns toward Majdal Zoun, al-Mansouri and neighboring valleys. Israeli
drones meanwhile overflew Beirut and its southern suburbs at low altitudes, in
what has become a daily routine.
Aoun condemns attacks on Gulf states and Jordan
Naharnet/14 July , 2026
President Joseph Aoun on Tuesday deplored Iran’s attacks against several Gulf
states and Jordan -- which followed U.S. strikes on the Islamic republic -- as
well as an attack by Yemen’s Houthi rebels against an airport in southern Saudi
Arabia that followed an attack on Sanaa’s airport.
In a statement, Aoun condemned "the repeated attacks targeting our brotherly
Gulf Arab states, the latest of which was the heinous attack targeting the
brotherly Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the attack targeting the brotherly
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan."
"We see in these hostile acts blatant attempts from multiple sources, not only
targeting the security and sovereignty of the Kingdom and the targeted
countries, but also systematically seeking to undermine the stability of the
Gulf region and keep the entire region in a constant state of tension and
anxiety, serving schemes that do not wish well for our Arab peoples,” the
president added. “Based on the close historical and fraternal ties that bind us
to our brothers, we affirm today Lebanon's broad and complete solidarity – both
officially and popularly – with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, all the Gulf Arab
states, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, considering the security and
stability of these countries an integral part of Arab national security, and
that any infringement upon the sovereignty of our brothers is an infringement
upon the very heart of Lebanon and the Arab world," Aoun went on to say.
Aoun offers condolences in Doha over late emir
Naharnet/14 July , 2026
President Joseph Aoun visited Doha on Tuesday to offer condolences to Qatari
Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani over the death of his father, the late emir
Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. The president was welcomed at the airport by
Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdullah Al-Thani, the Qatari Minister of Transport. Aoun
was accompanied by First Lady Neemat Aoun, who offered condolences to the late
emir's widow, Sheikha Moza bint Nasser Al-Missned. Sheikh Hamad, who as ruler of
Qatar transformed the tiny Gulf nation into a global player in diplomacy, media
and investment, and then shattered tradition by voluntarily turning over power
to his son, died on Sunday aged 74. He had played a role in mediating the Doha
Agreement in the wake of the May 7, 2008 clashes in Lebanon and also contributed
to reconstruction aid following the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon.
Syrian president stresses economic integration with Lebanon, minister tells LBCI
LBCI/14 July , 2026
Lebanese Economy Minister Amer Bisat told LBCI after meeting Syrian President
Ahmad al-Sharaa that the Syrian leader stressed that the economy is more
important than politics, emphasizing that investment between the two countries
is essential to building strong bilateral relations and advancing economic
integration. Bisat said al-Sharaa called for intensified efforts to boost
investment between Lebanon and Syria, noting that Lebanese capital is already
familiar with the Syrian market and that there are numerous opportunities for
cooperation.The discussions also covered the energy, transport, railways,
petroleum, tourism, and retail sectors. According to Bisat, al-Sharaa said the
private sector should lead cooperation and investment across these fields.
The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement explained
David Daoud/ FDD's Long War Journal
On June 26, Israel and Lebanon signed the Trilateral Framework Between the
United States, Israel, and Lebanon, whose goal is to end the conflict between
Israel and Lebanon, secure both countries’ sovereignty and security, and
establish peaceful relations.
Hezbollah rejected the deal outright, vowed continued “resistance,” and warned
that enforcing the deal could push Lebanon toward a civil war. The Amal
Movement, a major Lebanese political party and Hezbollah’s Shiite ally,
denounced it as unbalanced, promising to obstruct the deal “in its current
form.” Overall Lebanese reactions split between pro-Hezbollah opposition,
sovereigntist conditional support, and the general public’s exhaustion,
sectarian polarization, and skepticism over Israeli withdrawal and Hezbollah’s
disarmament without a civil war. Israel’s government backed the deal as a
conditional path to peace after Hezbollah’s disarmament, while opposition and
northern Israeli residents warned that the framework left the danger of
Hezbollah unresolved.
The following summarizes the 14 points of the Trilateral Framework Between the
United States, Israel, and Lebanon’s full text and its Security Annex, organized
by five themes:
Theme 1: The framework: ending rather than managing the conflict
Point 1: Israel and Lebanon affirm each other’s right to exist in peace and
security, declare their “intent” to end their conflict and state of war by
addressing its “underlying causes,” and commit to resolving future disputes
through US-mediated diplomacy.
Point 1 seeks the termination of conflict, not ceasefire management. It requires
Israel to affirm Lebanon’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and, more
significantly, Lebanon to recognize Israel’s existence and sovereign legitimacy.
The framework’s phased language avoids triggering Lebanese opposition to
“normalization” with Israel while preserving Lebanon’s pursuit of “peace”—mutual
quiet without full relations—and avoiding the failed 1983 Israel-Lebanon
Agreement, reached under Israeli occupation and seen in Lebanon as forced
normalization.
The clause only implies that Hezbollah’s arsenal is a root cause of the
conflict, suggesting the need for the group’s disarmament and avoiding a direct
provocation of Lebanon’s largely pro-Hezbollah Shiite community. Point 1’s
language also seeks to pull the file from Iran’s hands after Tehran created
pressure for a Lebanon ceasefire to parallel the end of US-Iranian hostilities.
Hezbollah and the Amal Movement have pushed a reliance on Iranian leverage,
while Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam have wavered
between that position and insisting that Lebanon charts its own course.
Theme 2: The core security bargain
Point 2: Israel and Lebanon commit to a reciprocal, conditions-based phased
withdrawal by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), synchronized with the Lebanese
Armed Forces’ (LAF) gradual control of all Lebanese territory and verified
disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure.
Point 3: The LAF will assume full security responsibility in mutually agreed
pilot zones, enabling phased IDF redeployments. Once disarmament and
dismantlement are verified, reconstruction begins, and civilians return under
Lebanese state authority. The framework’s Security Annex adds:
a. First pilot zone: The initial South Litani pilot zone follows four
military-planning steps:
Clearing: destroy non-state armed groups’ weapons and infrastructure and take
legal measures against personnel “engaging in unauthorized activity.”
Verification: a mutually agreed third party verifies clearance.
Maintenance: A “highly qualified” LAF assumes sole operational control to
prevent resurgence.
Reconstruction: Lebanon leads reconstruction, with international assistance.
b. Implementation and verification: The LAF will lead the security
implementation, measured by verifiable disarmament and dismantlement. Israel and
Lebanon will establish a 24/7 military coordination mechanism to manage
deconfliction, verification, and implementation through indirect military
channels, with verification “simultaneous with” clearing.
c. Security commitments: The LAF commits to disarming Hezbollah and all other
non-state armed groups, ending any military role or capability.
d. Sequenced redeployment: Israel commits to a phased, conditions-based
reduction in forces and their eventual full withdrawal from Lebanon,
synchronized with the LAF’s deployment and disarmament verification.
e. Desired outcome: dismantling and disarming all non-state armed groups,
restoring full Lebanese state authority throughout Lebanon, and ensuring
Israel’s long-term security.
f. Oversight and disputes: With US facilitation, the parties will periodically
review implementation, may mutually amend the Annex, and will resolve disputes
trilaterally.
Points 2 and 3 are the framework’s core security bargain: Israel will withdraw
incrementally as the LAF takes control and Hezbollah and other non-state armed
groups are verifiably disarmed and dismantled in pilot zones. This approach
seeks to correct prior failures, especially UN Resolution 1701 and the November
2024 truce, by conditioning IDF redeployment on actual Lebanese performance, not
promises to later address Hezbollah’s arsenal. It fixes old sequencing but
requires Lebanon to do what it remains unable or unwilling to do: restrain and
disarm Hezbollah, rather than endlessly debate, ignore, or cover its arsenal.
A proscription of Hezbollah’s military activities by Beirut on March 2 gives the
LAF political cover to implement this cluster’s terms. The Lebanese military,
however, says that it lacks the capacity to disarm Hezbollah. However, more
accurately, it lacks the social legitimacy and therefore the will to accomplish
this goal. The LAF has repeatedly rejected confrontation with the group, citing
domestic stability and unity. Hezbollah rejects disarmament and this linkage,
preferring an unconditional Israeli withdrawal first, followed by a return to
the interminable domestic “dialogue” that would allow the group to regenerate.
The Amal Movement, led by Nabih Berri—the progenitor of this problematic
sequencing—intends to block the implementation of the framework’s security
measures.
The enactment of limited pilot zones is plausible, but likely only if the IDF
clears Hezbollah’s presence and infrastructure before handing over territory,
rather than making a demonstrably unwilling LAF primarily responsible for
clashing with Hezbollah. The Lebanese military would then prevent any armed
resurgence, including under civilian guises.
A major concern about the framework’s security provisions is that an unwilling
or incapable LAF would be made primarily responsible. The agreement also leaves
it unclear whether the verification occurs in real time or afterward based on
the LAF’s claims, and it never defines whether “highly qualified” Lebanese
military personnel means technically capable or also resistant to pressure by
Hezbollah or sympathy with the group. The LAF’s record warrants skepticism:
after claiming “effective control” south of the Litani River on January 8, 2026,
Hezbollah still fought there after March 2. The IDF later reported significant
Hezbollah installations, including a 200-meter underground site in Majdal Zoun,
and has previously alleged that the Lebanese military cut deals with Hezbollah
to document vacated sites as proof of performance.
Theme 3: Sovereign control and reciprocal security
Point 4: Lebanon irreversibly commits to restoring full sovereignty over the
country, monopolizing force, and disarming all armed groups “[every]where in
Lebanon,” with international and Arab support and under US leadership.
Point 5: Israel declares no territorial ambitions in Lebanon. Its
operations/presence are limited to countering Hezbollah and non-state groups and
will end upon their verified disarmament.
Point 6: Lebanon reaffirms its exclusive authority over national defense, war,
and peace, rejecting unilateral decisions by any group or foreign state
Point 7: The Israeli and Lebanese governments preserve their exclusive inherent
right of self-defense.
Point 8: Both countries also endorse a secure, rebuilt, sovereign Lebanon free
of non-state threats; the restoration of South Lebanon under state authority;
and the idea that securing northern Israel is essential to long-term peace.
Points 4 through 8 seek to transform Lebanon-Israel relations from a
confrontation between the IDF and Hezbollah into a state-to-state arrangement:
Lebanon monopolizes force, Hezbollah loses any armed role, and Israel loses its
stated reason to remain or operate in Lebanon.
Points 4 through 6 undermine Hezbollah’s “resistance” narrative—that its arsenal
is needed to defend a weak Lebanon against Israel’s allegedly permanent threat
to Lebanese territory and resources. Israel therefore defines its objectives as
security-driven rather than expansionist. Point 7 reserves self-defense
exclusively for Lebanon and Israel, preserving that right because neither side
trusts the framework’s implementation.
Point 8 is the agreed result: a secure, rebuilt Lebanon under exclusive state
sovereignty, free of non-state armed threats, with Lebanese civilians returning
to their country’s south and security restored to northern Israel. It is
included because Hezbollah’s disarmament alone remains politically unsellable in
Lebanon. Polling shows significant Lebanese support for a state monopoly on
arms, but not as a self-justifying goal. Lebanese tend to pair the idea with an
Israeli ceasefire and withdrawal, the return of civilians to South Lebanon,
reconstruction, and stronger state capacity.
This theme of sovereign control and reciprocal security, particularly Point 8,
seeks to do what the 1989 Taif Agreement, which ended Lebanon’s civil war, UN
Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, and
the November 2024 ceasefire agreement failed to do: make Lebanese performance
and sovereign responsibility an enforceable condition for Israeli withdrawal and
durable peace.
This theme can work in Southern Lebanon pilot zones previously occupied by
Israel. It may even delegitimize Hezbollah by showing that Israel’s aims are
limited to security: the IDF withdrawing when declared threats are removed, and
Lebanon securing this outcome diplomatically. But nationwide disarmament is
unrealistic unless Hezbollah’s Shiite support and resulting political veto
weaken and the LAF expects minimal backlash for enforcement. In addition, an
Israeli redeployment would need to be large enough to make enforcement look like
Lebanon applying its sovereignty rather than rubberstamping an occupation.
Theme 4: Implementation incentives and safeguards
Point 9: Lebanon commits to a performance-based program enabling LAF action and
nationwide disarmament; US assistance requires verifiable milestones,
transparency, results, and oversight.
Point 10: The US will mobilize international support for reconstruction and
recovery.
Point 11: Lebanon, with the United States, commits to block funds—including
reconstruction aid—from non-state groups, including through legal measures.
Points 9 through 11 answer Lebanese government needs and public
priorities—strengthening the LAF and securing reconstruction aid—but condition
both on continuous performance. This gives Beirut stronger military
capabilities, a path for the army to assume national defense, and post-war
reconstruction in return for concessions to Israel. Lebanon cannot fund this
alone: the World Bank estimates the reconstruction needs at roughly $11 billion,
including $6.8 billion for physical damage and $7.2 billion in economic losses.
Reconstruction aid is also required to deny Hezbollah its post-2006 war
narrative: Israel destroyed Lebanon, the state abandoned its citizens, and only
the “resistance” rebuilt. Anti-diversion is essential because Hezbollah could
capture foreign aid through welfare, reconstruction, financial, municipal,
contractor, and social networks, followed by converting it into social and
political legitimacy.
Enforcement will be difficult: donor nations want deliverables; Lebanese leaders
want quick money with few constraints; and Hezbollah and Amal can use their
political weight, shadow economy, services, ministries, agencies, and
municipalities to block or dilute point 11. This theme of implementation
incentives and safeguards is most realistic in pilot zones. However, its least
realistic ambition is a clean nationwide anti-diversion while Hezbollah still
controls major social, financial, and political networks.
Theme 5: A US-backed peace and normalization process
Point 12: Israel and Lebanon will draft a comprehensive peace and security
agreement and begin direct, US-facilitated engagement toward lasting peace.
Point 13: Israel and Lebanon commit to good-faith confidence-building measures:
ending hostile/adverse actions in international political/legal forums and
pledging to work toward returning remains and releasing detainees.
Point 14: Israel and Lebanon acknowledge the US role in ending the conflict,
particularly that of President Trump.
Points 12 through 14 are the Framework’s diplomatic end goal. They seek to turn
the preceding themes into a continuing peace process. However, a US-backed peace
and normalization process assumes prior implementation of the framework’s
central security requirements: without Hezbollah’s disarmament, Israel will not
withdraw; without withdrawal, any peace process will look illegitimate in
Lebanon.
If “peace” means normalization, the framework faces broad opposition in Lebanon.
May 2026 polling shows that normalization, with roughly 30 percent support,
remains a minority position. Aoun and Salam have therefore consistently rejected
that specific outcome in favor of “peace”—meaning, according to Aoun, a
non-aggression or security agreement. Normalization, they say, would occur under
the Arab Peace Initiative, requiring a prior resolution of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
**David Daoud is Senior Fellow at at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
where he focuses on Israel, Hezbollah, and Lebanon affairs.
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2026/07/analysis-the-israel-lebanon-framework-agreement-explained.php
Read in FDD's Long War Journal
Lebanon’s greatest strength is its unity
Hani Hazaimeh/Arab News/July 14, 2026
Lebanon stands at a pivotal moment in its modern history. The indirect talks
with Israel are not simply another diplomatic exercise or an attempt to contain
tensions along the southern border. They represent an opportunity to spare the
country another devastating conflict and to begin shifting the national
conversation from war and confrontation to recovery and reconstruction.
Whether these negotiations ultimately lead to a long-term arrangement or merely
reduce the likelihood of another military escalation, one fact remains
undeniable: no agreement will serve Lebanon unless it is firmly rooted in the
country’s national interest and is supported by a united Lebanese front.
For far too long, Lebanon has paid the price for regional conflicts that have
repeatedly left its people bearing the heaviest burden. Entire villages have
been reduced to rubble, thousands of families have been displaced and vital
infrastructure has been destroyed time and again. At the same time, the country
has endured one of the worst economic crises in its history, with its currency
collapsing, its institutions weakening and its brightest young minds leaving in
search of opportunities abroad.
After years of hardship, the overwhelming majority of Lebanese, regardless of
their political affiliation, share one common aspiration: to live in a country
that enjoys stability, security and the chance to rebuild. Another war would not
solve Lebanon’s problems, it would deepen them.
This is why the current negotiations deserve to be viewed through the lens of
national interest rather than political ideology. The objective should not be to
determine who can claim political victory but rather how Lebanon can emerge
stronger, more secure and better positioned to focus on rebuilding its economy
and restoring confidence in its institutions. If diplomacy can reduce the threat
of war, encourage investment, allow displaced communities to return to their
homes and enable the government to concentrate on economic recovery instead of
crisis management, then every Lebanese citizen stands to benefit. Stability is
not a concession to any party — it is an investment in Lebanon’s future.
However, diplomacy alone is not enough. Successful negotiations require a
country that speaks with one voice. Lebanon has often approached critical
national issues while burdened by internal divisions, competing political
agendas and conflicting messages to the outside world. Such fragmentation
weakens the country’s negotiating position before discussions even begin. A
divided nation inevitably finds its leverage diminished, while a united nation
negotiates with confidence and credibility. At this critical juncture, Lebanon’s
greatest source of strength is not military capability or political rhetoric, it
is the ability of its people and institutions to unite behind a single national
objective.
Yet national unity cannot simply be demanded from the public. It must be earned
by those entrusted with leading the negotiations. Lebanese citizens have every
right to seek reassurance about the direction of these talks. Decades of
conflict have understandably left many people cautious, even skeptical, about
any engagement with Israel. Those concerns should neither be dismissed nor
portrayed as obstacles to diplomacy. On the contrary, they reflect a genuine
desire to ensure that Lebanon’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and national
dignity remain fully protected. Building public confidence therefore becomes one
of the government’s most important responsibilities.
This requires transparency, honest communication and an unwavering commitment to
the national interest. The government must clearly explain the objectives of the
negotiations and assure the Lebanese people that no agreement will involve
concessions affecting the country’s sovereign rights, security or territorial
integrity. The public deserves to know that every proposal will be evaluated
according to one standard alone: whether it serves Lebanon’s long-term
interests.
Such assurances are not merely political necessities — they are essential for
creating the trust upon which national unity depends. When citizens believe that
their leaders are negotiating from a position of principle rather than pressure,
they are far more likely to stand behind the state.
Lebanon’s political diversity should not become an obstacle to that unity. The
country has always been home to different political movements, religious
communities and competing visions of its future. These differences are part of
Lebanon’s democratic fabric and will continue to shape its political life. Yet
there are moments in every nation’s history when partisan loyalties must give
way to the larger national interest. This is one of those moments.
Whether one supports Hezbollah, opposes it or belongs to any other political
current, every Lebanese has a shared stake in preserving the country’s security,
protecting its sovereignty and creating the conditions that allow future
generations to live in peace and prosperity.
A divided nation inevitably finds its leverage diminished, while a united nation
negotiates with confidence and credibility.
Supporting the government’s negotiating efforts should therefore not be
interpreted as abandoning deeply held political principles or forgetting the
painful chapters of Lebanon’s history. Rather, it should be understood as an
affirmation that the Lebanese state must remain the ultimate guardian of the
nation’s interests.At the same time, support for the negotiations should never
mean granting the government a blank check. Citizens have every right — and
indeed the duty — to demand accountability, transparency and regular
communication throughout the process. Genuine national unity is built not on
blind trust but on confidence that those entrusted with representing the country
will neither compromise its sovereignty nor sacrifice its dignity under external
pressure.
Lebanon has endured enough conflict, enough political paralysis and enough
missed opportunities. It deserves a future in which its people are no longer
consumed by the fear of another war but are instead focused on rebuilding their
economy, educating their children, attracting investment and restoring the
country’s historic role as a center of culture, commerce and dialogue in the
region.
**Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh
The Latest English LCCC
Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on 14-15 July/2026
Netanyahu says Israel will deliver ‘decisive blow’ if Iran attacks
AFP/14 July , 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed Tuesday to strike powerfully
against Iran if it staged a new attack on his country. “I will say it to the
leaders of Iran: Do not count on things remaining quiet if you attack us,”
Netanyahu said at a conference in Dimona.
The southern town hosts a facility officially dedicated to nuclear research but
is widely believed to house Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. “The days are
over when someone strikes us and we don’t hit back with a decisive blow,”
Netanyahu added. He said the strikes would be more powerful than the ones
carried out jointly with key ally the United States earlier this year. “Do not
count on a rerun,” Netanyahu said, referring to the previous attacks on Iran,
according to a video released by his office. “Because it will not be a rerun,
and that was already powerful enough. This will be a different event, much more
powerful.”Netanyahu’s threat came amid new US strikes on Iran and as US
President Donald Trump vowed to reimpose a blockade on Iranian ports. US strikes
on Tuesday also hit the Iranian port city of Bushehr, which hosts Tehran’s only
civilian nuclear plant. In retaliation to US strikes that began three days ago,
Iran has launched missiles targeting several countries in the region.
Iran says US strikes hit its Gulf island of Qeshm
Al Arabiya English/14 July ,2026
Projectiles hit Iran’s Gulf island of Qeshm near the Strait of Hormuz on
Tuesday, Iran’s state broadcaster reported, citing local officials who blamed
the United States. “At 19:00, a location on Qeshm Island was struck by
projectiles from the American enemy,” Hormozgan governor’s office said,
according to IRIB. The state-linked Fars news agency earlier reported that
explosions were heard on the island, amid renewed hostilities between the US and
Iran. “Around 6:45 pm, the sound of several explosions was heard on Qeshm
Island,” Fars said. “In recent days, the Messn area of Qeshm has been attacked
several times by the American enemy.”It comes after the US launched a fresh wave
of strikes on Iran and Trump vowed to reimpose a naval blockade on Iran,
prompting Tehran to respond with strikes on targets in countries around the
region. The US military earlier said it had hit targets across Iran including in
the port cities of Bushehr and Bandar Abbas to “degrade Iran’s ability to attack
commercial shipping.”Iran hit two ships in the Strait of Hormuz, killing a crew
member, according to the United Arab Emirates.A Norwegian tanker was also hit by
an explosion caused by an unidentified device off the Omani coast early Tuesday,
the crisis response company MTI Network said. With AFP
Iran and US step up attacks, battle over control of Strait of Hormuz
Al Arabiya English/14 July, 2026
Iran fired missiles at Jordan and Bahrain on Tuesday after the United States
launched a five-hour attack on Iranian targets, stepping up a battle for control
of the Strait of Hormuz that has pushed up oil prices to four-week highs. US
forces carried out waves of attacks for the third night in a row after Tehran
said it had closed the strait, prompting US President Donald Trump to reinstate
a blockade of Iranian shipping and propose charging a 20 percent fee to guard
the waterway. Iran hit back by attacking a US Army base in Jordan with ballistic
missiles while Bahrain, which hosts a US naval base, said it had fended off an
Iranian aerial attack. Jordan said it had shot down four ballistic missiles and
explosions were heard in Manama, Bahrain’s capital. The worsening attacks have
increased doubts that a memorandum of understanding signed last month will lead
to a permanent halt in the war, which has disrupted global energy supplies and
raised fears of a rise in inflation globally. Regional analysts said the
hostilities remained within controlled boundaries for now, with both sides
seeking leverage for an eventual peace deal, but that there was still a risk of
fighting spinning out of control. “I doubt the two sides will resume a full war,
especially as Trump will suffer – though there is also a distinct possibility
that the Iranians will overplay their hand. That is true of Trump too, of
course,” said Yezid Sayigh, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center.
The war has proved unpopular in the US, where gasoline prices have risen since
the start of the war and congressional elections are looming in November. Half
of those surveyed in a Reuters poll said they believed the war had not been
worth its costs. Oil prices rose again on Tuesday, with Brent crude futures
gaining 5 percent to hit $87.49 per barrel – the highest since June 12 but still
well below the peak since the war began – before dipping slightly.
Renewed hostilities
The US and Israel struck Iran on February 28, and Iran attacked Israel and Gulf
states that host US bases in a war that also reignited conflict between Israel
and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, killed thousands and displaced millions.
Lebanon and Israel resumed talks on Tuesday in Rome, with Beirut seeking
progress towards securing an Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon under a
US-brokered deal. The US has said its renewed attacks on Iran are intended to
“degrade Iran’s ability to attack commercial shipping.”Iranian media reported US
strikes on a number of cities and said four people had been wounded. Several
explosions were heard in Bushehr and Choghadak, according to the state-linked
Fars news agency, and state news agency IRNA quoted a provincial official as
saying four areas of Bushehr city were hit. No casualties were reported in
Iran’s attack on the US Army base in Jordan, and the strike on the kingdom was
on a smaller scale than at the height of the war, when it at times faced much
heavier barrages. Hostilities have intensified since Iran said late on Saturday
it had closed the Strait of Hormuz after firing a warning shot that struck a
vessel travelling on what it said was an unauthorized route.
Trump reinstates blockade
Trump said on Monday the US was reinstating its blockade of Iranian shipping,
which had been lifted as part of the MoU signed last month, and announced the 20
percent fee on all cargo shipped through it. The US Navy-led Joint Maritime
Information Center said the blockade would take effect at 2000 GMT on Tuesday.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X that Tehran was the guardian
of the strait and would remain so “forever,” adding in response to Trump: “20%
is of course too much. We will be fair.” Before the war, about a fifth of global
oil and gas traffic passed through Hormuz daily. If the US were to impose a 20
percent fee, it could generate around $240 million a day. The UN shipping agency
said it opposed any fees for straits used in international navigation and that
there was no legal basis for introducing mandatory tolls on strait transits.
The UAE’s defense ministry said on Monday Iranian missiles struck two Emirati
oil tankers while transiting the strait. One Indian crew member was killed and
eight others were wounded, the ministry said on Tuesday. Recorded transits of
tankers through the strait had fallen in recent days to their lowest levels for
weeks, though the level of traffic is hard to determine due to ships switching
off their tracking systems. With Reuters
Why it’s so difficult to fully reopen Strait of Hormuz
AP/July 14, 2026
WASHINGTON: President Donald Trump has been trying to force Iran to fully reopen
the Strait of Hormuz for months, turning to everything from airstrikes and naval
blockades to negotiations and threats to destroy a “whole civilization.” But
restoring oil tanker traffic in the vital Middle East shipping corridor to
prewar flows likely will require a much bigger armada of US warships if not tens
of thousands of American troops on Iranian soil, experts say. Despite on-and-off
fighting, Iran can still target vessels in the narrow Arabian Gulf waterway with
drones and missiles that have been hidden in a country a third of the size of
the continental US. “Iran has been preparing for this type of asymmetric
conflict for decades now,” said Jason H. Campbell, a senior fellow at the Middle
East Institute and a former Pentagon official. “I think they’re starting to
demonstrate why no other US president since Reagan has elected to engage at this
level of conflict with Iran, because they have that ability to completely
disrupt the Strait of Hormuz.”Iran’s threats alone can be enough to halt
commerce in the strait, said Noam Raydan, a senior fellow at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy focused on energy and maritime risks in the
Middle East.“They don’t need to launch drones and missiles — they can just use
the marine radio channel to make some threats,” Raydan said. “And this in itself
is enough to scare off a lot of seafarers.”
Saudi Arabia condemns Iranian attacks on neighbors and
ships in Hormuz
Al Arabiya English/14 July, 2026
Saudi Arabia on Tuesday condemned Iran’s latest attacks on targets in Bahrain,
Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and vessels along the Strait of Hormuz. In a statement,
the Saudi foreign ministry expressed the Kingdom’s “condemnation and rejection
in the strongest terms of the targeting of numerous Kuwaiti border posts, an
offshore rig belonging to the Kuwait Oil Company, attacks targeting the Kuwaiti
General Consulate in the city of Basra and the targeting of two Emirati oil
tankers while crossing the Strait of Hormuz.”It further condemned the
“continuation of Iran to threaten the region’s security and stability by
targeting the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the State
of Qatar.”The statement reiterated Saudi Arabia’s “complete rejection” of Iran’s
“breach of the sovereignty of brotherly states, its continuation of its behavior
destabilizing to the region’s security and stability, its breach of the basics
of international law, the UN Charter, the charter of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation and the basics of good neighborliness.”It stressed that Riyadh would
hold Tehran responsible for the aforementioned actions and demanded its
immediate cessation of these “transgressions to maintain the region’s security,
stability and peace,” further expressing solidarity with the “brotherly states”
and support for “whatever measure” they would take to maintain their
sovereignty. Iran earlier that day launched strikes on targets in neighboring
countries and ships along the strait in response to the US striking targets
across Iran.
Kuwait says four crew hurt in Iran strike on navy vessel
Al Arabiya English/15 July, 2026
Kuwait’s military said Tuesday that one of its naval vessels was hit during an
Iranian missile and drone barrage, wounding four crew. “The heinous Iranian
aggression resulted in the targeting of a number of vital and civilian
facilities, and the fall of shrapnel in several locations across the country,
leading to material damage,” defense ministry spokesman Colonel Saud Abdulaziz
al-Atwan said. “One of the naval vessels belonging to the Kuwaiti Naval Force
was also targeted, resulting in the injury of four members of the armed
forces.”Earlier on Tuesday, Kuwait said it was intercepting projectiles over its
airspace, after Iran ramped up strikes on the Gulf in recent days as tensions
rise with the United States over the crucial Strait of Hormuz waterway. “The
General Staff of the Kuwait Armed Forces announces that any explosions are the
result of the Air Defense systems intercepting hostile attacks,” the army said
in a statement, also referring to “hostile aerial targets” without further
details. Meanwhile, air raid sirens were sounded in Bahrain, the interior
ministry said, after Manama announced it had intercepted several Iranian attacks
earlier in the day. “The siren has been sounded ... Citizens and residents are
urged to remain calm and head to the nearest safe place,” the interior ministry
said in a statement posted on social media.
Trump hosts Iraq PM Ali al-Zaidi for talks on oil,
US troop withdrawal and Iran
“This man PM Ali al-Zaidi is going to be a
great leader in the Middle East, beyond Iraq,” Trump said.
Al Arabiya English/14 July, 2026
US President Donald Trump welcomed Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi to the
White House on Tuesday for talks aimed at expanding US investment in Iraq and
strengthening ties as Washington presses Baghdad to curb its reliance on Iran.
“We love Iraq, and they’re well represented. This man just won a big election;
they’re very well represented. I can tell you that,” Trump told reporters before
walking into the Oval Office with the Iraqi premier. After the meeting, the two
leaders spoke to reporters in the Oval Office. Trump said they would continue
talks over lunch, which was not originally scheduled. He heaped praise on the
Iraqi prime minister. “This man is going to be a great leader in the Middle
East, beyond Iraq. His influence is going to spread all throughout the Middle
East,” Trump said. For his part, al-Zaidi said he was excited to boost ties
between Washington and Baghdad.
Iran He also said his government’s decision to exert a monopoly over all arms in
the country was not an option. Al-Zaidi said this was a decision that he would
not back down from. He added that there would be no need for any armed faction
in the country after Sept. 30, the scheduled date for the withdrawal of US
troops. Trump said Iran had been weakened and would no longer be able to bully
any countries in the region. Asked about OPEC output quotas for Baghdad, al-Zaidi
said Iraq wanted “a fair share.”Trump said Iraq had “tremendous potential
because of their oil,” adding: “We’re going to be doing a lot of deals. We’re
going to create a lot of jobs for both countries, and we’re going to be taking
out a lot of oil.”He said the US energy secretary would be announcing some of
the deals soon. “A lot of oil is coming out, and the American companies are
doing it, mostly American companies now. They don’t want to do business with
others; they want to do business with America, and that’s good,” Trump said.
European defense groups unveil plan for homegrown missile shield interceptor
Reuters/14 July, 2026
European missile makers and defense groups launched a new consortium on Tuesday
to develop what they said would be the continent’s first interceptor capable of
destroying medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in space. Thales,
Airbus, MBDA Deutschland, Safran and aerospace startup Destinus signed a letter
of intent in Paris to establish the Bliksem EXO Consortium, aiming to develop
the sovereign exo-atmospheric interceptor. Europe is pushing to plug critical
gaps in air and missile defense following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine amid
growing concerns over ballistic missile threats. The announcement follows
Monday’s launch in Paris of the Integrated Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition, in
which European leaders pledged to jointly develop a lower-cost alternative to
the US-made Patriot air defense system as Ukraine struggles to counter
intensified Russian ballistic missile attacks. While shorter-range ballistic
missiles typically follow trajectories that remain within the atmosphere or only
briefly pass into near-space, those with longer ranges spend much of their
midcourse flight outside the atmosphere. Under the letter of intent, the
companies plan to sign a binding consortium agreement within three months, begin
joint engineering work in August and carry out a test of the exo-atmospheric
kill vehicle in space in 2027. The agreement itself does not commit the parties
to fund or procure the system, the companies said in a joint statement.
Trump suggests there was no foul play in Graham’s death
Reuters/14 July, 2026
US President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday that there was no foul play
suspected in the weekend death of Senator Lindsey Graham, telling reporters at
the White House that he did not see a lot of “evil” in his passing. Graham had
just returned from a trip to Ukraine and was pushing for the package of a
sanctions bill on Russia.
China says US taking Middle East to ‘precipice’ with Iran
war
Al Arabiya English/14 July, 2026
China accused the United States at the United Nations on Tuesday of taking the
Middle East to “a dangerous precipice” with its war against Iran. During a
debate on Yemen’s Houthis, China’s envoy to the UN, Sun Lei, said “the US has
irrefutable responsibility over the current situation in Yemen and the Red
Sea.”“It is the US that is obstructing the efforts of the Council to end
hostilities and allow the (continuation) of the crisis in Gaza and the expansion
of the tensions,” Sun said. “Without the authorization of the Security Council,
and amidst the negotiations between the US and Iran, the US launched military
attacks against Iran, once again plunging the situation of the region into a
dangerous precipice.”Sun was responding to criticism of China by the US
ambassador to the UN, Mike Waltz, who had just accused Beijing of violating the
UN arms embargo in place on the Houthis.“States like Iran and, to some degree,
companies and entities in China have violated resolution 2216 with little
consequence,” Waltz said. UN Security Council Resolution 2216, adopted in 2015,
requires the Houthis to cease hostilities and withdraw from territory they have
seized in Yemen. It imposes a targeted arms embargo on the Iran-backed group and
its allies, as well as individual sanctions including asset freezes and travel
bans. In a testy exchange between the two superpowers, Beijing’s envoy said
Washington “should reflect upon its own actions and take concrete measures to
eliminate the negative impact of its actions and its rhetoric.” With AFP
Russian oil refinery runs at 21-year lows after drone attacks, Kpler says
Reuters/14 July, 2026
Damage caused by Ukrainian drone strikes has reduced Russia's oil refining
volumes to 21-year lows, commodities data and analytics firm Kpler said on
Tuesday.
Russian refinery crude runs have fallen to around 3.80 million barrels per day
to date, the lowest level in well over two decades. Refinery downtime and
attacked capacity stands at around 4.3 million bpd in July-to-date. Kpler
expects Russian refinery runs to remain largely subdued through the third
quarter, with only a limited recovery, as continued drone strikes and ongoing
repairs constrain refinery operations. It said that since August 2025, at least
25 Russian refineries had been affected by drone strikes, with attacks impacting
crude distillation units, secondary processing units — including FCCs,
hydrocrackers, catalytic reformers and hydrotreaters — as well as storage tanks,
pipelines and other critical logistics infrastructure. It said the cumulative
impact had been a sharp increase in refinery outages. As of mid-July, refinery
downtime and attacked capacity stood at around 4.3 million bpd, representing
roughly 58 percent of Russia's refining capacity, with an estimated 1.5–2.0
million bpd of processing capacity effectively offline. Kpler expects runs to
recover modestly to around 4.3 million bpd in August as maintenance eases,
although continued drone strikes leave risks firmly skewed to the downside.
Czech Republic in talks for Israeli air defense systems,
foreign minister says
Reuters/14 July, 2026
The Czech Republic is in talks with Israeli firms to buy a number of air defense
systems, Foreign Minister Petr Macinka said on Tuesday. During a press
conference with Israeli counterpart Gideon Saar, Macinka said the Czechs were
looking at the Spyder, Arrow and other defense systems. “Regarding the Spyder,
yes, we are discussing we're discussing air defense systems with Israel because
these systems are technologically on top,” Macinka said when asked about buying
Israeli defense systems.
Israel allocates $434m to build 34 new settlements in
West Bank
Arab News/July 14, 2026
LONDON: Israel allocated on Tuesday a budget of 1.3 billion shekels ($434
million) to build 34 new settlements in the occupied West Bank. Far-right
finance minister Bezalel Smotrich described the government’s decision to launch
a new settlement drive as “historic.”
“We are strengthening the security of the State of Israel, killing the idea of
establishing a terrorist state in the heart of the country, and strengthening
our hold on the homeland in Judea and Samaria,” he said, using the Biblical
names for the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority said that the name “Judea and
Samaria” attempts to present a facade of historical and religious legitimacy for
Israel’s claim over the territory, according to Palestine News Agency. There are
already 279 settlements in the West Bank, including 14 in East Jerusalem, which
Israel occupied in 1967. Almost 737,000 settlers live in these settlements,
among 3.43 million Palestinians. Israeli settlement building and expansion in
the West Bank and East Jerusalem have long been condemned by many members of the
UN. Some European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, have
described Israel’s land grab of Palestinian territory as a threat to peace and
the establishment of Palestinian statehood.
The Latest LCCC analysis & editorials from
miscellaneous sources published
on 14-15 July/2026
Lindsey Graham: The senator, soldier and statesman who never backed down
Mike Waltz/New York Post/July12/2026
“The man who really counts in the world is the doer, not the mere critic — the
man who actually does the work.”Theodore Roosevelt could have been describing
Lindsey Graham.
I first came to know Lindsey not as Sen. Graham, but as Col. Graham, a man who
regularly stepped away from his role as a senator to put on an Air Force
uniform, go down range and train Afghan military lawyers. He wanted to hear
directly from the troops, see the mission with his own eyes and bring that
ground truth back to Washington.
Lindsey didn’t just talk a big game about supporting our troops. He backed up
every word with 33 years of service in the Air Force, eight years as a
congressman and 23 years as South Carolina’s senator and elder statesman.
At every step, he fought to give our men and women in uniform the best training,
the best equipment and every advantage over the enemy.
Regardless of party, Sen. Graham was fearless in asking hard questions to ensure
we were serving those who served us.I admired that instinct in him: Never make
policy from a conference room when Americans are carrying it out in the field.
Go there. Ask the uncomfortable questions. Listen to the sergeants and junior
officers.
Then come home and do something about what they told you.
That hasn’t always been a popular way of writing policy. But Lindsey did not
particularly care if it ruffled feathers or whose ointment he’d be the fly in.
He was there to do the work.
It was the same way when we served on the Hill together.
After the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, Lindsey and I introduced
resolutions in the Senate and House calling on the State Department to designate
the Taliban for what they were: a foreign terrorist organization. We pushed to
freeze the regime’s assets and to deny it access to international funding.We
also demanded answers when reports emerged that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
had allegedly promised to warn his Chinese counterpart in advance of an American
attack.
It’s a testament to how effective Lindsey was that it wasn’t long before Gen.
Mark Milley himself felt compelled to sit down with us in an attempt to explain
himself.
These were hills Lindsey was willing to die on.
He was clear-eyed about America’s enemies, fiercely protective of the
constitutional chain of command and unwilling to let Washington legislate away
our future.
Lindsey brought a Gamecock’s fighting spirit to every cause he believed in.
He was yet another convert to President Donald Trump and became one of his
fiercest and most loyal allies.
He lived for a judiciary that serves the Constitution, the Founders’ intent and
the American people.
He fought tooth and nail for President Trump’s Supreme Court and was fuming mad
at the mistreatment of Brett Kavanaugh.
In a sentence: He was eminently comfortable being in the minority. And, there
were few arguments Lindsey lost. He believed four things must always be true:
America must lead, our allies must know we will stand with them, our enemies
must fear the consequences of testing us, and our troops must never be sent into
harm’s way without the tools they need to win.
Our foreign-policy successes are rooted in those beliefs, and they’ve already
paid dividends.
Our hearts break for his sister, his nieces and the family who knew the man
behind the senator, soldier and statesman.
President Trump has lost a trusted friend. South Carolina has lost a relentless
champion. Our troops have lost one of their fiercest advocates.
I have lost a friend, a fellow veteran and a partner in the fight.
Rest easy, Colonel. We will take it from here.
Mike Waltz is the US ambassador to the United Nations
Bahrain urges ‘firm’ UN Security Council response to Houthi
and Iranian ‘blackmail’ attacks
Ephrem Kossaify/Arab News/July 14, 2026
NEW YORK CITY: Bahrain’s ambassador to the UN, Jamal Fares Alrowaiei, told the
Security Council on Tuesday that Houthi attacks that threaten navigation in the
Bab Al-Mandab Strait and the Red Sea, and Iranian strikes that affect freedom of
passage through the Strait of Hormuz, amount to “a form of blackmail” that
demands a firm response.“All of these attacks require the council to take a very
firm stance to ensure navigational security and freedom of passage in maritime
corridors,” he said.
He was addressing the council on Tuesday after it adopted Resolution 2826, which
extended for six months a mandate by the UN secretary-general to report Houthi
attacks against shipping in the Red Sea. Alrowaiei said council members must
ensure that international law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea are
respected “to safeguard the peace and security of the region and to serve the
interests of all member states.”He noted that the adoption of the resolution,
drafted by Greece and the US, “coincides with developments on the ground that
underscore the need” for the UN reporting mechanism, which was established under
Resolution 2722 in January 2024 and most recently extended in January this year
by Resolution 2812. The reports it facilitates “document repeated violations of
Security Council resolutions by the Houthis,” Alrowaiei said.
His remarks came as council members weighed the fallout from a strike by Yemeni
government forces on the runway at Houthi-controlled Sanaa International Airport
on Monday that prevented an unauthorized Iranian aircraft from landing there,
and a subsequent Houthi missile and drone attack on Abha International Airport
in Saudi Arabia. He referred to a meeting of the Security Council on Monday at
which members had “witnessed a deliberate and illegal Iranian attack in the
region,” and noted that the Houthis had threatened to close the Bab Al-Mandab
Strait and target civilian facilities, civilian infrastructure and vessels
belonging to Saudi Arabia. Bahrain, he said, “has expressed its strongest
condemnation of the terrorist, unjust attacks launched by the Houthi militias”
against southern Saudi Arabia on Monday using ballistic missiles, describing
this as “a dangerous escalation” and “a flagrant violation of international
law.”He commended the efficiency of the Saudi air defense systems that
intercepted the attacks, and said Manama’s position was firm: “We fully support
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in all steps it takes to safeguard its sovereignty
and security.”The Houthi threats constitute dangerous violations of Security
Council resolutions, Alrowaiei said, “most notably 2722” which stipulates that
the group must immediately cease all attacks that obstruct international trade
and undermine navigational rights, freedoms and regional peace and security. The
threats also violate international law and the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea, he added.
The summit in Ankara: NATO and beyond
Cornelia Meyer/AlArabiya English/14 July, 2026
The NATO summit in Ankara was largely focused on how European allies would
respond to what many see as more hesitant US support for the alliance. The
summit was partially overshadowed by military activity in and around the Strait
of Hormuz. Overall, NATO members remained concerned about the strength of the US
commitment to the alliance. While there was no major confrontation, European
member states were also uneasy over US President Donald Trump’s renewed claims
on Greenland. Perhaps even more concerning for European allies is that, during
Trump’s first administration, the president appeared relatively isolated in
questioning the extent of US engagement with NATO. This time, several senior
figures in his administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, have
also pushed for European allies to assume greater responsibility for their own
defense.
There is a growing recognition in Europe that the continent can no longer
“outsource” its defense to the United States as it largely did between the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. NATO allies
have committed to investing 5 percent of GDP annually in defense and
defense-related priorities by 2035. This includes at least 3.5 percent for core
defense requirements and up to 1.5 percent for areas such as critical
infrastructure, resilience and industrial capacity. Announced US force
reductions and an ongoing review of the American military presence in Europe
have further heightened the sense of urgency. An Atlantic Council analysis
described the defense industry as NATO’s “honorary thirty-third member” during
the summit week. Indeed, the NATO Summit Defense Industry Forum was again held
in conjunction with the summit, underscoring the growing importance the alliance
places on expanding defense production and industrial cooperation.
On July 8, NATO also endorsed its Strategy for Industry-NATO Cooperation. The US
military-industrial complex is a well-established framework. NATO has also
cooperated with the defense industry for years through procurement agencies,
industry forums, innovation initiatives and defense production programs.
However, the new strategy represents an effort to deepen and systematize that
cooperation across the alliance. This is a sign that NATO members understand the
need to contribute more substantially to their own defense capabilities and that
the era in which they could rely almost unequivocally on the United States for
their security is increasingly consigned to history. The war in Ukraine and the
conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran have also shown that
military stockpiles can be depleted faster than anticipated. This has made it
increasingly important for the European defense industry to expand production
and respond to growing demand. Approximately $50 billion in defense procurement
agreements and initiatives involving companies including Lockheed Martin,
Rheinmetall and Saab were announced during the summit.
The war in Ukraine was front and center in the deliberations. President Trump
said the United States would grant Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot
air-defense systems. However, experts have warned that establishing the required
production capacity could take years.
Overall, the summit proceeded smoothly and avoided major confrontations. NATO is
expected to hold its next summit in Albania in 2027. All of the above, while
important, may appear less immediately relevant when looking at the summit from
a regional Middle East and North Africa perspective. It is therefore worthwhile
examining the position of Turkey, which hosted the gathering.
Turkey hosted a NATO summit for the first time since the 2004 gathering in
Istanbul, while Ankara hosted the event for the first time. The country emerged
from the summit in a stronger position, both from a defense and a diplomatic
perspective. Turkey stands at the crossroads of Europe, the Middle East, the
Black Sea and Central Asia. It has NATO’s second-largest military and is widely
regarded as a strategically important member on the alliance’s southeastern
flank. The war in Ukraine matters greatly to both Europe and the United States.
Turkey has supported Ukraine within the NATO framework while maintaining a
strong working relationship with Russia. Ankara’s ability to engage both Moscow
and Kyiv helped Turkey, alongside the United Nations, broker the Black Sea Grain
Initiative. The agreement facilitated Ukrainian food exports, while parallel
efforts sought to ease obstacles affecting Russian food and fertilizer exports,
particularly to developing countries.While Turkey’s purchase of Russia’s S-400
air-defense system caused a major dispute with Washington during Trump’s first
administration, the Ankara summit appeared to reopen a possible path for Turkey
to acquire F-35 fighter jets.
Trump said he intended to lift sanctions imposed over the S-400 purchase and
signaled openness to a future F-35 sale, although significant legal and
congressional hurdles may remain.
Ankara is also considering the US MIM-104 Patriot and the Franco-Italian SAMP/T
systems as possible components of its planned Steel Dome air and missile-defense
network.
Turkey has developed a formidable defense industry, with strong prospects in
both Western and Middle Eastern markets as governments continue to invest in
strengthening their security and defense capabilities. Looking ahead, NATO must
recognize that Turkey, while a member of the alliance, is also an integral part
of the Middle East and the wider region.
It occupies a strategic position linking Europe, the Middle East, the Black Sea
and the Caucasus. Turkey shares borders with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Greece,
Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, while maintaining close historical,
political and economic ties with Russia and the countries of Central Asia.
Former foreign minister and prime minister Ahmet Davutoğlu championed a
foreign-policy doctrine commonly known as “zero problems with neighbors,” which
sought to expand Turkey’s regional engagement and minimize disputes with
surrounding states.
Then came the Arab Spring. Still, Turkey continues to see value in maintaining
constructive relations with both its immediate neighbors and more distant
regional partners. The country has expanded coordination with regional powers
including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt through emeging diplomatic and
security consultations. These efforts are separate from the bilateral
Saudi-Pakistan Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement. Turkey also maintains close
relations with Qatar and has sought to position itself as a diplomatic actor
capable of engaging competing sides during regional crises.Ultimately, the
international system will continue to need countries such as Turkey, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia and Qatar that can maintain dialogue across political divides and
act as intermediaries when conflicts arise.
Italy’s Meloni suffers parliamentary defeat on election law
reform
Osama Al-Sharif/Arab News/July 14/2026
More than four months after Israel and the US launched their war against Iran
and nearly a month after Donald Trump and Masoud Pezeshkian signed a memorandum
of understanding meant to end it, the Strait of Hormuz — not the nuclear file
that supposedly justified the conflict in the first place — has become the fault
line on which the entire ceasefire now teeters. There is a bitter irony buried
in that fact. When the war began in late February, the strait was open. Tankers
moved, oil flowed and the world’s most important chokepoint for seaborne crude
functioned largely as it always had, even as strikes fell elsewhere in Iran. But
now, with the ceasefire collapsing, the Strait of Hormuz is once more shuttered.
That paradox says a great deal about how this ceasefire was constructed and why
it is now unraveling in the waters of the Gulf rather than over Iran’s
enrichment levels or centrifuge counts. The memorandum, signed on June 17, was
supposed to end the war and lift the blockades that had periodically choked the
strait since late February. It did neither in any durable sense. Buried in its
text was a clause that read as reasonable in the signing room but proved
combustible in practice: Iran would “make arrangements” for the safe passage of
commercial vessels and would engage with Oman “to define the future
administration” of the waterway. That is not settling the controversy. It is a
convenient way to avoid a crucial issue and such ambiguous language does not
hold when 20 million barrels of oil a day are riding on it.
Tehran used that ambiguity as a license. If the strait’s administration remained
undefined, Iran would lose nothing by continuing to act as though it retained a
veto over who passes through it and on what terms. Washington read the identical
clause as a transition away from Iranian control. The agreement skimmed over
this thorny issue and deferred a final agreement. The hardest question gets
deferred and that deferral becomes the pretext for the resumption of
hostilities.
That deferral has now become the crux of the conflict and each side has built a
coherent, self-serving account of why it has a case to defend. Iran’s chief
negotiator Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf has said Tehran is prepared for “all-out
defense” should Washington break the agreement, arguing that continued Israeli
strikes in Lebanon, incursions into Iranian airspace and pressure on Iran’s
enrichment rights amount to violations serious enough to render “a bilateral
ceasefire or negotiations … unreasonable.” In Tehran’s telling, Washington broke
the deal before the ink dried and everything since — including its attacks on
shipping — has been a retaliation, rather than the violation Washington calls
it.
American officials have said they cannot negotiate when Iran “reneges on the
basic obligations — simple obligations such as don’t shoot at civilian objects.”
US Central Command has framed its strikes as direct responses to Iranian attacks
on commercial vessels transiting the strait. Administration officials have even
suggested privately that the attacks stemmed from an “errant” faction of Iranian
hard-liners trying to sabotage the talks. Either way, the sequence Washington
points to is simple: Iran struck the ships, the US struck back and Trump
declared the ceasefire “over” on the sidelines of last week’s NATO Summit in
Ankara. At this point, it hardly matters which side is to be believed because
the consequences have long since stopped being about narrative. By the weekend,
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was declaring the strait closed “until
further notice and until regional interference by the US ceases” — a statement
that reads less like a negotiating position than a threat aimed at the global
economy. Retaliatory strikes hit an airbase in Jordan. The UAE reported missile
and drone threats. Bahrain sounded sirens. Qatar intercepted an incoming
missile. This is what regional spillover looks like once a chokepoint becomes a
hostage. What both governments and much of the commentary surrounding this
crisis continue to miss is more basic than any of this. The Strait of Hormuz is
not Iran’s to open or close in reaction to American misconduct and it is not
Washington’s to unilaterally patrol and redefine the terms of passage according
to its own. It is an international waterway and its legal status does not depend
on which government currently feels more aggrieved.
Freedom of navigation and the right of transit passage through international
straits are not concessions one side grants the other in a memorandum — they are
baseline features of the law of the sea, the kind of norm this ceasefire should
have reaffirmed on Day 1, rather than deferring to a later, undefined
“arrangement” between two exhausted adversaries. Trump has now made that
confusion explicit rather than incidental. Having spent months insisting the
strait would be “permanently toll-free,” he has reversed course entirely,
declaring that if a final deal is not reached, Washington itself will impose
charges on vessels transiting Hormuz — compensation, in his words, for services
rendered as the “guardian angel” of the region.
American officials have since taken to describing the waterway as outright under
US control, with CENTCOM insisting it is Washington’s escorts and demining
operations, not Iranian permission, that keep the traffic moving. It is
remarkable that a government that spent the earlier phase of this crisis
condemning Tehran’s fee structure as an illegal imposition on an international
waterway is now proposing an identical imposition after deciding it preferred to
be the one collecting the fees.
Iran does not get to condition passage through the Strait of Hormuz on its
approval of Israeli conduct in Lebanon, however legitimate its grievances about
that conduct may be. Washington, in turn, does not get to treat a costly
demining and escort operation as grounds for asserting ownership over a waterway
it does not own, however real its expenditures may be.
Both governments are, in their own fashion, using the world’s oil supply as
leverage in a bilateral dispute that has little to do with the 34-km-wide
waterway itself — the only difference now is that both have converged, almost
comically, on the same demand: the right to charge for passage through water
that belongs to neither of them alone. That is the real scandal here and it has
been lost in the daily churn of strikes, threats and dueling accusations of bad
faith.
It is an international waterway and its legal status does not depend on which
government currently feels more aggrieved. The way out is not another round of
talks centered on who violated what first — that argument has no endpoint
because both sides have an inexhaustible supply of grievances to cite. Nor is it
a contest between an Iranian toll and an American one, as though the only
question worth settling is whose flag flies over the collection booth. What is
needed is a decoupling of the strait’s legal status from the bilateral fight
altogether: administration placed under a genuinely international framework,
Oman’s mediating role formalized rather than improvised, and enforcement — and
any fee structure, if one is justified at all — set by international maritime
law rather than by whichever power currently has more warships in the Gulf.
Anything short of that guarantees a return to this same precipice because the
incentive structure never changes. As long as the Strait of Hormuz can be closed
by decree, reopened by decree and now priced by decree, it will keep being used
as a weapon and a toll road by whichever side feels aggrieved or entitled that
week — and the rest of the world will keep paying the price at the pump for a
dispute it had no part in starting. The strait was open when this war began. It
should not have taken a deficient memorandum of understanding to close it. And
its future should not depend on the goodwill of either government.
*Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. X:
@plato010
Palestinians between a rock and a hard place
Yossi Mekelberg/Arab News/July 14, 2026
In the unfortunate reality of Israeli society, Palestinian citizens of Israel
attract widespread public attention only under a few circumstances: when crime
rates, especially homicides, rise within their communities; during elections,
when the Jewish majority wonders how Palestinian parties might affect the
formation of the next coalition government; and when one of their political
representatives expresses an opinion that challenges the dominant narrative. Far
less attention is paid to their achievements. For instance, their representation
in Israel’s healthcare sector is significantly higher than their proportion of
the population, despite decades of neglect and discrimination. The darker
reality is that, since the beginning of the year, 154 Palestinian citizens of
Israel have fallen victim to violent crime. This is a staggering figure but it
becomes even more alarming when compared with the 24 homicide victims recorded
among the remaining 80 percent of Israel’s population. The scale of the crisis,
and the daily insecurity and fear experienced in these communities, becomes
painfully obvious. A decade ago, the homicide rate among Palestinians was
approximately four times that of Jews; today, it is closer to 15 times higher
and the gap continues to widen. Violence has become endemic. Much of it stems
from organized crime, clan rivalries and the settling of criminal scores, but it
also claims the lives of innocent bystanders and fuels domestic violence,
affecting people of all ages.
It would be erroneous to place all the blame for the current situation on the
present government. The neglect, discrimination and marginalization of Israel’s
Palestinian minority have been allowed to fester since the establishment of the
state in 1948. Some of this neglect has been deliberate, while much of it
reflects long-standing political indifference. However, the situation has
deteriorated significantly under the current government. With National Security
Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose political views are rooted in Kahanism,
overseeing the police, the government’s apparent indifference to the
almost-daily killings is deeply troubling and ingrained in its approach to
Palestinians.
By contrast, during the brief Naftali Bennett-Yair Lapid government, when Labor
Party minister Omer Bar-Lev was responsible for policing, the number of murders
in the Palestinian community declined. This was achieved through more
professional policing, a recognition of the severity of the crisis, greater
cooperation with local communities and a determined effort to confront organized
criminal gangs. As if the situation were not already grave enough, many
Palestinian citizens are blamed by their Jewish compatriots for failing to stop
the violence within their own communities. This attitude stems variously from
ignorance, hypocrisy, racism or, in many cases, a combination of all three.
Reducing the widespread violence requires a genuine partnership between all
branches of government. This includes preventing the continued flow of illegal
weapons, increasing proactive police operations, expanding the police presence
in the areas most affected by violence and working closely with local leaders.
It is easy for those living outside this violent reality to urge ordinary
citizens to stand up to criminal gangs. Yet doing so often places them and their
families at mortal risk, particularly when they have justifiably little
confidence that the police will protect them.
Moreover, while many within the Jewish majority, and especially members of the
current government, portray the high levels of violence in Palestinian
communities as evidence of cultural differences, this narrative reflects not
only appalling bias and prejudice but also an unwillingness to confront the
state’s own failures. The crisis is first and foremost a consequence of systemic
neglect. Successive governments have failed to address both the immediate
security crisis and the deeper social and economic conditions that enable
organized crime to flourish and disempower the rest of the society. Chronic
underinvestment in public services, discriminatory policies and unequal access
to resources have all contributed to the problem.
There is a long list of laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of
Israel, most notably the Nation-State Law. More recently, the Knesset passed
legislation that, according to the human rights organization Adalah, provides
substantial benefits to residents of towns with Jewish populations of between 35
percent and 55 percent that are classified as peripheral, according to state
criteria. The use of Jewish demographic composition as a criterion for
allocating state benefits leaves little doubt about the discriminatory logic
underpinning such legislation.
Nominally, Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy equal citizenship. But
“nominally” is the operative word. Israel prides itself on being a liberal
democracy but no single political party has ever won an outright parliamentary
majority, making coalition governments inevitable. Despite comprising roughly
one-fifth of the population, parties representing Palestinian citizens have been
almost entirely excluded from governing coalitions, with only one notable
exception.
In a political system where influence and resources are largely distributed
through coalition participation, this exclusion leaves the Palestinian minority
at a profound disadvantage. Symbolically, it sends a message of tolerated but
not equal citizens. Without representation in government, their interests are
rarely advanced effectively. This sorry situation shows no sign of changing
under the present circumstances. The short-lived Bennett-Lapid government marked
a historic exception, with the United Arab List, led by Mansour Abbas, joining
the governing coalition. By most practical measures, this partnership proved
successful. Yet, for Benjamin Netanyahu and the opposition, Abbas’ participation
became, in the most despicable way, a powerful tool for attacking the
government. Ironically, despite Netanyahu’s own long-standing policy of
indirectly strengthening Hamas, he portrayed Abbas, and by extension the
government, as somehow linked to Hamas. Such accusations rested largely on Abbas’
religious conservatism and, more fundamentally, on the fact that he represented
the Palestinian citizens of Israel.
There is a long list of Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinians,
most notably the Nation-State Law. The horrific wave of killings within that
community highlights a much deeper crisis. At first, from 1948, Palestinian
citizens of Israel lived under military rule for 18 years and, even since the
military administration ended, they have never been treated as fully equal to
their Jewish neighbors. They are descendants of those Palestinians who survived
the Nakba and remained within the borders of the newly established state of
Israel rather than becoming refugees. Yet their Palestinian identity has never
been fully recognized by the state. Instead, they are commonly referred to
simply as “Arab Israelis,” while their Palestinian national identity is
frequently denied or marginalized.
Addressing this crisis should be treated as a matter of national urgency.
Israel’s political leadership, together with leaders across all sectors of
society, must acknowledge the scale of the crisis facing the Palestinian
community and declare it a national priority. The immediate objective must be to
stop the violence. Beyond that, Israel needs a comprehensive, long-term national
program aimed at creating a genuinely shared society — one in which all
communities enjoy equal protection under the law, equal access to public
services and opportunities, and equal participation in every aspect of national
life. Only then can equality for the Palestinian citizens of Israel become the
rule rather than the exception.
*Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate
fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
Will Hamas concessions amount to a genuine transfer of
power in Gaza?
GABRIELE MALVISI/Arab News/July 14, 2026
LONDON: Hamas says it has formally stepped aside from governing Gaza, dissolving
the administrative body that has overseen the enclave throughout the war in a
move analysts say is intended to pave the way for a technocratic administration
— while leaving the group's military wing intact. On July 6, Hamas’ Government
Media Office announced that Mohammed Al-Farra, head of the Government Emergency
Committee, had resigned and that the committee itself had been dissolved “to
facilitate the administrative and governmental transition” to the US-backed
National Committee for the Administration of Gaza.
The 15-member technocratic body was established under President Donald Trump’s
20-point Gaza peace plan and later endorsed in UN Security Council Resolution
2803.
The announcement followed months of signals that Hamas was prepared to
relinquish day-to-day governance in favor of an interim technocratic
administration in an effort to ease Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and political
fragmentation, while retaining its armed capability.
On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip,
killing around 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. The assault
triggered Israel’s devastating military campaign in Gaza, which has killed at
least 75,000 people, according to local sources, and left much of the territory
uninhabitable.
Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007 after winning the 2006 Palestinian
legislative elections before prevailing in a brief but violent internal conflict
with Fatah, the rival faction aligned with the Palestinian Authority. In recent
months, public frustration with Hamas’ rule has also surfaced inside Gaza.
During protests in March 2025, demonstrators chanted “Hamas out.” Reuters
described the demonstrations as a rare public display of dissent, driven by
exhaustion with the war and anger over Hamas’ grip on the territory. Israel and
its Western allies have long argued that Hamas’ rule is a major obstacle to any
political settlement, insisting that Gaza’s future depends on a different
governing authority.
Whether such a transition will materialize remains uncertain, with key aspects
of the negotiations still unresolved. Even so, analysts say Hamas’ announcement
has already begun to reshape the political debate. “Hamas’ announcement should
be understood primarily as a political signal rather than simply an
administrative reshuffle,” Ahmed Najar, a Palestinian political analyst, told
Arab News. “It reflects a recognition of the current reality.
“If there is to be any meaningful reconstruction, it will almost certainly
require a broader, more technocratic civilian administration capable of
attracting regional and international support.”
The proposed technocratic administration is intended to address many of the
concerns Israel and its allies have repeatedly raised.
Rather than political appointees, it would reportedly be staffed by Palestinian
professionals — including engineers, economists, lawyers and administrators —
responsible for delivering basic services, running schools and hospitals, and
overseeing reconstruction.
Hamas said routine governance would be entrusted to this technical layer, with
existing civil servants remaining in place to keep the enclave functioning.
Their remit would be civilian rather than political, while the more contentious
questions — above all Hamas’ disarmament — would be deferred.
Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem called the move “a positive step forward on the
path to implementing the ceasefire deal,” adding that the group had taken the
decision “in order to remove any pretexts for the occupation, which continues
its aggression and war of extermination.”
Analysts and those directly involved remain cautious.
Israel quickly dismissed the move as a “stunt,” while pro-Israel commentators
argue Hamas is effectively relinquishing government in name only.
They warn the NCAG could prove little more than an empty shell if Hamas
continues to control the levers of coercion and retains the power to block
decisions, particularly if any new police or security arrangements do not
explicitly exclude Hamas members.
A genuine transfer of power, they argue, would require dismantling Hamas’ armed
structures, restructuring the security forces and separating technocratic
governance from factional control — none of which is yet in place. “There is a
recognition within Hamas that they need, at least on the rhetorical, declarative
level, to make some concessions, because the situation is getting worse and
worse,” said Yossi Mekelberg, senior consulting fellow in the Middle East and
North Africa Program at Chatham House.
He argued that the question of Hamas’ weapons will ultimately reveal far more
about the group’s intentions and the NCAG’s ability to govern. “There is no
government unless it is a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence. Their
power actually derives from what the US, the international community, and Israel
is allowing them. Unless they are empowered and have real teeth, they can do
very, very little.”The NCAG was established by the Board of Peace after Trump
brokered the Hamas-Israel ceasefire last October. Experts say it recently
reconstituted itself as an international nongovernmental organization in an
apparent effort to bypass US congressional oversight.
The body, however, has remained outside Gaza for months, reportedly because of
Israeli objections to its entry into the territory. Leaders attend the inaugural
meeting of the ‘
Ali Shaath, the NCAG’s general commissioner, said the body was “fully prepared
to carry out its national responsibilities as soon as the necessary resources
and capabilities are available.”
He added that “the existence of a single governing authority operating under one
legal framework with a clear mandate, and a unified security apparatus
accountable to that authority” is a “fundamental prerequisite.”Hamas and other
Palestinian factions have held several rounds of talks with mediators in Cairo
over the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire. The next stage was intended to
include Hamas’ disarmament and a gradual Israeli withdrawal, followed by the
deployment of an international stabilization force tasked with enforcing
“permanent disarmament.”
For their part, Hamas leaders have consistently maintained that they will not
disarm unless it takes place within the framework of an established Palestinian
state. Analysts say Hamas’ latest move also appears designed to shift some of
the political pressure onto Israel at a sensitive moment, as the country heads
toward elections while continuing to face the prospect of renewed tensions with
Iran and an unresolved situation on the Lebanese front. Mekelberg said little is
likely to change before the vote and warned that any concession during an
election campaign would be portrayed as surrender to Hamas’ demands.
A woman reacts as Palestinians inspect the site of an Israeli strike on a tent
camp sheltering displaced people, who were warned to evacuate before the attack,
in Gaza City, June 24, 2026. (Reuters)
“What you need — but you’re not going to get, unfortunately — is a considerate,
intelligent debate in Israel, also among the Palestinians, about how you get
into this and out of it in a way that serves the interests of both,” he
said.“But neither side is in a position, or has the disposition, to do that.”
For Najar, the key test will be whether Israel is prepared to allow a genuinely
independent Palestinian governing body to function — something, he argued,
successive Israeli governments have opposed, whether under Hamas or Fatah.
“There is a tendency in international coverage to focus almost exclusively on
Hamas’ decisions while paying far less attention to the structural constraints
imposed by Israel’s continuing military operations and control over Gaza,” he
said.
“Any discussion of governance has to be situated within that wider political
reality.”
Najar said it remains unclear whether Hamas is genuinely stepping back or simply
recalibrating its role. Either way, he believes the announcement reflects an
acknowledgment that Gaza’s circumstances now require a different model of
governance. “For years, Israel has preferred managing the Palestinian question
rather than resolving it. A genuinely independent Palestinian civilian authority
inevitably raises broader questions about Palestinian political agency and,
ultimately, Palestinian statehood. That is precisely why I remain skeptical that
the obstacle is simply Hamas.”Najar said any meaningful breakthrough would
require a significant shift in Israeli domestic politics, along with sustained
regional and international pressure.
A viable Palestinian civilian authority, he said, would need not only broad
Palestinian political consensus but also external guarantees that it would be
allowed to govern and that reconstruction efforts would not be obstructed. “The
danger is that prolonged delay gradually becomes the policy. The longer
reconstruction is postponed, civilian institutions remain absent and temporary
arrangements continue, the greater the risk that these ‘interim’ measures become
permanent by default.”
He added: “Without genuine political progress, Gaza risks becoming trapped in a
condition where humanitarian assistance substitutes for governance,
reconstruction remains partial or indefinitely delayed, and Palestinians
continue living under varying degrees of external control without meaningful
political sovereignty. “That may prevent immediate collapse, but it is unlikely
to produce either stability or a durable peace.”
Do the Math: Why Europe May Not Pull Through
Drieu Godefridi/Gatestone Institute/July 14, 2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22682/europe-may-not-survive
In 2024, 24% of births in the EU were to foreign-born mothers. This figure
exceeds 30% in Germany, Belgium, Spain, Austria and others, and reaches 68% in
Luxembourg. Within five to ten years, Luxembourg will cease to exist as a
country furthering Western values.
Assimilation of immigrants has not taken place.... When one imports the Third
World, one becomes the Third World.
Under the influence of green ideology and European policy commitments such as
the Green Deal and carbon taxes, Europe has voluntarily sabotaged its energy
markets.
In the coming years, we may see electoral victories in national elections by
parties that are tougher on immigration and more skeptical of the forced energy
transition. These victories are already under way in several countries. But what
will such parties actually be able to do when faced with millions of additional
retirees to finance from a shrinking contribution base? Or debt commitments
already contracted? Or European rules that prohibit many solutions?
The answer is simple: they will be forced, like the others, to increase the
economic pressure on those who still work and save – through income taxes,
wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, miscellaneous levies and creeping inflation.
These new "right wing" parties might also, one hopes, fast-track simplifying
paperwork, eliminating unnecessary regulations, lowering taxes and providing
incentives for economic growth.
[T]he Roman West was not conquered: it slowly mutated from within into a mosaic
of Romano-barbarian kingdoms. Classical civilization died, replaced by something
else.
Europe as we have known it — that civilization from which America was born — at
this point does not look as if it will pull through. It is giving way to
something else: a society more fragmented, poorer, more dependent on the
government, less free, and less European. Then surrounding plausible powers will
not resist the temptation to come for the spoils...
Europe as we have known it — that civilization from which America was born — at
this point does not look as if it will pull through. It is giving way to
something else: a society more fragmented, poorer, more dependent on the
government, less free, and less European.
Europe as we have known it for centuries — a civilization founded on a native
majority population, a common culture, industrial prosperity, and a certain idea
of liberty and property — appears destined to disappear.
This will happen not in some spectacular cataclysm, but through a slow,
inexorable erosion, made inevitable by structural trends now too powerful to be
reversed in the time it would take to stop it.
Even if, in the years ahead, several European countries bring to power so-called
"right-wing" coalitions that have never yet governed, this can no longer
substantially alter Europe's collective destiny. The problem is no longer merely
political; it is demographic, energetic, economic, and institutional. These four
processes interlock and reinforce one another in a sinister yet terribly
efficient mechanism.
1. The Collapse of the Native Demographic Base
In 2024, the total fertility rate of the European Union, migrants included,
stood at 1.34 children per woman, far below the replacement threshold of 2.1.
In almost every country, native Europeans have even lower fertility rates. The
older population is growing rapidly, and the number of working-age people is
shrinking while the number of retirees is exploding. This is not a mere
"challenge" to be managed with a little more immigration; the very foundation of
a society is collapsing. Fewer European children mean fewer future taxpayers,
fewer innovators, fewer soldiers, and fewer parents to raise the next
generation. It is a slow, multifactorial, implacable demographic suicide.
Take the Dutch example. Here is a country that, in the name of preserving
nature, has forbidden building almost everywhere on its territory. At the same
time, the Netherlands has opened the floodgates to mass immigration from the
Third World. The result is that a half-derelict bungalow sells for a million
euros. This cost makes home ownership — and often even decent renting — strictly
impossible for the overwhelming majority of young native Dutch people, even
though it is presumably a condition for having children. One does not have
children at 30 while still living with one's parents, or in an overpriced studio
apartment. In the Netherlands, a study by the Netherlands Interdisciplinary
Demographic Institute attributes up to a quarter of the decline in the birth
rate to this housing crisis, itself aggravated by mass immigration and
environmental restrictions on construction.
2. Demographic Third-Worldization
At the same time, mass immigration from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia
"compensates," as the left likes to say, for the low native birthrates — though
only partially. In 2023, nearly 6 million people immigrated to the EU, 4.9
million of them from Third World countries.
In 2025, approximately 64 million people born outside the EU resided there, or
about 14% of the total population.
In 2024, 24% of births in the EU were to foreign-born mothers. This figure
exceeds 30% in Germany, Belgium, Spain, Austria and others, and reaches 68% in
Luxembourg. Within five to ten years, Luxembourg will cease to exist as a
country furthering Western values.
Assimilation of immigrants has not taken place. On the contrary, in several
countries we observe phenomena of segregation, parallel identity claims (mainly
Islamist, although not only that) and rising cultural and security tensions.
Europe is not only failing to "renew" itself: it is transforming, mutating,
metamorphosing into something radically different, less European, less
productive in the long run, and less coherent.
The number of rapes in Europe is exploding. Where crime statistics by national
origin are available, they all show a massive overrepresentation of certain
populations from the Third World among rape perpetrators. When one imports the
Third World, one becomes the Third World.
3. An Insane Energy Policy
Under the influence of green ideology and European policy commitments such as
the Green Deal and carbon taxes, Europe has voluntarily sabotaged its energy
markets. The clearest example remains Germany and its Energiewende: the closure
of nuclear power plants, the diktat of solar and wind power, the explosion in
electricity prices and accelerated deindustrialization. Energy prices will
therefore remain structurally higher in Europe than in Asia or most of the
United States. One cannot maintain and pay for two parallel
electricity-generation networks with impunity: an intermittent one to please the
ideologues, and a real one for the people to be able to have light and heat in
their homes.
Heavy industry — chemicals, steel, automobiles, glassmaking — has lost its
competitiveness. Companies are relocating or shutting down. This policy is not
merely costly; it is basically ideological and self-destructive. It weakens the
productive base that finances the entire system. The United States invents,
China copies, Europe legislates: a truism, but so terribly accurate.
Unfortunately, that truism has a price: the relative collapse of the European
economy in a growing world.
In Belgium, for example, electricity is three times more expensive than the US
average, and natural gas five times more expensive. There is not a single
industrial sector that can successfully compete in global markets while dragging
such a ball and chain. Cheap energy conditions everything. In Europe, we forgot
this. Now it may be too late.
4. Economic Collapse
Public debt is already no longer under control in several major countries,
including France. The costs of government pensions for an aging population,
universal healthcare and welfare benefits for migrants are exploding and will
continue to explode over the coming decades. IMF reports underline that
budgetary pressures linked to aging will considerably burden public finances.
The pay-as-you-go pension system, which rests on the ratio between workers and
retirees, becomes mathematically untenable with the collapse of the native
demographic base and the burden of immigrants who receive government payments
and services but fail to help grow the economy. Do the math. Governments face an
impossible choice: drastically cut pensions, or massively increase taxes and
social security contributions, thereby confiscating more private property. This
is the "solution" advocated by so-called "economists" in the style of Thomas
Piketty, and it is always and everywhere in economic history the prelude to
collective collapse. Capitalism without capital is one of those illusions of
fanciful French theory.
5. The EU, the Ultimate Lock
The European Union is not a common market; it is an unelected, untransparent and
unaccountable supranational system that locks policies in place for all member
states. The "common market" is partial, shaky and riddled with exceptions. A
Belgian entrepreneur seeking to develop his business in France will have to go
through a thousand legal and administrative vexations that will deter him; that,
indeed, is the very reason they exist: to prevent private success. In reality,
the European market is not "common"; only the million European regulations are.
The rules on migration, asylum, energy, climate, competition and state aid
severely limit the margin for maneuver of member states. Even a national
government determined to regain control of its borders, relaunch nuclear power,
or drastically reduce social spending will run up against the treaties,
directives, the Court of Justice of the EU, and the threat of financial
sanctions.
The EU thus acts as a permanent blocking mechanism against the radical reforms
that are so urgently needed.
What "Right-Wing" Victories Will — and Will Not — Change
In the coming years, we may see electoral victories in national elections by
parties that are tougher on immigration and more skeptical of the forced energy
transition. These victories are already under way in several countries. But what
will such parties actually be able to do when faced with millions of additional
retirees to finance from a shrinking contribution base? Or debt commitments
already contracted? Or European rules that prohibit many solutions?
The answer is simple: they will be forced, like the others, to increase the
economic pressure on those who still work and save – through income taxes,
wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, miscellaneous levies and creeping inflation.
Look at the trend for capital gains: first, the stock market transaction is
taxed. Then realized capital gains. In the Netherlands, even unrealized capital
gains are taxed — that is, gains that do not even exist and might end up as
losses. In the end, all that remains is a taxpayer who, to salvage what can
still be salvaged, leaves. He then discovers the joys of the exit tax, which
will let him go, but only after first taking a big bite of his property.
These new "right wing" parties might also, one hopes, fast-track simplifying
paperwork, eliminating unnecessary regulations, lowering taxes and providing
incentives for economic growth.
Until then, all of this amounts to a form of progressive confiscation of private
property, the only adjustment variable left when one refuses to touch the
demographic, immigration and energy taboos.
The Classical Roman Precedent
Classical Roman civilization did not collapse in a spectacular cataclysm: it
dissolved slowly, invisibly through exhaustion. From the second century onward,
native Romans saw their fertility collapse — late marriages, abortions,
infanticide, and celibacy among the elites — despite the desperate natalist laws
of Augustus and his successors.
While the demographic heart emptied out, the Roman Empire threw open its gates
to outside people, first invited as allies, settlers and soldiers, then
installed by entire tribes with their own chiefs and laws. Assimilation, partial
at first, ultimately failed; the newcomers preserved their identities,
irreversibly fragmenting the cultural and ethnic fabric of the Roman West.
At the same time, the production machine began to seize up: relative
"deindustrialization", massive deforestation, rising energy costs, villas
emptying, competitiveness lost to the peripheries. To finance pensions, the army
and grain distributions, Rome chose the classic path of empires in decline:
crushing taxes, monetary debasement, requisitions, and binding laws that tied
man to the land.
Thus, without a single great decisive battle — apart from a few symbolic
episodes such as 476 — the Roman West was not conquered: it slowly mutated from
within into a mosaic of Romano-barbarian kingdoms. Classical civilization died,
replaced by something else. The Early Middle Ages were not the continuation of
Rome, but its successor on the ruins. Feudalism had nothing Roman about it,
except for the rubble on which it was born.
Europe as we have known it — that civilization from which America was born — at
this point does not look as if it will pull through. It is giving way to
something else: a society more fragmented, poorer, more dependent on the
government, less free, and less European. Then surrounding plausible powers will
not resist the temptation to come for the spoils: the Maghreb, which already has
a virtual army on European soil; imperialistic Islamist Turkey; Russia, an
empire for a thousand years; and finally the United States, which will not be
able to allow the nuclear weapons of France and the UK to land into the hands of
Islamist rulers. Michel Houellebecq's nightmare — an Islamist president of
France — will most likely come true; it is only a matter of time.
This is less a prediction than an observation. The trends are there, documented,
and the institutional blocking mechanisms are in place. The rest is mere
political theatre.
Europe in the twenty-first century increasingly looks as if it will be what
Belgium was in the nineteenth: the battlefield of the powers that surround it.
**Drieu Godefridi is a jurist (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain),
philosopher (University Saint-Louis, University of Louvain) and PhD in legal
theory (Paris IV-Sorbonne). He is an entrepreneur, CEO of a European private
education group and director of PAN Medias Group. He is the author of The Green
Reich (2020).
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No
part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied
or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.
Selected Face Book & X tweets on
14 July
Ambassador Mike Waltz
I first knew Lindsey Graham not as a Senator, but as a Colonel putting on the
uniform to get the ground truth from our troops in Afghanistan. He spent his
life fighting for our men and women in uniform.My tribute to a true statesman in
@NYPostOpinion