English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News &
Editorials
For July 22/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.july22.26.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
Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and people
walk over them without realizing it
Luke 11/42-46: "‘But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and
rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and the love of God; it is these
you ought to have practised, without neglecting the others.Woe to you Pharisees!
For you love to have the seat of honour in the synagogues and to be greeted with
respect in the market-places. Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, and
people walk over them without realizing it.’One of the lawyers answered him,
‘Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us too.’ And he said, ‘Woe also
to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you
yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them."
Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials
published on 21-22 July/2026
The Annual Commemoration of Saint Elijah the Living, the Zealous
Prophet/Elias Bejjani/July 20/ 2026
Trump Promises US Help for Lebanon During White House Meeting with Aoun
Trump: We Will Solve Many Problems in Lebanon… Including Hezbollah
Trump Promises Aid to Lebanon During Meeting with Aoun at the White House
Trump Promises Aoun 'Major Aid' to Lebanon...He Told Him: We Have Concrete Plans
to Support the Army and Secure the Israeli Withdrawal
Lebanon Army Says Israeli Troops Opened Fire Near Units Deploying in 'Pilot
Zone'
Can Washington Secure an Israeli Withdrawal from South Lebanon?
Earthquake-like Impact: Israel Prepares to Detonate Tunnels in Beaufort Castle
Heights... and New Information on Ali al-Taher
Lebanese Army Deploys in Southern Town After Israeli Withdrawal, Official Says
Hezbollah Threatens to Paralyze Beirut Airport in Defense of Iranian Flights
Damascus Announces Seizure of Weapons Shipment Bound for Lebanon/ A Week After
Foiling Attempt to Smuggle a Huge Shipment of Weapons from Iraq
Israel Maintains Operational Control After Withdrawal from Zawtar
al-Gharbiya...Positioning in the Heights Grants It the Ability to Monitor and
Intervene
The Lebanese Army's Deployment in "Trial Zones" Sends a Multi-Objective
Message... Activating the "Framework Agreement" with US Support and Separating
it from the Iranian Track
Aoun's Visit to Washington... What After the Framework Agreement?/Brigadier
General Khaled Hamadeh/July 21/2026
Hezbollah Will Not Pledge… A War of Support Looms/Alan Sarkis/Nidaa Al
Watan/July 22, 2026
The “Lebanon First” Solution and the “Iran First” Problem/Rafik Khoury/Nidaa Al
Watan/July 22, 2026
Lebanon “Played it Right”... With the “No to Weapons, Yes to Peace” Equation, it
Gains Washington’s Support!/Lara Yazbek/Nidaa Al Watan/July 22, 2026
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on
21-22 July/2026
Trump Says US ‘Not Finished at All’ with Iran
US Military Completes Its Latest Strikes on Iran, Marking the 10th Successive
Night of Attacks
Details of the 10-Day Truce Proposal Between Washington and Tehran & Two Options
for Managing the Strait of Hormuz
Trump: Tehran Is Begging for a Deal—"You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet"
Hegseth Warns Iran: We Will Strike with "10 Times the Force" If Attacks Continue
Pakistan Revives Mediation Amid Truce Impasse / Iranian Interior Minister Meets
Shahbaz Sharif and Asim Munir
Iranian Attacks Target Kuwaiti Electrical Infrastructure; Escalation Reaches
Bahrain and Jordan
Iran Warns Bulgaria Against Aiding US Military Operations After Move to Station
US Aircraft
Jordan Army Says Intercepted Five Iranian Drones
Iran: We Will Target U.S. Interests If Nuclear Sites Are Attacked
U.S. Military Announces Start of New Strikes on Iran
Pentagon: War on Iran Has Cost Washington $37.5 Billion So Far
Israel Tracks Transfer of Thousands of Centrifuges to "Peakaxe Mountain"
Controversy Ahead of Netanyahu's New York Visit: Israel Responds to Arrest
Threats
Gaza Civil Defense Says Israeli Strikes Kill 12, Including Family of Six
Israel Is Building a Miles-Long Earthen Barrier Inside Gaza, Entrenching Its
Division
Kuwait Summons Iranian Envoy to Protest Attack on Kuwaiti Tanker
Iraqi Prime Minister to Strengthen Ties with Regional Neighbors
Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials
from miscellaneous sources published
on 21-22 July/2026
Despite its military support for Iran… China avoids a security role in
the Gulf, leaving the arena to the West/Riad Kahwaji/Al-Nahar/July 21, 2026
Diplomacy Apologizes, Missiles Launch/Ali Obaid Al-Hamli/Al-Bayan/July 21, 2026
The United Nations Has Run Out of Alibis/Pierre Rehov/Gatestone Institute/July
21, 2026
Aoun's Washington Visit: An Opportunity That Leaves No Room for Ambiguity/Sam
Menassa/Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
The Understandings of the ‘Framework Agreement’ in Practice/Hanna Saleh/Asharq
Al Awsat/21 July 2026
The Middle East: Wars or the Beginning of Solutions?/Dr. Nassif Hitti/Asharq Al
Awsat/21 July 2026
Prospects for the Future of Oil/Walid Khadouri/Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Rubio's Right About Threat Of Leftist Violence/Amb. Alberto M. Fernandez/|
MEMRI/July 21/2026
Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News &
Editorials published on 21-22 July/2026
The Annual Commemoration of Saint Elijah the Living, the Zealous Prophet
Elias Bejjani/July 20/ 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/07/156043/
Note: The information presented in this study has been compiled from numerous
reputable ecclesiastical, theological, historical, and scholarly sources.
Introduction
Saint Elijah the Living is revered as one of the most extraordinary figures in
Sacred Scripture and among the greatest prophets in the history of salvation. He
stands as a towering witness to unwavering faith in the One True God during a
period marked by widespread idolatry, spiritual corruption, and disregard for
the divine commandments. The Church commemorates his feast annually on July 20,
honoring his holy life, prophetic mission, apostolic zeal, and unique intimacy
with God. Throughout the Christian East, particularly in Lebanon, Syria,
Palestine, and Jordan, Saint Elijah occupies a cherished place in the hearts of
the faithful. Numerous churches, monasteries, shrines, and religious
institutions bear his name, and believers continually seek his intercession,
inspired by his steadfast faith and courageous witness to God's truth.
Saint Elijah in Sacred Scripture
Saint Elijah in the Old Testament
The Prophet Elijah appears primarily in the First and Second Books of
Kings, where his life and ministry are recounted in remarkable detail. His first
appearance occurs before King Ahab, when he boldly proclaims: “As the Lord God
of Israel lives, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these
years, except at my word” (1 Kings 17:1). This dramatic declaration marked the
beginning of a prolonged confrontation between the prophet and the political and
religious authorities who had permitted and encouraged the worship of the pagan
god Baal.
Sacred Scripture records numerous significant events in Elijah's life,
including:
His stay by the Brook Cherith, where ravens miraculously brought him food.
His residence in the home of the widow of Zarephath.
The raising of the widow's son from death.
His celebrated confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel.
His flight into the wilderness following Queen Jezebel's threats.
His encounter with God on Mount Horeb.
His calling of Elisha as his disciple and successor.
His ascension into heaven in a fiery chariot.
Saint Elijah in the New Testament
Although Saint Elijah lived approximately nine centuries before the
birth of Christ, his presence and significance continue prominently in the New
Testament. Our Lord Jesus Christ referred to him on several occasions, and
Elijah appeared together with Moses during the Transfiguration of Christ on
Mount Tabor.
The Gospel records: “And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with
Him” (Matthew 17:3). Christ also taught that Saint John the Baptist came “in the
spirit and power of Elijah,” carrying forward the prophetic mission of calling
humanity to repentance and reconciliation with God. Thus, Elijah serves as a
vital bridge between the Old and New Covenants, representing the prophetic
tradition that ultimately points toward the coming of the Messiah.
Who Was Saint Elijah?
Saint Elijah was one of the greatest prophets raised by God in the Old
Testament. His Hebrew name, Eliyahu, means: “My God is the Lord.” This name
perfectly summarizes his life's mission and message. Throughout his ministry,
Elijah devoted himself entirely to defending the worship of the One True God at
a time when many Israelites had abandoned the faith of their ancestors and
embraced idolatry. Both Jewish and Christian traditions honor him as one of the
greatest prophets. The Church has long referred to him as “the Zealous Prophet”
because of his passionate devotion to God's glory and his unwavering commitment
to divine truth.
Where Did Saint Elijah Live?
The Prophet Elijah lived during the ninth century before Christ in the Northern
Kingdom of Israel. According to biblical tradition, he originated from the
region of Gilead, east of the Jordan River. Throughout his prophetic ministry,
he traveled extensively through various regions, including: Gilead, The Brook
Cherith,
Zarephath of Sidon, Samaria Mount, Carmel Mount, Horeb (Sinai), The Jordan
Valley
These journeys were intimately connected with his prophetic mission and the
various stages of his struggle to call God's people back to repentance and
fidelity.
The Historical Context of Elijah's Ministry
Saint Elijah lived during the reign of King Ahab and his wife Queen Jezebel.
While Ahab was politically powerful, he tolerated and facilitated the spread of
Baal worship throughout Israel. Jezebel, a Phoenician princess by birth,
actively promoted pagan religion, sponsored the construction of pagan temples,
and persecuted the prophets of the Lord. Into this atmosphere of spiritual
confusion and religious corruption, God sent Elijah to restore authentic faith
among His people. Standing almost entirely alone against kings, priests, and
pagan authorities, Elijah relied solely upon God's power and providence.
The Miracles of Saint Elijah
The life of Elijah is associated with numerous miracles through which God
manifested His divine power.
1. Fed by Ravens in the Wilderness/When drought struck the land according to
God's judgment, Elijah was instructed to hide by the Brook Cherith. There,
ravens miraculously brought him bread and meat every morning and evening,
demonstrating God's providential care for His faithful servant.
2. The Widow's Flour and Oil/ God directed Elijah to a poor widow in Zarephath
of Sidon. She possessed only a small amount of flour and oil, sufficient for one
final meal for herself and her son. Elijah assured her that the flour and oil
would not be exhausted. Miraculously, the jar remained full throughout the
famine.
3. Raising the Widow's Son/When the widow's son became ill and died, Elijah
carried the child and prayed fervently to God. The Lord answered his prayer and
restored the boy to life. This event is widely regarded as the first recorded
resurrection miracle in the Bible.
4. Calling Down Fire from Heaven/ This is perhaps the most celebrated miracle in
Elijah's life. Gathering the people on Mount Carmel, Elijah challenged them to
choose between the Lord and Baal. After preparing an altar and drenching the
sacrifice with water, he prayed: “Answer me, O Lord, answer me.”
Immediately, fire descended from heaven and consumed the sacrifice, the wood,
the stones, and even the water. The people fell to the ground and cried out:
“The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!”
5. The Return of Rain/ Following three and a half years of drought, Elijah
prayed earnestly for rain. God answered his prayer, and abundant rain fell upon
the land, restoring life and fertility.
6. Parting the Waters of the Jordan/ Shortly before his departure from this
world, Elijah struck the waters of the Jordan River with his mantle. The waters
parted, allowing him and Elisha to cross on dry ground.
The Great Spiritual Battle Against Baal Worship
Many people wonder about the “war” fought by Saint Elijah. In reality, Elijah
did not lead a conventional military campaign. Rather, he waged a profound
spiritual battle against idolatry and false worship. This confrontation reached
its climax on Mount Carmel. Present there were: King Ahab, The people of Israel
Four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal Elijah standing alone. Elijah proposed
that each side offer a sacrifice without lighting a fire beneath it. The true
God would reveal Himself by answering with fire. The prophets of Baal prayed
throughout the day without receiving any response.
Elijah then offered a simple prayer filled with faith. God answered immediately
by sending fire from heaven, revealing the truth before all the people. Thus,
the worship of the Lord triumphed over idolatry, and many returned to faith in
the God of Israel.
The Ascension of Saint Elijah into Heaven
Among the most extraordinary events recorded in Sacred Scripture is Elijah's
ascent into heaven. After completing his earthly mission, Elijah was walking
with his disciple Elisha near the Jordan River when a remarkable event occurred.
Scripture recounts: “And behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated
the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11).
Elisha witnessed the majestic scene and cried out: “My father, my father, the
chariot of Israel and its horsemen!”From that moment onward, Christian tradition
has honored him as “Saint Elijah the Living,” because he did not experience
earthly death in the ordinary manner of humanity.
Saint Elijah in Christian Tradition
Saint Elijah enjoys profound veneration in both Eastern and Western Christian
traditions. Believers regard him as a model of: Steadfast faith, Fervent prayer,
Courage in proclaiming truth, Absolute trust in God, Zeal for holiness. For this
reason, Christian iconography frequently portrays him holding a sword, standing
upon a mountain, or ascending into heaven in a fiery chariot.
Churches and Monasteries Dedicated to Saint Elijah in
Lebanon
Saint Elijah is among the most beloved saints in Lebanon. Numerous churches,
monasteries, and shrines bear his name, including those located in: Antelias,
Shwayya, Ehden, Kfardebian, Beit Shabab, Bsharri, Al-Qoubaiyat, Zahle, Ain Toura,
Sarba, Touq, Jeb Jennine, Among the best-known monasteries are:
Monastery of Saint Elijah Shlita ,Monastery of Saint Elijah Touq. In addition,
dozens of churches and devotional shrines dedicated to Saint Elijah are found
throughout Lebanon.
Conclusion
Saint Elijah the Living remains one of the greatest witnesses to faith in sacred
history. Standing alone against idolatry and spiritual corruption, he
courageously defended divine truth and demonstrated that authentic strength
comes neither from political power nor numerical superiority, but from complete
trust in God.
His life continues to inspire Christians today to persevere in faith, remain
faithful to truth, and refuse compromise in matters of conscience and belief,
regardless of the challenges they may face.
A Prayer for Lebanon Through the Intercession of Saint
Elijah
O Saint Elijah, Zealous Prophet of the Most High God, who loved the Lord with
all your heart and courageously defended His glory, we humbly ask for your
intercession on behalf of Lebanon. Protect this beloved nation from every evil.
Preserve it from war, division, conflict, and despair. Bless its mountains,
valleys, cities, towns, and villages, and watch over its people both at home and
throughout the diaspora. Grant wisdom, integrity, and justice to those entrusted
with public responsibility. Strengthen the young in faith, hope, and love. Bless
families with peace, unity, and mutual understanding.
May Lebanon remain a land of holiness, witness, freedom, and Christian mission.
May its people enjoy security, prosperity, and enduring peace. Through your
powerful intercession, O Saint Elijah the Living, hear our prayers, O Lord, and
bless our nation. Amen.
Elias Bejjani
Lebanese Diaspora Activist and Political Commentator
Website: https://eliasbejjaninews.com
Email: phoenicia@hotmail.com
Trump Promises US Help for Lebanon During White House
Meeting with Aoun
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
President Donald Trump pledged to help Lebanon “a lot” during a White House
meeting on Tuesday with the country's leader, Joseph Aoun, who came to push for
long-term calm after months of war between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah
group. “It’s been a very badly treated place and country and we’re going to have
it properly treated and treated with the respect it deserves,” Trump told Aoun
during a meeting which wrapped up the Lebanese leader's four-day visit to
Washington. “We’re gonna help it a lot," he said, without giving concrete
details. The US has pushed for peace in Lebanon but been increasingly distracted
by a new round of escalation with the war in Iran, which has destabilized much
of the Middle East. On Wednesday, Trump said he had little interest in talks
with Iran's leader to end the war — at least for now. Lebanon and Israel have
held rare direct talks mediated by Washington. Aoun's White House visit was the
first by a Lebanese president since 2009. Lebanon hopes the talks result in
Israeli troops withdrawing from large swaths of southern Lebanon that they
currently occupy, and the Lebanese military receiving support to assert full
control in areas where Hezbollah had held sway.
Trump said of Israel’s army fully withdrawing from Lebanon, “They’re in the
process of doing that. They’re in the process of redeploying” but didn't
elaborate. Aoun told Trump, “Your vision is peace,” calling it Trump's “legacy.”
The US president responded by joking, “I do agree with that" and said Aoun was
handsome and “knows how to get to me,” adding, “Now he can have anything.”
Framework agreement is being tested
Lebanon and Israel announced a “framework agreement” on June 26, setting a plan
for Israeli forces to withdraw and for the disarmament of Hezbollah, which for
decades had a strong presence in southern Lebanon. It also lays out steps toward
an eventual peace agreement between the countries, which have never held formal
diplomatic ties and have been nominally in a state of war for nearly 80 years
after Israel’s establishment. Trump noted Tuesday of Lebanon, “There’s a
Hezbollah problem” and suggested that he personally could speak with Hezbollah
if Aoun wanted him to. He also floated the idea of having Syria intervene to
fight Hezbollah — though didn't fully commit to that. Such a concept would be
highly unpopular in Lebanon and potentially embarrass Aoun. Meanwhile, the
State Department announced Monday that operations in three villages deemed part
of a “pilot zone” had begun, without giving details. Two of the villages, Froun
and Srifa, are not under Israeli military control and the Lebanese army is
present, while Israeli forces are in part of Zawtar al-Gharbieh. The Lebanese
army in a statement said it was preparing for Israel to withdraw from Zawtar al-Gharbieh
and that it had begun deploying troops Tuesday. The Israeli military said it
“will adjust its force posture in one of the pilot areas in order to enable the
Lebanese Armed Forces to carry out their mission,” without specifying the
location. The Lebanese military later said Israeli troops fired near that area
in Zawtar al-Gharbieh, without giving details, and warned it could delay
deployment. An Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity in
accordance with military guidelines, said the withdrawal had not yet begun.
Village mayor waits for safety to be confirmed
Abed Ezzeldine, mayor of Zawtar al-Gharbieh, said they were waiting for the
Lebanese military to say whether it's safe for residents to check on their homes
after they fully deploy and patrol the area. He was concerned about safety,
given that the Israeli military is still present in a village next door, while
Israeli strikes continue nearby. “The villages are intertwined, so we don’t feel
safe because the Israelis are present there, they’re on our borders and are not
very far from us,” Ezzeldine told The Associated Press, who said Zawtar al-Gharbieh
is uninhabitable. “Once the army gives us permission to enter Zawtar al-Gharbieh,
we as civilians will go in, but only to check it out and see how things are and
then we will leave,” he said. "We can’t stay because the infrastructure is
completely damaged and houses have been leveled. They (the Israelis) have
bulldozed the roads.” The Lebanese military last week increased its presence in
some of the areas expected to be included in the pilot zone, including the three
villages, with troops patrolling and setting up checkpoints.
Rubio says US will support the framework agreement
Aoun on Sunday met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said Washington will
continue to endorse the Lebanese agreement and support its full implementation.
Rubio described the meeting as “very positive” and warned that Lebanon will
“never be fully at peace” as long as the Hezbollah issue is not resolved. “How
do you replace Hezbollah? You defeat and replace them with a government that is
strong enough to be the sole force of arms in the country,” Rubio said.
Skeptics in Lebanon fear that a military confrontation with Hezbollah could lead
to a civil war. Government officials have urged investment in the country's
battered infrastructure to empower the weakened state, which Rubio echoed. “This
is not just about military stuff," he said. "This is about how can we attract
more US and international investment into Lebanon.”
Israel plans on a long-term presence
Israeli officials, meanwhile, have said they plan to keep military forces
long-term in a “security zone” in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has dismissed the
US-brokered direct talks and instead backed Washington’s talks with its key ally
and patron Iran to end their war, which includes ending the war in Lebanon as a
condition. Lebanon’s government came to power on a reformist platform in early
2025, vowing to disarm all non-state groups including Hezbollah. It blames
Hezbollah for dragging the country into another war with Israel in March, when
the group fired several rockets toward northern Israel two days after the US and
Israel attacked Iran. Beirut's leadership, however, has condemned Israel’s
subsequent ground invasion and massive aerial campaign in the country, which has
killed over 4,000 people and displaced 1.2 million others. While grappling with
stark political opposition from Hezbollah and allies within the deeply divided
country, Lebanon's leadership insists that Israeli withdrawal and international
financial support for Lebanon’s cash-strapped army is crucial for a sustainable
security solution.
Trump: We Will Solve Many Problems in Lebanon… Including
Hezbollah
Riyadh - Al-Arabiya.net/July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that the United States will provide
significant support to Lebanon, expressing his confidence in the possibility of
addressing a number of outstanding issues, including the Hezbollah issue.
However, he noted that Syrian intervention to confront Hezbollah could be
effective. During his meeting with the Lebanese president at the White House,
Trump said, "I will speak with Hezbollah if the Lebanese president wishes." He
also affirmed that the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel was very
good, noting that Lebanon is "a very important country" and that "the Lebanese
president could be among the best leaders in the Middle East." The US president
stated that Lebanon "has been treated badly in the past," emphasizing his
administration's desire to support the country's stability and strengthen
bilateral relations. He also said that the United States will look into issues
related to the trial phase in Lebanon.
Aoun: Nabih Berri Wants to See an End to the War
For his part, the Lebanese president said that the time has come for Lebanon to
enjoy security and stability, stressing that his country's vision for regional
stability aligns with that of the US president. The Lebanese president also
thanked Trump for what he described as the "historic achievement" of signing the
framework agreement with Israel, expressing his hope that joint efforts would
contribute to strengthening regional stability. Aoun added that the Speaker of
the Lebanese Parliament, Nabih Berri, wants to see an end to the war and
"supports what we are doing." The Lebanese president urged his American
counterpart to "continue supporting" the Lebanese army as the framework
agreement with Israel, brokered by Washington, begins to be implemented.
Speaking from the White House, Aoun said, "We must support the Lebanese Armed
Forces," adding, "Without the Lebanese Armed Forces, everything will collapse.
We don't want this. I think President Trump doesn't want this either." On
Tuesday morning, the Lebanese army began deploying in the southern town of
Zawtar al-Gharbiya, implementing the "pilot zones" under the framework agreement
with Israel, according to a military source. The source said that "the army has
begun deploying in Zawtar al-Gharbiya," a town in the Nabatieh Governorate, on
whose outskirts the Israeli army had been stationed, preventing its residents
from returning, according to AFP. This came a day after the US State Department,
which is sponsoring the direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel,
announced the implementation of the pilot zones in three towns: Zawtar al-Gharbiya,
Frun, and Srifa. It should be noted that Frun and Srifa are practically located
within the area that the Israeli army designated as a "security zone" on
September 18, but where it has not deployed forces, while Zawtar al-Gharbiya
lies outside this zone. On June 26, Lebanon and Israel signed a framework
agreement after five rounds of negotiations. This agreement stipulates, in
particular, the disarmament of Hezbollah, a gradual Israeli withdrawal from the
territories it occupied in southern Lebanon, and the deployment of the Lebanese
army, starting with two pilot zones. After its deployment in these pilot zones,
the Lebanese army is supposed to work on disarming Hezbollah and prohibiting any
military presence of any group outside the government forces. This is intended
to serve as a trial for a gradual Israeli withdrawal from other areas, according
to AFP. Meanwhile, the party reiterates its refusal to give up its weapons and
the outcomes of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.
Trump Promises Aid to Lebanon During Meeting with Aoun at the White House
Washington: Asharq Al-Awsat / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun met with his American counterpart, Donald Trump,
at the White House on Tuesday, marking the first visit by a Lebanese president
to the White House in nearly 20 years, according to Reuters. During the meeting,
Trump stated that Lebanon had suffered for decades and that the United States
would assist it in the coming phase. He added, "It has been a place and a
country that has been treated very badly, and we will work to ensure that it is
treated as it should be, with the respect it deserves." For his part, Aoun urged
Trump to "continue supporting" the Lebanese army as the framework agreement with
Israel, brokered by Washington, comes into effect. Speaking in English from the
White House, Aoun said, "We must support the Lebanese Armed Forces," adding,
"Without the Lebanese Armed Forces, everything will collapse. We do not want
this to happen." “I think President Trump doesn’t want this either,” AFP
reported. The meeting comes at a critical moment for Lebanon, where Israeli
forces occupy a large swath of the south and hundreds of thousands of Lebanese
remain displaced following Israeli strikes. Hezbollah is vehemently opposed to
the government’s direct talks with Israel and the state’s efforts to disarm the
group. Aoun arrived in Washington earlier this week and met with US Secretary of
State Marco Rubio on Sunday, telling him that Israel must begin withdrawing from
southern Lebanon in accordance with the June 26 agreement brokered by the United
States between Lebanon and Israel. This agreement aims to disarm Hezbollah,
facilitate the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces, and pave the way for
peaceful relations between the two countries. Hours before Aoun’s meeting with
Trump, the Lebanese army began taking control of territory vacated by Israeli
forces in southern Lebanon, in the first test of the agreement. Aoun (62 years
old) assumed the presidency of Lebanon shortly before the start of Trump’s
second term in the White House, and the United States welcomed his election.
Trump Promises Aoun 'Major Aid' to Lebanon...He Told
Him: We Have Concrete Plans to Support the Army and Secure the Israeli
Withdrawal
Middle East/July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
US President Donald Trump pledged on Tuesday to provide major aid to Lebanon,
affirming that his administration has concrete plans to support the Lebanese
army. This came during his meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun at the
White House on Tuesday morning, their first face-to-face encounter, and the
first visit by a Lebanese president to Washington since 2009. At the start of
the meeting, Trump said that Lebanon had suffered greatly, but stressed that the
Lebanese people remain steadfast in their country despite wars, explosions, and
instability. He added, "We will provide assistance, and we will help them a
great deal," emphasizing that the United States will work to resolve a number of
problems facing Lebanon and will ensure that it is treated with the respect it
deserves. For his part, Aoun described the framework agreement with Tel Aviv as
a "historic achievement," noting that its ultimate goal is to end the state of
hostility between Lebanon and Israel forever. He added, addressing Trump, "I
believe this will be your great legacy." Together we will be able to achieve
this goal. It is time for both Lebanon and the region to enjoy stability and
security.” Trump agreed with this proposal, noting that Aoun has a people who
love their country and will work to make it a success. President Aoun affirmed
that the Lebanese army possesses the necessary funding, equipment, and manpower
to implement the agreement. He requested additional American assistance from
President Trump to accomplish the mission, indicating that he needs political
support and support for the army as the most trusted institution in the country,
possessing the strongest weapon: the trust of the Lebanese people. He stated
that the Lebanese army is the backbone of security and stability. When asked
about the timeline for the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces, Trump avoided
specifying a timetable, using the term “redeployment.” He said that Israeli
forces are in the process of redeploying other units, adding that Israel and
Lebanon are in complete agreement and that the agreement signed between them was
“fantastic.”
Plans to Support the Army
Support for the Lebanese army was a prominent focus of the meeting. When asked
how the Lebanese army would be assisted in taking control of the villages from
which Israel is withdrawing, Trump said, “We will discuss that today, and we
already have very concrete plans for this purpose, with the participation of
other parties who will provide assistance.” He added that the Lebanese army has
become significantly more self-reliant, emphasizing that the issue of support
would be a key topic in the talks. Beirut is seeking increased US military and
logistical aid, given that the army will be responsible for deployment in the
designated areas, confiscating weapons and illegal military infrastructure, and
ensuring that Hezbollah does not return to them. The United States is the
largest supporter of the Lebanese military, having provided it with over three
billion dollars in security assistance since 2006. Aoun hopes to translate US
political support into a new aid package, in coordination with Arab and European
countries. Aoun expressed his desire to resume direct flights between Lebanon
and the United States, while Foreign Minister Marco Rubio has previously spoken
about increasing US and international investments and helping Lebanon achieve
recovery. Beirut is seeking to link security progress in the south to an
economic support and reconstruction package, allowing the state to deliver
tangible results for its citizens and bolstering its position against Hezbollah.
President Trump jokingly described Aoun as a handsome man (much like he did the
Iraqi prime minister last week) and said, "I think he could become one of the
most important leaders in the Middle East." Trump also surprised many by
expressing his willingness to talk with Hezbollah.
Syria
In a notable statement, Trump opened the door to the possibility of Syria
playing a role in addressing the issue of Hezbollah's weapons when asked whether
he supported Syrian intervention to help disarm the group. The US president did
not rule out the idea, describing it as a possibility under consideration, and
praising Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. He said, "We have a very good
relationship with the Syrian president. He's done a very good job, and I
wouldn't be surprised if he did something similar. He has succeeded in unifying
Syria." He added, "Sharaa wants to get involved and do something about
Hezbollah," noting the long-standing disagreements between the two sides, and
that such a role "could be very effective." Meanwhile, President Aoun insisted
that the Lebanese army alone should be responsible for extending state authority
and implementing the security arrangements stipulated in the framework
agreement.
The Zawtar al-Gharbiya Incident
The meeting between Trump and Aoun coincided with the start of the first phase
of the pilot zones in southern Lebanon, which includes a gradual Israeli
withdrawal and the deployment of the Lebanese army in the villages of Frun,
Srifa, and Zawtar al-Gharbiya, as part of the framework agreement brokered by
the United States between Lebanon and Israel on June 26. Trump faced a question
regarding the Lebanese army's announcement that Israeli forces had fired near
Lebanese units attempting to deploy in a designated testing area. The US
president stated that he had heard about the incident just before the meeting
began, adding, "We will look into it."
Berri and Domestic Objections
The meeting also addressed the position of Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih
Berri, after Aoun inquired about reports that Berri had rejected the agreement,
describing it as potentially leading to internal strife. Aoun responded that the
framework agreement did not require parliamentary ratification, noting that the
constitution grants the president the authority to conclude it. President Aoun
was keen to defend Berri, stating that the Speaker supports ending the state of
hostility and war, and that his position as a Shiite leader necessitates a
cautious approach to the issue. He added, "Speaker Berri is a statesman,"
explaining that he hails from southern Lebanon, understands the extent of the
devastation there, and desires to see an end to the war, even while being
required to consider the sensitivity of his position and his relationship with
Hezbollah. Trump said he had heard that Berri was “a good person and a good
man,” expressing his confidence that he would join the process once he saw the
progress the agreement was making. These statements reveal Aoun’s attempt to
contain internal objections, particularly from Hezbollah and its allies, who
rejected the framework agreement and did not participate in the negotiations.
Hezbollah maintains that its disarmament cannot be discussed before a complete
Israeli withdrawal and a halt to airstrikes on Lebanon.
Lebanon and the Abraham Accords
When asked whether he would pressure Lebanon to repeal the law criminalizing
contact with Israel as a prerequisite for joining the Abraham Accords, Trump
praised the agreements, describing them as a “tremendous success.” He said he
expected other countries to join, but he did not explicitly demand immediate
normalization from Lebanon, simply stating that Lebanon holds a very important
position. The meeting produced three main messages: a clear American pledge to
support Lebanon, a readiness to assist the army through concrete plans and
international partners, and adherence to the framework agreement as a gradual
path to Israeli withdrawal and the confinement of weapons to the state. However,
the meeting did not provide a timetable for the complete withdrawal, nor did it
reveal the value or nature of American aid, nor did it resolve the dispute
between Lebanon and Israel regarding the arrangement of steps.
Lebanon Army Says Israeli Troops Opened Fire Near Units Deploying in 'Pilot
Zone'
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Lebanon's military said Tuesday that Israeli troops fired near its soldiers
deploying in a so-called "pilot zone" Israel is to withdraw from under a
US-backed agreement, AFP reported. While troops were deploying in Zawtar al-Gharbiya
in southern Lebanon, Israeli forces "opened fire in the vicinity of these
units", the army said, adding that "the attack will hinder the implementation of
deployment in the pilot zones".
Can Washington Secure an Israeli Withdrawal from South Lebanon?
Beirut: Soubhi Amhaz/Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun heads into his meeting with US President Donald
Trump carrying Beirut’s key demand: that Washington pressure Israel to begin
withdrawing from Lebanese territory, as the United States announced the launch
of the first “pilot zone” under the framework agreement between Lebanon and
Israel. The US State Department said operations had started in "pilot zones" in
Froun, Srifa and Zawtar al-Gharbiya "in accordance with the Trilateral Framework
and under the auspices of the Military Coordination Group for Lebanon". It said
the move was a direct outcome of last week’s Lebanon-Israel talks in Rome and
pledged to continue working with both sides to ensure the framework is
successfully implemented. The Trump-Aoun meeting comes as negotiations enter the
implementation phase. The first stage of the framework agreement envisages an
Israeli withdrawal from designated pilot areas in exchange for the deployment of
the Lebanese Army. Israel, however, has continued airstrikes, ground incursions
and house demolitions, in what Lebanese officials see as an attempt to improve
its negotiating position before implementation begins.
The summit is therefore viewed as a test of Washington’s ability to pressure
Israel into implementing the agreement, while linking an Israeli withdrawal to
Lebanon’s fulfillment of its security commitments.
Former Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Antoine Chedid said Aoun’s visit is of
exceptional importance because, from Trump’s perspective, the framework
agreement is part of a broader strategy to reduce Iranian influence in Lebanon.
“Trump wants the framework agreement to succeed because he believes it would
help move Lebanon out of the Iranian axis and onto a different path led by the
United States,” Chedid told Asharq Al-Awsat. He added that Trump would discuss
ways Washington could pressure Israel to facilitate Aoun’s mission and the
deployment of the Lebanese Army. Chedid noted that US pressure on Israel could
produce results, but would remain tied to the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons and
disarmament. Any US effort to secure an Israeli withdrawal, or the start of one,
would require Lebanese steps to ensure the framework agreement succeeds. He
cautioned that the task would not be easy, saying that Israel no longer views
its presence in southern Lebanon solely through the prism of domestic politics,
but increasingly as a matter of national security. “Whether Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains in power or someone else succeeds him, no
Israeli government is likely to show flexibility on this issue, even under US
pressure,” he added. Kataeb party MP Adib Abdel Massih likewise said available
indications suggest Trump will exert serious pressure on Israel while advancing
efforts to address Hezbollah’s weapons. “The process rests on two inseparable
pillars: an Israeli withdrawal and addressing Hezbollah’s weapons,” he
underlined. “The guarantees must therefore be reciprocal, because the United
States will play a central role on both tracks.”
Earthquake-like Impact: Israel Prepares to Detonate
Tunnels in Beaufort Castle Heights... and New Information on Ali al-Taher
Translated and prepared by Janoubia on July 21, 2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
Israeli army engineering units have completed their preparations to destroy a
strategic tunnel network in southern Lebanon and are awaiting political
approval. Meanwhile, the 36th Division has imposed a siege on dozens of
Hezbollah fighters in the Ali al-Taher Heights after cutting off their supplies.
According to a recent report in the Israeli newspaper Maariv on Monday evening,
Israeli army engineering units have completed surveying and mapping an extensive
underground tunnel network in Beaufort Castle Heights in recent days. The
Northern Command is now awaiting the green light from the political leadership
to destroy this infrastructure. Military sources stated that the operation will
be a controlled detonation of unprecedented scale, planned under strict
precautionary measures. Experts estimate that the force of the explosion
required to demolish the underground structures could generate a seismic tremor
equivalent to an earthquake of between 3.4 and 3.7 on the Richter scale in the
region. Simultaneously, Israeli media outlets published a video this morning
showing Beaufort Castle and the surrounding heights. The video was filmed from
inside the Israeli settlement of Metula. Concurrently with engineering
preparations, elements of the 36th Division are tightening the operational siege
around the adjacent Ali Taher Heights. The forces are exerting continuous
pressure on dozens of Hezbollah fighters trapped inside tunnels in the area.
Intelligence reports indicate that their food supplies have run out in recent
days, according to the newspaper's claims. Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz
acknowledged on June 29th the plan to destroy the tunnels in Beaufort and Ali
Taher Heights, stating: "We have more tunnels that must be destroyed and blown
up, for example, in Beaufort Heights, where we will use 500 tons of explosives."
On the ground, political moves are being translated into military action, within
the framework of the "experimental zones" agreements reached by the Israeli and
Lebanese delegations. The Lebanese army entered the town of Zawtar al-Gharbiya
on Tuesday after taking over security responsibility in the towns of Frun and
Sarifa, two areas that the Israeli army had besieged and evacuated their
residents in advance, but had refrained from actually entering them.
Lebanese Army Deploys in Southern Town After Israeli
Withdrawal, Official Says
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Lebanese army troops began deploying in the southern Lebanese town of Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh
on Tuesday after Israeli forces withdrew from the area, a senior Lebanese
security official said, in line with a US-brokered plan. The plan foresees
Lebanese army troops confiscating weapons from the Iran-aligned Hezbollah group
in parts of southern Lebanon and phased withdrawals of Israeli troops. The
Israeli military said on Monday that the plan, dubbed the pilot zone program,
has begun. It had no immediate comment on Tuesday. Tuesday's handover of
territory is the first test of the plan, which Lebanon hopes will enable it
to restore control over a strip of land about 10 km (6.2 miles) deep into the
country that remains occupied by Israeli troops. Dozens of villages have been
razed in that area and public infrastructure has been destroyed, including
hospitals, power stations and water pumps. Tens of thousands of Lebanese who
call the area home have been unable to return. The latest round of fighting
between Hezbollah and Israel erupted at the start of March, two days after the
United States and Israel launched strikes against Iran. Hezbollah said its
actions were in support of Tehran.
The Lebanese army said its units began deploying in Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh in the
Nabatieh region on Tuesday. The army renewed a call for residents not to enter
the town until the security situation stabilizes and to follow instructions
from deployed military units for their own safety.
The Israeli military confirmed on Monday that it was redeploying its forces as
part of the pilot program. "The pilot serves as a test of the Lebanese Armed
Forces’ sovereignty in the three pilot villages, as the sole official authority
authorized to bear arms in the area," an Israeli military official said.
Israeli officials have voiced skepticism about Lebanon's ability to disarm
Hezbollah, but Israel sees the deal reached last month as a vital step towards
building peace with Lebanon in the long run.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun was due later on Tuesday to meet US President
Donald Trump in Washington.
Hezbollah Threatens to Paralyze Beirut Airport in Defense of Iranian Flights
Beirut: Asharq Al-Awsat/July 21, 2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
Hezbollah, through its Deputy Head of the Political Council, Mahmoud Qamati,
opened a new front of confrontation with the Lebanese state, after threatening
to prevent planes from landing at Rafik Hariri International Airport if official
measures against Iran continue. Qamati's statements came at a time when the
party continues to escalate its objections to the government's policies,
particularly regarding its pursuit of the framework agreement and indirect
negotiations with Israel, while simultaneously refusing to separate the Lebanese
track from the Iranian track. In an interview with Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV,
Qamati stated that the issuance of visas to Iranians and Iranian diplomats has
virtually ceased. He also addressed the continued ban on Iranian aircraft
landing at Beirut airport, asserting that the official measures target Iran and
its representatives in Lebanon. After initially stating that the party is still
"exercising patience" to find a solution, he moved to a direct threat, declaring
that if the situation persists, the party will resort to "many peaceful
methods," adding, "No plane will be allowed to land in Beirut, and no ambassador
will remain in Lebanon." He also called on the General Directorate of General
Security to take charge of the matter, deeming the official response
"unacceptable." This escalation stems from the party's rejection of the official
approach to separating Lebanese decision-making from regional considerations.
Hezbollah consistently criticizes the framework agreement and the negotiations
the state is conducting with Israel, and rejects any approach that would confine
Lebanese affairs to the state, excluding Iran, and thus diminish Tehran's
influence in Lebanon.
The government's decision is irreversible.
Despite this escalation, sources within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Qamati's statements will not alter the
government's previously adopted decisions, and that the authorities will
continue to implement the established measures against Iran as sovereign and
security decisions. The sources explained that the decision to ban Iranian
aircraft from landing was implemented following Israeli threats to target Beirut
Airport, while the visa requirement for Iranian nationals was reinstated after
incidents revealed the presence of members and leaders of the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) within Lebanon. This necessitated stricter
entry procedures in accordance with national security requirements. The sources
did not deny that these visas are subject to stringent criteria, given the
delicate situation in Lebanon. The government had previously decided to ban
Iranians from entering Lebanon after an Israeli operation targeted Iranians in
Beirut, whom Tehran later described as IRGC commanders. The government's
decision to ban Iranians from entering Lebanon came after an Israeli operation
that targeted Iranians in Beirut. An Old Campaign Revisited
Hezbollah's objection to the government's decisions regarding Iran is not new.
It launched a political and popular campaign against Nawaf Salam's government in
February 2025 after an Iranian plane was prevented from landing at Beirut
airport. Hezbollah organized protests and demonstrations near the airport
demanding the decision be reversed, but the government stood firm. It's worth
noting that the decision to ban Iranian planes from landing was made by the
previous caretaker government during the 2024 war, following Israeli threats to
target the airport, specifically during the tenure of Ali Hamieh, a Hezbollah
ally, as Minister of Public Works.
Hezbollah: Disarmament Threatens National Unity
Meanwhile, Hezbollah continued its campaign against the Framework Agreement,
reiterating its refusal to surrender its weapons. On Tuesday, MP Hassan
Ezzeddine, a member of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, attacked President Joseph
Aoun and the political establishment, arguing that insisting on disarming the
"resistance" and pursuing direct negotiations threatens national unity and
serves Israeli objectives. Ezzeddine stated, "Disarming the resistance is
tantamount to taking the lives of those who carry these rifles to defend the
homeland." He considered linking Israeli withdrawal, reconstruction, and
economic aid to this condition as capitulating to Israeli demands. He accused
the political establishment of "abandoning part of Lebanese territory... and
handing over the south to the Israeli enemy," describing this as "treason and a
blatant crime." He also asserted that its actions reflect "ignorance of the true
nature of the enemy and its expansionist projects." He argued that the authority
“defeated itself” by making prior concessions before the negotiations, holding
it responsible for compromising Lebanese sovereignty, and considering that the
essential goal of the “framework agreement” is to disarm the “resistance” in a
way that serves Israel’s security, as he put it.
Damascus Announces Seizure of Weapons Shipment Bound for
Lebanon/ A Week After Foiling Attempt to Smuggle a Huge Shipment of Weapons from
Iraq
Damascus: Asharq Al-Awsat / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The Syrian General Authority for Ports and Customs announced today (Tuesday) the
seizure of a weapons shipment hidden in a car bound for Lebanon through the
Jdeidet Yabous Customs Office in the Damascus countryside. The Authority stated
via its official channels that the seized items included 226 RGC bombs, which
were tightly concealed in secret compartments within a car heading towards
Lebanese territory. A video released by the Jdeidet Yabous Customs Office showed
the inspection of a civilian vehicle at the border crossing and the discovery of
professionally constructed secret compartments within the car's structure by
sniffer dogs. Syrian borders and customs offices are generally under heightened
security alert due to regional escalation and the possibility that Syria might
play a role in disarming Hezbollah at the behest of the United States, and the
potential repercussions this could have within Syria. According to media
reports, the pace of pursuing smuggling networks and tightening controls on
transit routes has accelerated as part of Syria's efforts to stabilize the
country, control its borders, secure roads, and create the necessary conditions
to restore its role as a safe and reliable regional corridor for the transport
of overland goods between Europe and the Arabian Gulf. In the middle of this
month, Syrian authorities announced the thwarting of an attempt to smuggle a
large shipment of sophisticated weapons coming from Iraq and destined for
Lebanese territory. The weapons were seized at the al-Tanf border crossing with
Iraq. The Ministry explained that the operation came after a vehicle was spotted
parked within the border area under suspicious circumstances. A search of the
vehicle revealed a shipment of weapons including long-range missiles, anti-tank
guided missiles, and drones. The General Authority for Ports and Customs stated
that the shipment was "tightly concealed inside an oil tanker heading to the
city of Banias." Official statements issued by the Syrian Ministry of Interior
and the General Authority for Ports and Customs indicated that initial
investigations suggest the shipment was destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Hezbollah denied any involvement in the attempted arms smuggling through Syrian
territory into Lebanon, asserting that the accusations against it were "baseless
and unfounded." According to the Syrian General Authority for Ports and Customs,
the smuggling network exploited transit convoys crossing Syrian territory to
bring in "goods with prohibited economic status." The Authority added that
dismantling the network was a targeted operation within its efforts to combat
smuggling and protect the national economy. The operation resulted in the
apprehension of the network, which had violated applicable laws and regulations.
The Authority noted that the operation was preceded by meticulous surveillance
and monitoring, during which the network's methods and movements were
identified, before an operational plan was developed to monitor the suspected
shipments.
Major Smuggling Operations for Hezbollah
Over the past few months, the Ministry of Interior has thwarted several arms
smuggling operations into Lebanese territory at various points along the border.
Most notably, 1,250 landmines, equipped with detonators, were seized in the
Yabroud area of rural Damascus. These mines were intended for smuggling to
Hezbollah in Lebanon in January 2025, according to Syrian state media. Last
April, the Internal Security Directorate in the Nabk area of rural Damascus
foiled a smuggling attempt involving a large shipment of explosive detonators
intended for use in manufacturing improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The
shipment was intercepted as it attempted to cross into Lebanon. On June 1st,
Internal Security Forces in Homs arrested a smuggler and confiscated several
missiles that had been hidden and prepared for smuggling into Lebanon. The
missiles were seized following a targeted security raid in the village of
Al-Amiriya in the Talkalakh countryside.
Israel Maintains Operational Control After Withdrawal from Zawtar al-Gharbiya...Positioning
in the Heights Grants It the Ability to Monitor and Intervene
Beirut: Subhi Amhaz/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 21, 2026 (Google
translation from Arabic)
Southern Lebanon is beginning an unprecedented security test with the Lebanese
army's entry into the first "experimental zones" evacuated by the Israeli army.
However, this shift does not necessarily reflect a decline in Israeli military
influence, as it is accompanied by a broader repositioning based on establishing
command posts, enhancing monitoring and targeting capabilities, and maintaining
the ability to intervene from outside the towns. Thus, the situation is shifting
from the direct occupation of villages to a redistribution of fire control. In
exchange for evacuating specific villages and handing them over to the Lebanese
army, Israel retains command posts that grant it broad oversight of southern
Lebanon, supported by drones, artillery, and electronic equipment deployed
within the area it still occupies. This reality places the first phase before a
test that goes beyond the mere entry of the army into Zawtar al-Gharbiya, Frun,
and Sarifa; The actual criterion is not only the withdrawal of Israeli soldiers
from within the towns, but also the locations to which they are redeployed, and
their ability to monitor and target the areas they have withdrawn from, or to
return to them in the event of any dispute over the interpretation of the
agreement.
23 Sites Within the Occupied Territory
A Lebanese security source revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that the Israeli army has
established approximately 23 new sites within the occupied territory in southern
Lebanon. The source indicated that most of these sites contain military vehicles
and equipment, without clarifying whether Israel intends to maintain them
permanently throughout its occupation, or whether they are points related to
field requirements that are subject to change. According to the source, these
sites extend along the occupied strip, starting from the vicinity of Naqoura and
Bayada on the coast, passing through the heights of the western sector, then the
central sector overlooking the valleys of Salouqi and Hujeir, reaching the
heights of the eastern sector and other points along the border, including a
large site established in the town of Maroun al-Ras.
Superiority Remains in Controlling Positions
Retired Brigadier General Saeed Qazha told Asharq Al-Awsat, “The withdrawal from
Zawtar al-Gharbiya does not represent a significant military loss for Israel, as
long as it controls more important positions that give it oversight over vast
areas of the south.” He explained that “Zawtar is a vantage point overlooking
the surrounding areas, and it overlooks Frun, Ghandouriya, and Sarifa. However,
Israeli forces are still stationed in more important positions extending from
Bayada, through the heights of the western sector, all the way to Beaufort
Castle.” He added that these positions “overlook Nabatieh, the Iqlim al-Tuffah
region, the Litani Valley, and the adjacent areas in the Galilee,” considering
that their continued Israeli control means that the withdrawal from Zawtar “does
not deprive Israel of a fundamental military advantage, because the main
observation and control points remain in its hands.” Qazha believes that “the
entry of the Lebanese army into Frun, Sarifa, and Zawtar al-Gharbiya reinforces
the state’s presence within the villages, but it does not significantly alter
the military balance as long as Israel retains the controlling positions that
give it the ability to monitor and control the surrounding area with fire.” The
new Israeli approach is not based solely on establishing positions in the
highlands, but also on air and intelligence superiority. Even with the Lebanese
army deployed within the towns, drones, electronic surveillance systems, and
long-range artillery remain tools that allow Israel to monitor movements within
the areas from which it has withdrawn, without the need for a permanent military
presence. Military experts say this model reduces the cost of ground deployment
and lowers the risks to Israeli forces, while maintaining the ability to
intervene rapidly when necessary. Therefore, the success of the first phase is
measured not only by the withdrawal of soldiers from the villages, but also by
whether Israel will cease using its air and fire superiority in these areas.
Retired Brigadier General Saeed Qazha emphasizes that "one of the main reasons
for the delay in launching the first phase was the Lebanese side's insistence on
obtaining clear guarantees that would prevent Israel from targeting areas
entered by the Lebanese army or re-invading them after the withdrawal." He tells
Asharq Al-Awsat: “The verification of the evacuation of these areas is not the
responsibility of Israel, but rather is carried out through a joint mechanism
involving the American side and the Lebanese army. Therefore, Israel has no
right to target these areas again, conduct military operations there, or
reoccupy them after the state has extended its authority over them.” He adds
that these guarantees “came as a result of American pressure and negotiations
that accompanied the agreement, and formed one of the foundations that allowed
the transition from the negotiation phase to the implementation phase of the
withdrawal and the deployment of the Lebanese army.” In contrast, retired
Brigadier General Naji Malaeb warns that some of the proposals circulated in the
Israeli media could open the door to a different interpretation of the agreement
if they are treated as part of the implementation mechanism. He tells Asharq Al-Awsat:
“Granting Israel the right to enter to verify the implementation of the
understandings is a very dangerous matter, because it will return each time
claiming that it has information that necessitates intervention, which
practically means establishing a permanent right to enter and exit Lebanese
territory under security pretexts.”
The Lebanese Army's Deployment in "Trial Zones" Sends a Multi-Objective
Message... Activating the "Framework Agreement" with US Support and Separating
it from the Iranian Track
Beirut: Mohammed Shkeir/Asharq Al-Awsat/July 21, 2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
The launch of the first phase of the army's deployment in the trial zones,
coinciding with President Joseph Aoun's visit to the United States and just
hours before his meeting with his American counterpart, Donald Trump, carries a
multi-objective political message for both domestic and international audiences.
The most prominent of these objectives is the initiation of the implementation
of the Lebanese-Israeli "Framework Agreement" under US auspices, ensuring it
doesn't remain merely a symbolic gesture. Furthermore, it aims to safeguard the
agreement by preventing Israel from becoming embroiled in the military
confrontation between Washington and Tehran. This is a top priority for
Lebanon's allies, who are actively engaging with the US administration to
prevent Israel's involvement from negatively impacting efforts to neutralize
Lebanon by drawing Hezbollah into the conflict.
Separating the Lebanese Track from the Iranian One
In this context, a ministerial source familiar with the expected outcomes of the
Aoun-Trump meeting said, “The mere fact that the army has begun deploying in the
trial areas does not constitute a test of its ability to impose its control over
them by preventing any armed presence of illegitimate forces, namely Hezbollah,
but rather confirms that Washington is proceeding with pressuring Israel to
gradually withdraw from the south, thus separating the (Framework Agreement)
from the Iranian-American (Memorandum of Understanding), which is collapsing
under the pressure of the continued confrontation between the two signatories.
This is evidenced by Trump’s pronouncement of its demise and his alignment in
this regard with Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei in announcing the
cessation of its implementation.” A ministerial source told Asharq Al-Awsat that
Washington's insistence on separating the "framework agreement" from the
"memorandum of understanding" is beginning to take effect. The source said, "The
aim is to neutralize it, ultimately protecting it by preventing Israel from
joining Washington in its confrontation with Tehran. This is to cut off
Hezbollah's pretext, should it decide to return to supporting Iran. However,
there have been no tangible results on the ground so far from the threat by its
Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, that the situation will not return to what it
was before March 2nd. This threat refers to Hezbollah's violation of the
ceasefire by launching missiles in response to continued Israeli attacks. It has
become clear that the motive is primarily and ultimately to avenge Israel's
assassination of former Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Will they repeat
this?"
A Dose of American Support for Lebanon
He considered that “the launch of the first phase of the army deployment is
nothing more than an American down payment to Lebanon, to confirm Washington’s
separation of its path from Iran, to be followed by an exceptional political,
security, and economic boost that Trump will offer Aoun at the end of their
meeting. This boost would lead to the consolidation of the ceasefire and
obligate Israel to cease its hostile actions, its continued bulldozing of towns
located within the yellow line, and its systematic destruction of what remains
of the homes there.” The source expected Washington to pressure Israel to expand
the army’s deployment so that it is not limited to the town of Zawtar al-Gharbiya.
He attaches importance to the meeting being held on Thursday via Zoom of the
military coordination group for Lebanon, as it includes officers from the three
countries that signed the “framework agreement.” They can, if necessary, call
upon the UNIFIL peacekeeping force to verify the deployment and prevent the
entry of armed groups affiliated with Hezbollah. He stressed that “Israel is not
a party to the committee verifying the army’s deployment, and it is not allowed
to enter the experimental areas under the pretext of ensuring that the army has
established its authority over them and that they are free of armed men. The
task of verification is left to the American observer team in cooperation with
the army command, and the committee is supervised by the American General Joseph
Clearfield. The Israeli side communicates with him if it has information about
armed men entering them, especially since the mere verification will open the
door to moving to deploy the army in a new experimental area.”
Betting on Aoun-Trump Meeting
The source added that Aoun, who contacted Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri
before heading to Washington, attaches great importance to his meeting with
Trump, hoping it will give the green light to expand the army's deployment to
include areas still under Israeli occupation. This would serve as a prelude to
reaching a timetable for Israel's withdrawal to the internationally recognized
borders. In return, Lebanon maintains its insistence on the state's monopoly on
weapons, considering it a domestic demand before an external one, as it is
essential for extending its authority over all its territory. This effectively
means that the "Framework Agreement" has been amended in practice to address the
reservations Berri and former Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt
have regarding the agreement. The source emphasized the importance of American
leverage for Lebanon in determining its future position should a new political
and geographical map of the region be drawn, without altering its
internationally recognized borders. He said he "hopes that the American
understanding of Lebanon will expand to include its economic crises and the
reconstruction of devastated towns as an essential step towards recovery." He
added that "Aoun's return to Beirut with support at all levels means removing
the pretext Hezbollah uses to justify maintaining its weapons." He pointed out
that "simply providing this support would effectively neutralize the party's
weapons on the ground, forcing it to reconsider its position and recalculate its
strategy, given that Lebanon is entering a new phase with international and Arab
backing, a phase different from the one that existed before the Aoun-Trump
summit. This is unless its leadership insists on judging intentions by refusing
to engage in the framework agreement, even with the collapse of the memorandum
of understanding, even if it is revived by Tehran's acquiescence to Washington's
conditions, as long as the latter remains committed to separating the Lebanese
track from the Iranian one." The Distinction Between Berri and Hezbollah
He emphasized that “Aoun’s return to Beirut with a decisive decision to solidify
the ceasefire and the simultaneous deployment of the army with Israel’s gradual
withdrawal from the south, inevitably means that a distinction exists between
the party and Berri, who refuses to prejudge intentions, unlike his ally, and
prefers to wait so that he can build upon the situation as it unfolds, because
what matters to him is reaching positive results. As he says, the proof is in
the pudding. He agrees with Aoun on a set of national principles and refuses to
rush things and take premature positions. This is what puts the American
administration in front of its pledge that its president, Trump, is ready to
provide Aoun with an exceptional dose of support to move the country into a new
phase.”
Aoun's Visit to Washington... What After the Framework
Agreement?
Brigadier General Khaled Hamadeh/July 21/2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/07/156109/
Lebanese eyes are fixed on Washington, cautiously awaiting the outcome of
President Joseph Aoun's meeting with US President Donald Trump. This visit,
arranged by the US, follows a series of visits to Lebanon over the past two
weeks by both the Commander of the US Central Command, General Brad Cooper, and
General Joseph Clearfield – who heads the oversight committee/mechanism – which
failed to produce any arrangements or field measures regarding the
implementation of the agreed-upon "pilot zones" between Lebanon and Israel. It
also follows two rounds of negotiations in Rome that yielded no tangible
progress. The failure to reach an understanding on implementing the pilot zones
thus far is attributed to Lebanon's demand that Washington fully restore its
rights while ignoring its obligations. Lebanon demands a complete Israeli
withdrawal from the occupied territories, the deployment and support of the
Lebanese army, the return of prisoners, and reconstruction. These are
non-negotiable rights; there can be no sovereignty or stability without them.
This is without even addressing the issue of the monopoly on the use of force, a
right belonging to the Lebanese people who aspire to a fully sovereign state
that makes its own decisions, free from external interference and internal power
centers operating in its name. This right should not be merely a clause in every
agreement, the latest being the Framework Agreement.
So why has Aoun's invitation to Washington become a mere formality?
At the level of negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, the United States seeks
to resolve the duality within Lebanon, between the Washington and Rome platforms
on one hand, and the Beirut platforms that address the Framework Agreement in
various ways on the other. This suggests that the Lebanese government has lost
its centralized decision-making authority. Shouldn't all the pronouncements and
statements regarding the Framework Agreement necessitate a clear and unequivocal
position from the Lebanese state, delivered by the head of state, to whom the
constitution grants the right to negotiate and who bears the responsibility for
implementing the decisions made with his government? Then, isn't what US
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during his meeting with Aoun—that "the
president represents the legitimate government and is the party we will work
with, and this government is the one that must manage the country, and he will
return with positive results for all Lebanese, including Christians, Sunnis,
Shiites, Bedouins, and Druze"—more of an indication of the state of political
fragmentation and the ambiguity that makes it impossible to continue
negotiations? (Lebanon News)
But the reasons for inviting Aoun to Washington may not be limited to the
framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, given the developments in the
regional landscape, whose features are gradually taking shape with the renewed
US-Iranian conflict following the Revolutionary Guard's interception of Gulf oil
tankers attempting to cross the Strait of Hormuz on the 7th of this month.
The US strikes on the southern coast from Bandar Abbas to Bushehr, as well as on
the main transportation routes towards the cities of Isfahan and Shiraz,
indicate that the new war has gone beyond what can be considered military
pressure to bring Tehran back to the negotiating table, and may be a prelude to
attacks inside Iran or the occupation of part of Iranian territory. The attacks
on West Azerbaijan province, with its Azerbaijani and Kurdish majorities, and on
Ahvaz, with its Arab majority, indicate attempts to open internal fronts that
undermine fragile domestic stability. On the other hand, Tehran's threats to use
its regional proxies in the confrontation with the United States confirm that
the war is on the verge of becoming a full-blown conflict that could extend
beyond the region.
Given all this, Trump's meeting with President Aoun goes beyond simply assessing
the Lebanese government's ability to implement the framework agreement and the
limits of US support for the army to fulfill the requirements of the pilot
zones. It is, in fact, an assessment and characterization of Lebanon's position
and role in the region in light of upcoming developments. From the American
perspective, this means that half-measures are unacceptable, and that the
successful implementation of the pilot zones—which implies ending Hezbollah's
armed presence—is an essential step not only for liberating the land but also
for neutralizing Lebanon from the arenas of conflict that Tehran might create
through its proxies, thus paving the way for Lebanon's positioning in the new
regional landscape. What President Aoun raised regarding the relationship with
Syria, the necessity of mutual recognition of each country's sovereignty, and
good neighborly relations may be sufficient to indicate not only the importance
of American guarantees but also the dangers of attempting to "Lebanonize" the
framework agreement once again. Israel's relations
* Director of the Regional Forum for Studies and Consultations
Hezbollah Will Not Pledge… A War of Support Looms
Alan Sarkis/Nidaa Al Watan/July 22, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Good intentions are not enough in politics when the decision to go to war lies
outside the state. While the Lebanese authorities are trying to establish a
political path that paves the way for a complete Israeli withdrawal and gives
the South a chance to catch its breath, a more complex battle is being waged
behind the scenes: preventing Lebanon from becoming a battleground again if a
clash erupts between Washington and Tehran. But, so far, all the state's
attempts seem incapable of extracting a single pledge that would dispel this
anxiety. Southerners await the fate that Hezbollah will once again lead them to
amidst the escalating tensions. If Hezbollah enters any new war, the price will
be exorbitant. In this context, Nidaa Al Watan has learned that the Lebanese
state has conducted a series of discreet contacts with Hezbollah in recent
weeks. These contacts were distributed between direct security channels through
existing links between official institutions and Hezbollah, and political
channels managed by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, who sought to persuade
Hezbollah not to drag Lebanon and the Shiite community into a war. A new war of
support is on the horizon, after the party's support base paid a heavy price in
the last war – in human lives, economically, and socially. However, according to
reports, all these attempts have led to the same result: Hezbollah has offered
no commitment and has not given the state or Speaker Berri a concrete answer.
Neither acceptance nor rejection, but rather keeping the door open to all
possibilities, stemming from a firm conviction within the party that the
decision to use the southern front is not subject to the state's calculations,
but rather to its own military and political assessments when it deems the
timing appropriate. Reports indicate that Hezbollah's leadership still believes
that armed resistance liberated the land and imposed deterrence equations, and
that this option remains unchanged despite all the transformations. Therefore,
any demand to prioritize the political process or link the decision to war to
state institutions does not alter this conviction. On the contrary, it is met
with insistence that weapons will remain the deciding factor whenever
circumstances demand it. When the idea of giving Hezbollah a chance to the
framework formula or the model zones is presented as a way to complete the
Israeli withdrawal and establish stability, the response, according to reports,
is that... The priority lies in thwarting this course, not protecting it.
Hezbollah views any negotiation with Israel as an attempt to redraw the rules of
engagement at the expense of its project, and believes that the period following
any Israeli withdrawal will be a phase that it alone will determine how to deal
with. Information obtained by Nidaa Al-Watan confirms that Nabih Berri is
increasingly convinced that his influence on Hezbollah's strategic decisions is
extremely limited. The man who tried to utilize all available political channels
now realizes that the final decision is not made within Lebanese institutions,
but rather is linked to broader regional calculations. Therefore, even if Israel
withdraws from the remaining Lebanese territories, and even if Lebanon has a
genuine opportunity for stability, any Iranian decision to reopen the southern
front will remain a decisive factor in determining the course of events. In
parallel, Hezbollah, according to the information, is working to keep its base
prepared for the possibility of renewed confrontation. Although this situation
is not clearly reflected in the media, the atmosphere within the Shiite
community is more tense than it appears. There is a genuine fear that any new
war will bring back scenes of destruction and displacement to the southern
villages, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and the Bekaa Valley. While President
Berri seeks to contain any disagreements and prevent them from becoming public
in order to maintain the cohesion of the political environment at a highly
sensitive regional juncture, Lebanon finds itself once again facing a familiar
dilemma: a state attempting to establish a political path, and a party that
alone holds the right to declare war. Every time Lebanon approaches an
opportunity for stability, regional calculations push it back to square one. The
pressing question today is not whether a second proxy war is possible, but
rather whether Lebanon even possesses the power to prevent it should the order
come from beyond its borders.
The “Lebanon First” Solution and the “Iran First” Problem
Rafik Khoury/Nidaa Al Watan/July 22, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
There is no need to compare President Donald Trump’s meetings with Syrian
interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa and his belated meeting with Lebanese
President Joseph Aoun. There is no single criterion for the importance or
quality of talks between the American president and the visiting president. What
indicates success is when the concerns of the visiting president and his country
become part of the strategic interests of the White House occupant. The
announced outcome of Aoun’s talks at the State Department with Secretary Marco
Rubio and at the White House with Trump is the reaffirmation of the unwavering
American commitment to implementing the “tripartite framework.” This is the most
that can be achieved under the current complex circumstances, whereby American
sponsorship guarantees the success of the pilot zones and their gradual
expansion until the “Israeli redeployment outside Lebanese territory,” the
commencement of reconstruction, the return of displaced persons, the
intensification of aid and investments, and, of course, the disarmament of
Hezbollah and the dismantling of its infrastructure. This is what satisfies the
majority of the Lebanese public and officialdom, and gives Lebanon its place and
role on the map of rapid transformations and the new regional security order.
This, in turn, is what worries Iran and frightens Hezbollah. The Islamic
Republic is determined to maintain Hezbollah's role and its weapons, preserving
its organic link to the country and thus continuing to tie Lebanon to it by
force, keeping it as an Iranian forward operating base on the Mediterranean.
Hezbollah, which rejects direct negotiations with Israel, naturally rejects the
success of negotiations backed by the US, and continues to gamble on a
memorandum of understanding—suspended by Iran and forgotten by the US—that will
bring it a complete and unconditional Israeli withdrawal without any
disarmament. The conflict is between "Lebanon First" and "Iran First," and
therefore between those who think of Lebanon and those who think of Iran. The
supposed implementation of the framework agreement ultimately means achieving a
peace that pulls Lebanon, after Syria and attempts to pull Iraq, out of the
Iranian axis. Hezbollah and the other armed groups linked to the Revolutionary
Guard are not established for a post-war peace process and negotiations, but
rather for a perpetual war in service of the Iranian regional project. But the
real game is the peace of the Middle East. Hence Hezbollah's insistence on
rejecting the negotiations and the agreement, because that would mean perpetual
war with Israel and keeping Lebanon within the "resistance front," which Supreme
Leader Mojtaba Khamenei insists on considering, in his messages, a kind of twin
to the Islamic Republic. Just as linking Lebanon to Syria led to a perpetual
crisis with no prospect of resolution, linking it to Iran leads to perpetual war
with Israel, a constant conflict with America, and conflicting interests and
relations with the Arab world. Nothing is more dangerous to Lebanon than war
itself, except perhaps the "diplomatic collusion" between Tehran and its
adversaries to broker a truce, rendering the Lebanese state a mere facade. The
time has come, amidst the rise of sectarian calculations over national ones, to
realize that "private security" does not protect the security of one sect, nor,
of course, the security of the other sects and the country. There is no
protection for the homeland except through national security. It is unreasonable
to place Lebanon in two predicaments: one if the agreement is implemented, and
another if it is not. It is unacceptable to present the choice as either civil
war or the death of the nation in a situation of neither war nor peace, neither
sovereignty nor a solution to the acute financial, economic, and social crises,
and the even more severe national and political crisis. In 1924, the renowned
American commentator Walter Lippmann wrote in his book "Public Opinion": "We do
not see first and decide second, but rather decide first and see second." The
problem is that Lebanon, which has begun to see first and decide second, is
facing forces that want it to remain blind and unable to decide.
Lebanon “Played it Right”... With the “No to Weapons, Yes
to Peace” Equation, it Gains Washington’s Support!
Lara Yazbek/Nidaa Al Watan/July 22, 2026
Official Lebanon knew how to play it right this time. After trying, for months,
to adopt a policy of containment, appeasement, and dialogue with the leaders of
the Hezbollah militia, hoping they would come to their senses, it decided to
abandon this policy because it had proven ineffective with the Iranian-backed
faction in Lebanon, and instead moved towards a more confrontational approach.
The government designated Hezbollah’s military wing an illegal organization and
declared an open confrontation with the influence of the Islamic Republic in
Lebanon.
Firmness is the Key to the White House
This shift has opened a new chapter in the history of relations between Lebanon
and the United States, one of partnership and cooperation. This chapter is a
direct result of Lebanon’s departure from the gray area in dealing with illegal
weapons and their patron, Iran, and its move towards clear and unambiguous
sovereign and strategic choices, according to American diplomatic sources
speaking to Nidaa Al Watan. The new official stance is what opened the doors of
the White House today to President Joseph Aoun, and what prompted Washington to
express its full readiness to help Lebanon regain its sovereignty over all its
territory. The presidential summit between US President Donald Trump and Aoun is
therefore the fruit of the latter's unprecedented courage in rejecting Iran's
encroachment on Lebanon, and in his adherence to the Taif Agreement and
Lebanon's international obligations as stipulated in Resolutions 1559 and 1701,
and in the October 27 Agreement, regarding the exclusive right of the Lebanese
state to possess weapons. It is also the fruit of Aoun's expressed genuine
desire to end the state of hostility with Israel and put an end to decades of
futile wars between the two sides, from which Lebanon has reaped nothing but
destruction and bloodshed. This golden equation, based on "No to weapons, yes to
peace," perfectly aligns with what the Trump administration wants to hear today,
the sources continue. Through it, Lebanon will be able to liberate its territory
from the occupations of Iran and Israel, with American support.
Turning Adversity into Opportunity
For this very reason, sources add, we say that Lebanon played it right. It knew
exactly how to protect its interests at this pivotal moment regionally and
internationally, and it knew how to turn its adversity into an opportunity.
Believe it or not, Washington is currently pressuring Israel to implement the
framework agreement, and on Monday, in what amounted to a notification to Tel
Aviv, it announced that the implementation of the pilot zones had begun. As much
as Hezbollah is angry with Aoun, Israel is equally annoyed with Trump for siding
with Lebanon and its demands at Tel Aviv's expense.
A Firm Hand
The most important thing, for the achievement of sovereignty to be complete and
for Lebanon to reap the benefits of liberating and rebuilding its land, is for
it to maintain the same boldness and resolve after the pilot zones process has
begun. It must deal firmly with anyone who obstructs the army's deployment on
the ground and its efforts to clear the country of Iranian weapons, from south
of the Litani River to its north, reaching all Lebanese territory. Thus, Lebanon
ensures that all the major powers will remain by its side, supporting it in its
battle to regain its land and its decision-making power from Israel and Iran,
the sources conclude.
The Latest English LCCC
Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on 21-22 July/2026
Trump Says US ‘Not Finished at All’ with Iran
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
President Donald Trump said Tuesday the United States was far from finished with
Iran and warned the next US military target could be an underground nuclear
complex known as Pickaxe Mountain. Pickaxe Mountain is a deeply buried nuclear
site near Natanz where Western intelligence suspects Iran is building an
undeclared enrichment facility. "We'll be hitting that area pretty soon, and
very heavily," Trump said, adding that he would not normally announce targets
but "there's not a thing they can do about it." Trump estimated it would take
Iran more than 20 years to rebuild from current damage, addressing reporters
during a White House meeting with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun. "If we left
right now, it would take Iran 20, 25 years to rebuild. Okay, and we're not
finished at all...we're not leaving right now." Iran stepped up its strikes in
the Middle East on Tuesday, two weeks after its war with the United States
resumed, with Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain coming under attack.
US Military Completes Its Latest Strikes on Iran, Marking
the 10th Successive Night of Attacks
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Iran attacked a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday, forcing its crew
to abandon the ship, while the United States conducted yet another round of
airstrikes targeting the Iran as they struggle over control of the key waterway.
The 10 consecutive nights of US airstrikes haven’t compelled Tehran to loosen
its grip on the strait, through which about a fifth of all crude oil and natural
gas traded once passed in peacetime. Even as the US and Iran inch closer to
all-out war again, Iran’s interior minister traveled to Pakistan, a key mediator
in the conflict, for talks. However, it remains unclear just what new deal could
be reached to end the fighting. The interim deal signed last month that was
meant to end the fighting has crumbled. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz
has largely stalled. And as fighting intensifies, both sides have targeted
civilian infrastructure relied on by millions of people.
“Iran and groups supportive of Iran may target other US interests overseas or at
locations associated with the United States and Americans throughout the world,”
the US State Department said in a new warning to Americans.
The escalation has pushed oil prices higher in recent weeks. Benchmark Brent
crude traded Tuesday above $88 a barrel and regular gasoline in the US climbed
to an average of $4 a gallon, keeping pressure on Americans’ wallets ahead of
midterm elections this fall. Meanwhile, the US military identified two soldiers
who were killed in Jordan in attacks that left a third person missing.
Separately, the military confirmed another death in Iraq on Saturday during the
“controlled detonation” of a downed Iranian drone. President Donald Trump took
to social media on Monday to warn that “Every time Iran kills an American
Soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!” Trump was planning to
attend a ceremony on Tuesday evening at Dover Air Force Base, where at least one
service member’s remains were due to arrive. US strikes come as ships attacked
The US military’s Central Command said Tuesday it targeted “Iranian military
command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites and air
defense systems.” It released more footage of bombings that targeted sites in
Iran. “American forces remain postured and prepared to hold Iran accountable for
unwarranted aggression toward civilian mariners seeking to freely and openly
transit the strait,” the command said. However, traffic through the strait has
slowed to crawl with the latest violence. The British military’s United Kingdom
Maritime Trade Operations center said a tanker came under attack early Tuesday
in the strait off Oman, forcing the crew to abandon the vessel. Iran’s
paramilitary Revolutionary Guard claimed the attack, as well as two other
attacks on ships Monday in the waterway. The route around Oman has been the one
the US military has encouraged ships to travel to avoid Iran’s control. Tehran
also hit US-allied countries throughout the Middle East. Jordan military's said
Tuesday that Iran targeted it with five drones, all of which were shot down.
Nearly 100 US injuries since early July The Pentagon’s chief spokesperson said
nearly 100 US service members have been injured since the US restarted strikes
on July 7, and 96% of them have returned to duty. “The vast majority of injuries
experienced were minor concussions,” Sean Parnell posted Monday on X in response
to a New York Times report that the Pentagon has withheld information about
troop injuries from Iranian strikes. He denied that the Pentagon was hiding data
about injuries. However, the Defense Casualty Analysis System, the military’s
clearinghouse for reporting deaths and injuries in conflict, has not been
updated as of Monday night with the latest attacks. A glimmer of hope for
diplomacy Pakistan has intensified diplomatic efforts in recent days to
resuscitate the interim deal. Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni arrived
in Islamabad on Monday for two days of talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif
and others. On Sunday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the
US is still open to negotiating with Iran but that “it has to be real.” “If the
door opens to diplomacy — if the guys that want to do something productive for
Iran win and take control of that system, or take control of the negotiations —
that’ll be a very positive development,” Rubio said. “That’s not where we are
tonight, unfortunately.” Iranian authorities on Sunday said at least 50 people
have been killed and 517 wounded in the latest rounds of US strikes. Since the
war began on Feb. 28, 17 US service members have been killed.
Details of the 10-Day Truce Proposal Between Washington
and Tehran & Two Options for Managing the Strait of Hormuz
Riyadh — Al-Arabiya.net / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
Well-informed sources reported that mediators between the United States and Iran
have put forward a 10-day ceasefire proposal aimed at defusing tensions and
coaxing both capitals back to the negotiating table. Two sources familiar with
the mediation efforts stated that Qatar, Egypt, Pakistan, and other regional
intermediaries presented the new proposal. The truce framework hinges on two
core conditions to restore the diplomatic track and salvage the bilateral
memorandum of understanding (MoU): halting hostilities and reopening the Strait
of Hormuz to global shipping. The plan outlines the complete reopening of two
shipping lanes within the strait: the southern corridor through Omani waters
free from Iranian attacks, and the northern corridor through Iranian waters free
from the U.S. naval blockade.Conversely, U.S. officials indicated that President
Donald Trump's administration is reviewing the proposal and has urged Israel to
avoid actions that could close this diplomatic window. However, The Jerusalem
Post reported that Trump rejected the initial 10-day ceasefire initiative
brought forward by Qatar and Pakistan.
Tehran Initiated the Proposal
Two separate sources told i24NEWS that Tehran actually initiated the proposal
currently being promoted by mediators. According to these sources, the Iranian
initiative reflects a high sense of urgency to halt the fighting amid escalating
U.S. strikes and the looming prospect of a expanded military confrontation
ordered by President Trump. The primary objective of the 10-day pause is to buy
time to formulate a lasting resolution regarding shipping traffic in the Strait
of Hormuz—the core issue that triggered the collapse of last month's MoU after
both sides declared it null and void.
"Absurd and Illogical"
Sources noted that the U.S. administration is currently demanding a longer
truce. As a precondition for implementation, Washington insists on securing at
least preliminary understandings regarding freedom of navigation in the strait,
leaving secondary details to be negotiated during the 10-day window. One source
added that certain senior officials within the Trump administration dismissed
the Iranian proposal as "absurd and illogical."
"Reasonable Service Fees"
Mediators are attempting to build upon a concept previously discussed between
Oman, Iran, and Qatar in Muscat on July 11, when the United States urged Iran to
publicly commit to keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. According to Axios,
Washington and Tehran would negotiate a long-term arrangement to regulate
maritime traffic during the temporary truce.
One proposal on the table allows Iran to collect "reasonable service fees" in
exchange for maritime security services—modeled after the Strait of Malacca,
where Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore charge ships for specific services
rather than imposing broad transit tolls. Another idea involves depositing these
fees into a joint fund managed with the participation of the International
Maritime Organization. A knowledgeable source noted that ceasefire efforts were
beginning to gain traction last Saturday before Iranian strikes in Jordan killed
two U.S. service members, prompting Washington to step back from the talks.
Ongoing Talks and Paying the Price
A high-ranking U.S. official confirmed to Axios that talks are ongoing, but
emphasized that Trump has not yet concluded his retaliatory response and remains
focused on making Iran "pay the price for its violations of the MoU and ongoing
terrorist acts in the Strait of Hormuz."
The official added, "The President will make Iran pay for the recent killing of
American troops. These devastating strikes will continue until the President
decides otherwise."
An informed source stated that the White House may continue bombarding Iran for
several additional days in response to the Jordan casualties before seriously
weighing the new truce proposal.
On the Iranian side, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei affirmed on
Monday that intermediaries are working to prevent further escalation. Meanwhile,
Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni launched a series of meetings with
mediators in Pakistan on Tuesday following the collapse of the interim
agreement, meeting with Pakistani Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, according
to Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath sources.
The current escalation erupted on July 8 following an attack on a commercial
vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, prompting the U.S. military to launch strikes
inside Iran and President Trump to declare the end of the truce. In response,
Tehran targeted U.S. installations in Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE,
and Oman. On July 17, CENTCOM announced the death of two U.S. service members in
Jordan while intercepting an Iranian attack.
Trump: Tehran Is Begging for a Deal—"You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet"
Riyadh — Al-Arabiya.net / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
U.S. President Donald Trump stated that Iran is "desperately" seeking a deal and
a meeting with the United States, but declared that the administration is "not
interested" in such a meeting at this time.
Speaking to reporters while welcoming Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to the
White House, Trump asserted that "Iran ain't seen nothing yet," stressing that
the U.S. has "not finished its job at all" with Iran as the military entered its
tenth consecutive night of bombing Iranian infrastructure.
The U.S. President reaffirmed that the blockade on Iranian ports will remain in
place and vowed that Iran will never acquire a nuclear weapon, warning: "We will
strike any Iranian facility where a nuclear weapon is manufactured." He
announced that the U.S. will strike Mount Al-Fass (Jabal al-Fass) in Iran "very
soon," according to Axios, criticizing former President Barack Obama's deal as a
pathway for Iran to go nuclear. He also estimated that rebuilding Iran would
take 20 to 25 years.
Addressing Houthi threats, Trump stated that the U.S. will "take care of" the
Iran-backed group. "If something happens in the Red Sea, we will handle it," he
said, recalling previous strikes against the Houthis prior to the Omani-brokered
agreement in May 2025.
These remarks came as Iran intensified attacks on regional states on Tuesday,
targeting U.S. military sites two weeks after the resumption of hostilities
ended a brief period of Middle East calm. Pakistan reiterated calls for
restraint amid a lack of serious prospects to revive the June memorandum,
amplified by fears of a wider war as Houthi threats to blockade the Red Sea
threaten further energy market disruptions.
Hegseth Warns Iran: We Will Strike with "10 Times the
Force" If Attacks Continue
Riyadh — Al-Arabiya.net / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth warned Iran on Tuesday of a military response
"ten times harder" if it persists in attacking commercial shipping and regional
states. Speaking at a White House press briefing alongside President Trump and
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Hegseth stated that Tehran has "squandered every
opportunity for dialogue.""If they want to talk, they can talk; otherwise, they
will face the U.S. Department of War," Hegseth said, adding that continuous
strikes will be unleashed day after day and night after night if attacks
continue. The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed executing its tenth
consecutive night of strikes inside Iran, targeting military command centers,
naval assets, missile and drone launch sites, and air defense systems to
neutralize Tehran's ability to strike commercial traffic in the Strait of
Hormuz. In retaliation, Iran carried out fresh strikes hitting Kuwait, Bahrain,
and Jordan.
Pakistan Revives Mediation Amid Truce Impasse / Iranian
Interior Minister Meets Shahbaz Sharif and Asim Munir
London, Islamabad — Asharq Al-Awsat / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
Pakistan intensified efforts to bring Washington and Tehran back to the
negotiating table to salvage the collapsed interim agreement, even as both sides
pressed ahead with attacks for a tenth straight day.
Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Munimi held high-level talks in Islamabad on
Tuesday, meeting with Pakistani Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir followed by
Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif. Sharif expressed deep concern over the
escalation, urging all parties to exercise restraint and avoid destabilizing
steps.While details of the closed-door meetings remained undisclosed, Pakistani
officials confirmed Momeni formally requested Islamabad to resume its mediatory
role. Government sources told Reuters this marked Momeni's second visit to
Pakistan in less than a week.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated Sunday that Washington remains open
to genuine negotiations, though he laid out no preconditions. Meanwhile, Reuters
reported that an Iranian official confirmed intermediaries delivered a 10-day
ceasefire proposal to Tehran, though Washington balked at the terms, demanding a
longer pause and preliminary maritime understandings before halting operations.
Iranian Attacks Target Kuwaiti Electrical Infrastructure; Escalation Reaches
Bahrain and Jordan
Asharq Al-Awsat / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The regional military escalation widened significantly on Tuesday:
Bahrain: The General Command of the Bahrain Defense Force announced that air
defense systems intercepted and destroyed multiple incoming aerial attacks,
placing all military units on the highest state of alert against what it termed
systematic hostile acts targeting civilians.
Jordan: The General Command of the Armed Forces reported that air defense units
successfully intercepted and neutralized five drones launched from Iranian
territory overnight, resulting in no casualties or material damage.
Kuwait: The Ministry of Electricity, Water, and Renewable Energy reported that
multiple power stations and water desalination facilities sustained damage from
Iranian strikes, sparking fires that were successfully contained by emergency
crews and civil defense. Several generation units were temporarily taken offline
as a precautionary measure to ensure systemic stability. The Kuwaiti General
Staff later confirmed air defense systems were actively engaging incoming
missile and drone attacks.
Iran Warns Bulgaria Against Aiding US Military Operations After Move to Station
US Aircraft
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman warned Bulgaria on Tuesday against allowing
the US to use its territory for military operations against Iran. The Bulgarian
government has said it will seek parliamentary approval to station up to eight
US tanker aircraft at an air base in the Balkan country, which is a member
of NATO and the European Union. Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said any
activity that facilitates US attacks on Iran would amount to complicity in what
he described as "aggression and war crimes", according to Iranian state
media. Baghaei urged Bulgaria not to become "an accomplice of aggressors and
lawbreakers", they said. The tanker aircraft are mainly used for airborne
refueling of other aircraft. Bulgaria's government aims to station the US
aircraft at the Bezmer military facility, about 260 km (160 miles) southeast of
the capital Sofia. The US and Iran have intensified strikes since an interim
ceasefire deal signed a month ago unraveled, raising the possibility of a return
to all-out war.
Jordan Army Says Intercepted Five Iranian Drones
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The Jordanian military announced on Tuesday it had intercepted five Iranian
drones, the latest attack by Iran on countries in the region following the
resumption of the Middle East war. The source said the operation caused no
casualties or material damage, according to Jordan’s Petra news agency. The
armed forces continue to monitor the country’s airspace, maintain operational
readiness and take the necessary measures to deal with any airborne object that
poses a threat to the kingdom’s security and the safety of its citizens, added
the source. Iran's Revolutionary Guards confirmed the attack, saying in a
statement that they had targeted a complex housing US forces in Jordan.
Iran: We Will Target U.S. Interests If Nuclear Sites Are
Attacked
Asharq Al-Awsat / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Iranian state media reported on Tuesday that Iran's Supreme Joint Military
Command announced it would target the interests of the United States and its
allies if Washington launches attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities. The
statement from the command—known as the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Islamic Republic of Iran—follows U.S. President Donald Trump's declaration that
the United States will strike the Peakaxe Mountain area "very soon."
U.S. Military Announces Start of New Strikes on Iran
Asharq Al-Awsat / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The U.S. military announced the launch of its latest wave of strikes on Iran
early Wednesday morning, marking the eleventh consecutive night of operations.
The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) stated in a release that "these strikes are
aimed at continuing to undermine Iran's capability to threaten commercial
navigation in the Strait of Hormuz." Iranian news agencies reported targets
struck west of the city of Tabriz in northwestern Iran, and the southern city of
Sirik, alongside the activation of air defense systems in Tehran to counter
hostile targets.
Pentagon: War on Iran Has Cost Washington $37.5 Billion So
Far
Asharq Al-Awsat / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated on Tuesday that the U.S. war on
Iran has cost $37.5 billion to date—an increase of approximately $8 billion from
the previous public estimate. Hegseth briefed lawmakers that this figure also
incorporates projected costs through September 30, according to Reuters. This
marks the first time the Secretary, appearing before the Senate Appropriations
Committee alongside Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Cane, faced
public questioning from lawmakers since U.S. forces resumed operations against
Iran earlier this month.
President Trump announced the end of the ceasefire on July 8, reigniting the
confrontation amid mounting U.S. casualties. An Iranian attack late last week on
a base in Jordan resulted in the deaths of two U.S. service members and the
disappearance of a third, marking the fourth attack targeting American forces
there within five days. The New York Times reported that U.S. officials indicate
the frequency of attacks and resulting casualties demonstrate that Iranian
forces still possess substantial missile stockpiles and have grown increasingly
adept at evading U.S. air defense systems. The strikes have also injured dozens
of service members and damaged several helicopters—losses the newspaper noted
the Department of Defense was slow to disclose. Senator Murray, the top Democrat
on the Appropriations Committee, warned that the confrontation with Iran could
devolve into "another forever war." According to her prepared remarks, she
stated that Trump has declared more than 40 times that an agreement was near and
the war would end quickly, yet is now requesting tens of billions in additional
funding without providing clear guarantees regarding the duration or conclusion
of operations. This funding request comes amid intensive U.S. strikes, dwindling
stockpiles of certain munitions, and rising fuel prices driven by disruptions to
oil shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Israel Tracks Transfer of Thousands of Centrifuges to "Peakaxe Mountain"
Asharq Al-Awsat / July 21, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Israeli intelligence estimates reveal that Iran has transferred thousands of
centrifuges into the tunnels of "Peakaxe Mountain" near Natanz following the
strikes that battered its nuclear program in June, fueling concerns that the
move is part of efforts to safeguard and rebuild its capabilities. The Wall
Street Journal, citing Israeli and American officials, reported that Israel
directly briefed the United States on its intelligence assessment, noting that
the transfer took place last fall following U.S. and Israeli strikes targeting
Iran's three primary nuclear sites. The origin of the centrifuges Israel claims
were moved to the site remains unclear, as does whether they came from reserve
stock at primary nuclear facilities or from equipment that survived the strikes.
Furthermore, there is no public evidence that Iran has begun operating an
enrichment facility inside the mountain. Moving centrifuges into the tunnels
does not necessarily mean Tehran has established a new enrichment facility; they
may have been placed there simply to protect them from further attacks. However,
officials and experts expressed concern that the site could be used in the
future to store nuclear equipment, assemble centrifuges, or house a small
facility to produce fissile material. Peakaxe Mountain—also known as Pikaks,
Pikeh, or Koulang Mountain—is located roughly two kilometers from the Natanz
nuclear complex, which was shelled during last June's war as well as the round
of fighting that began on February 28. The International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) stated that the above-ground enrichment facility at Natanz was destroyed,
while the underground facility beneath it likely suffered severe damage.
However, the facility under construction inside Peakaxe Mountain has not been
targeted in either round of fighting, according to the Institute for Science and
International Security (ISIS). ISIS reported that activity at the site has
continued at a steady pace over the past 15 months, encompassing truck traffic,
tunnel fortification, and the establishment of a security perimeter around the
complex.
Institute President David Albright stated it is "plausible" that Iran has
transferred centrifuges into the site's tunnels. Satellite imagery analyzed by
the institute shows two main tunnel complexes and at least four entrances, with
estimates indicating portions of the facility lie at least 100 meters beneath
the mountain. Iran began constructing the facility in 2020 following an
explosion it attributed to sabotage that damaged a centrifuge assembly building
at Natanz. Ali Akbar Salehi, then-head of the Atomic Energy Organization of
Iran, announced that the country was building a larger, more advanced hall
inside the mountain to manufacture advanced centrifuges. Nevertheless, the
ultimate purpose of the facility remains undetermined. ISIS noted that
construction work continues, but it is impossible to definitively state when the
site will become operational or what specific activities will be conducted
inside. The institute added that Iran might use it for a smaller centrifuge
assembly facility if it moves to rebuild its manufacturing capabilities.
The IAEA indicated that Iran has not permitted inspectors access to the site or
provided detailed information regarding its activities or plans. Director
General Rafael Grossi noted that Tehran announced in 2021 its intention to
conduct nuclear activities there, but has failed to provide clear answers
regarding the project's true nature. An Israeli military official familiar with
targeting efforts remarked that previous strikes did not sufficiently target
work associated with nuclear weapons, and further action remains
required—including against Peakaxe Mountain. President Trump stated that the
United States is monitoring the site and remains prepared to strike it,
threatening in a July 13 interview to destroy it, despite acknowledging that
Washington observes no active operations inside at present. Experts suggest that
the depth of the tunnels and reinforced entrances could complicate any direct
airstrike, even using bunker-buster munitions. Potential targets might include
tunnel entrances, power, ventilation, and communication facilities, and
supporting surface infrastructure, rather than attempting to breach the mountain
directly to reach the buried complex below.
Controversy Ahead of Netanyahu's New York Visit: Israel
Responds to Arrest Threats
Al-Arabiya.net — Marwa Al-Wajih / July 21, 2026 (Google
translation from Arabic)
Israel's Ambassador to New York, Danny Danon, asserted that N ew York City Mayor
Zohran Mamdani (Democrat) "has no authority" to arrest Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu during his upcoming visit to the city this September,
dismissing the mayor's threat as "merely a political stunt."
In an interview with NewsNation on Tuesday, Danon stated that Mamdani possesses
no legal basis to execute such a measure, pointing out that the United States is
not a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued an arrest
warrant for Netanyahu in November 2024 over allegations linked to the war in
Gaza. The Israeli ambassador added that the ICC warrant grants no domestic
enforcement powers to the mayor of New York, noting that the UN Headquarters
Agreement in New York permits heads of state and government to visit the city to
participate in General Assembly meetings. Furthermore, Danon accused Mamdani of
describing Jewish organizations as "monsters moving suspicious funds" and
employing anti-Semitic rhetoric, while also accusing him of "mourning Hamas
elements, legitimizing terrorism, and promoting meetings between New York City
officials and representatives of the Iranian regime at the UN." Danon's remarks
came after the New York City mayor reiterated his stance regarding handling
Netanyahu should he visit the city. During a press conference on Tuesday to
announce the "Open for Small Business" initiative—which includes over 50 reforms
aimed at cutting bureaucracy and expanding support for small businesses—Mamdani
emphasized that Netanyahu is "an individual subject to an International Criminal
Court arrest warrant on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity,"
affirming that calling him the "architect of the genocide in Gaza" is not a
personal assessment but based on the public record. Not the First Time In an
interview with The New York Times, Mamdani stated that his administration is
engaged in an "active discussion" with the city's legal department to examine
whether legal authority exists to arrest the Israeli Prime Minister should he
attend UN General Assembly meetings.
Mamdani described Netanyahu as the "architect of the genocide against
Palestinians in Gaza," asserting that the ICC warrant rests on war crimes and
crimes against humanity charges. The mayor emphasized that his administration
will abide by applicable local laws, clarifying that his position is tied not
merely to Netanyahu personally, but to the principle of upholding any ICC arrest
warrant.
Backing from Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump intervened in the controversy, asserting that
Netanyahu "will not be arrested under any circumstances" while present in the
United States. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump stated that the
Israeli Prime Minister will face no such action on American soil, maintaining
that focus should remain squarely on confronting Iran. U.S. officials
corroborated that Washington is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the
ICC, and local authorities hold no legal standing to execute an international
arrest warrant against a visiting foreign head of government.
Israeli Outrage
Netanyahu's office lambasted Mamdani's statements, contending that the ICC "has
no jurisdiction" over Israel or the United States and dismissing the arrest
warrant as entirely illegitimate. A statement issued by the Prime Minister's
office declared that Mamdani should focus on New York City's domestic issues
instead of attacking Israel, accusing him of targeting "the leader of the Jewish
state and the only democracy in the Middle East."
September Test
Attention is increasingly turning to next September's UN General Assembly in New
York, where Netanyahu's prospective visit is shaping up to be a profound legal
and political test concerning the jurisdictional limits of local authorities and
the nature of U.S. engagement with ICC rulings. The ICC issued arrest warrants
in November 2024 for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant
over war crimes and crimes against humanity charges connected to the war in
Gaza—charges vigorously rejected by Israel.
Gaza Civil Defense Says Israeli Strikes Kill 12,
Including Family of Six
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Gaza's civil defense agency and witnesses said Israeli strikes killed 12 people,
including a family of six, in the Palestinian territory on Tuesday. A fragile
ceasefire remains in place between Israel and Palestinian group Hamas, but it
has not halted the violence in the Gaza Strip, and efforts to secure a lasting
agreement to end the war have stalled. One airstrike hit a house belonging to
the Al-Masri family in central Gaza City in the north, according to the
territory's civil defense agency, which operates as a rescue service under
Hamas. Witnesses said six members of the family were killed, including four
children. Gaza's Al-Shifa hospital said it had received the bodies and the
wounded.
An Israeli military source told AFP that a strike had targeted "a Hamas
terrorist" in the area, without elaborating. At the site, AFP journalists
observed extensive damage to the charred multi-storey house, whose roof had
almost completely collapsed. Relatives gathered at the hospital. Some wept as
the body of a girl was placed in a white plastic bag and laid alongside the
other bodies wrapped in thick blankets. The "attack took us by surprise", said
Ahmed al-Masri, who identified himself to AFP as a survivor of the strike. "I
could hear the children crying out for help, yet I was unable to save them," he
added. "My brother's entire family was wiped from the civil registry: him, his
wife and their four children." He said he had helped his children escape through
a window, while flames devoured the building. Another witness, Youssef al-Masri,
said the strike took place around 2:00 am. "While we were asleep, we heard the
sound of a massive explosion and found that the house had been shelled,
destroyed and engulfed in flames," he said. The civil defense agency said six
other people were killed on Tuesday in another Israeli strike in Gaza, where
violence has persisted despite the ceasefire. The United Nations said on Tuesday
that Israeli attacks had killed at least 57 Palestinians from July 13 to 20.
"The Israeli military has intensified its attacks in Gaza in recent days," UN
rights office spokesman Thameen Al-Kheetan told reporters in Geneva.
"Nowhere is safe for Palestinians in Gaza."
The Israeli army has in recent days announced a series of strikes in the
territory targeting Hamas and Islamic Jihad members who it said were involved in
the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that set off the war, or the holding of
hostages after. At least 1,168 Palestinians have been killed since the truce
took effect last October, according to Gaza's health ministry, which operates
under Hamas authority and whose figures are considered reliable by the United
Nations. The Israeli military says it has lost five soldiers in Gaza over the
same period, as well as one civilian contractor. Restrictions imposed on media
outlets and limited access in Gaza prevent AFP from independently verifying
tolls or freely covering the violence there.
Israel Is Building a Miles-Long Earthen Barrier Inside Gaza, Entrenching Its
Division
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The Israeli military is quietly but quickly building a giant earthen barrier
separating the over 50% of the Gaza Strip it controls from the rest of the
territory, according to satellite imagery, further entrenching the division of
the tiny Palestinian enclave. More than 23 kilometers (14 miles) have been
constructed in recent months, running through Palestinian communities demolished
by the military. That is equivalent to more than half the length of the coastal
strip, which is some 40 kilometers (25 miles) long and 11 kilometers (7 miles)
wide, and home to over 2 million Palestinians.
When presented with the satellite images, Israel’s military confirmed to The
Associated Press it has built a physical barrier in the area of the so-called
yellow line, the boundary to which Israeli troops withdrew under the October
ceasefire deal with Hamas. The line was envisioned in the US-backed agreement as
a temporary division of the territory pending a fuller Israeli withdrawal. But
as the truce stagnates, it appears Israel is digging in, heightening Palestinian
fears that the line is morphing into a border. Neither the US Central Command,
which is tasked with monitoring the ceasefire, nor the Board of Peace, the body
led by US President Donald Trump meant to eventually oversee Gaza, would comment
on the barrier. Along with the barrier, the military told AP it has developed a
“security zone” around the line, equipped with intelligence and technological
assets. It declined to give details on the route of the barrier when asked how
far it would be extended. It said the barrier aimed to prevent infiltration and
protect Israeli troops and Israeli communities near Gaza.This satellite image
from Planet Labs PBC shows a section of an earthen barrier being built by the
Israeli military in the northern Gaza Strip, July 8, 2026. To the left is the
demolished town of Beit Lahia, and at right a defunct sewage treatment plant.
(Planet Labs PBC via AP)
Construction of the barrier is proceeding rapidly
Since the ceasefire deal took hold, Palestinians in Gaza have feared Israel
would not return the area of Gaza it controls. But few appear to be aware of the
berms now being built around them because of the danger of even approaching that
area. A portion of the berm network in southern Gaza was extended by more than 2
kilometers (1.2 miles) in two weeks this month, according to the satellite
images provided by Planet Labs PBC. The berm was about 500 meters (0.3 miles)
long on July 1. By July 15, it was about 2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles), splicing
the Israel-controlled ruins of the city of Rafah from Muwasi, site of some of
the largest Palestinian tent camps. If construction continues in its current
direction, it will join up with the longest stretch of the barrier, which runs
nearly unbroken for around 17 kilometers (10 miles) from the southern city of
Khan Younis to near Gaza City, in the north. Construction began on that stretch
in February, and it appears work to extend it further south is continuing,
according to the satellite images. More than a kilometer (0.6 miles) was added
between June 21 and July 7, running close to an Israeli military base built on
the ruins of the town of Bani Suheila, near Khan Younis.
In the far north of Gaza, several unconnected stretches of berms run just
outside the largely leveled town of Beit Lahia. The height of the berms in each
place remains unclear. In some places, the barriers appear to run outside the
yellow line. Israel has mostly destroyed and depopulated the half of Gaza it
controls. Gaza’s population has been crowded into the coastal area west of the
yellow line, most living in squalid tent camps and dependent on aid. On the
other side of the line, satellite imagery shows that Israeli forces have leveled
the vast majority of buildings using bulldozers and explosives, virtually
erasing several towns and Rafah, once home to more than a quarter million
people. They have carved new road networks and erected new bases on the ruins of
Palestinian towns. Agricultural land has also been destroyed. The Israeli
military says it is demolishing infrastructure used by Hamas. The yellow line
was never precisely defined, whether in the ceasefire deal or by Israeli or US
officials, and it has been inconsistently marked on the ground. The military
told AP it is working to clearly mark the route of the yellow line to “reduce
friction and prevent harm to uninvolved individuals.”Israeli forces have killed
Palestinians who came close to the line or crossed it. The Israeli military says
it fires on those believed to be militants threatening its troops. But those
killed have included children and other civilians seemingly unaware of the line.
Some soldiers have said they don’t always know who they are firing on and have
orders to kill anyone crossing the boundary.A satellite image from Planet Labs
PBC shows a section of an earthen barrier being built by the Israeli military,
seen starting at top center of image and moving down at an angle to the left,
near the city of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip, July 7, 2026. Two
Israeli military bases are visible in the demolished town of Bani Suheila.
(Planet Labs PBC via AP)
Israeli strikes have killed hundreds of Palestinians since the ceasefire
Israeli forces have killed more than 1,100 Palestinians since the ceasefire
began, most in airstrikes and drone strikes around Gaza. The Israeli military
says it is targeting fighters. Militant attacks have killed five Israeli
soldiers in the same period. Under the ceasefire deal, Israel is eventually
supposed to withdraw its troops further to the very edges of Gaza, to be
replaced by an international security force. But implementation of the deal has
been stalled for months. A former UN diplomat now in charge of coordinating the
ceasefire has blamed Hamas’ failure to disarm. Sporadic talks to reach a formula
for decommissioning its weapons appear to have made little progress, and Hamas
accuses Israel in turn of violating the ceasefire. The war began after Hamas-led
fighters attacked Israeli communities on Oct. 7, 2023, killing around 1,200
people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 others hostage. Israel responded with a
punishing military offensive that has killed more than 73,000 people, according
to the Gaza Health Ministry. The ministry, which was part of the recently
dissolved Hamas-run government, maintains detailed records viewed as generally
reliable by UN agencies and international organizations. It does not distinguish
between civilians and fighters but says women and children make up around half
of all fatalities.
Kuwait Summons Iranian Envoy to Protest Attack on Kuwaiti Tanker
Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Kuwait's foreign ministry summoned Iran's ambassador on Tuesday to protest
against what it described as Tehran's targeting of Kuwaiti tanker Kaifan while
it was transiting the Strait of Hormuz a day earlier. The ministry said in a
statement that several members of the tanker's crew suffered injuries as a
result of the attack. Also, Kuwait strongly condemned the statements made by the
so-called military spokesperson of the Houthi militia, which accused Saudi
Arabia of besieging the Yemeni people and imposing a maritime blockade. In a
statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kuwait reaffirmed its full
solidarity with the Kingdom and its support for all measures taken to protect
the Kingdom's security and sovereignty, stressing that Saudi Arabia's security
is an integral part of Kuwait's security and that of the Gulf Cooperation
Council states, SPA reported. Kuwait called on the international community to
ensure the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions, particularly
Resolution 2216 on Yemen and Resolution 2722 on the protection and freedom of
navigation rights in the Red Sea. It emphasized that freedom of navigation in
international waterways is a right guaranteed under international law and the
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Iraqi Prime Minister to Strengthen Ties with Regional
Neighbors
Baghdad: Fadhel al-Nashmi/Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi will visit Iran and Türkiye in the coming days
after concluding an official trip to Washington, where he met US President
Donald Trump and senior administration officials, government spokesman Haider
al-Aboudi announced Monday.
Tehran has traditionally been the next stop for Iraqi prime ministers after
visits to Washington. The visits come after Iranian figures and Tehran-aligned
Iraqi allies sharply criticized al-Zaidi over his White House meeting and
Trump’s remarks about former Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani and former
Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) deputy chief Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Al-Aboudi
told the Iraqi News Agency that the visits are part of the government’s program
to strengthen Iraq’s ties with neighboring countries and regional and
international partners, particularly following what he described as the positive
results of al-Zaidi’s official visit to the United States. He said the talks
would cover bilateral issues as well as regional developments and ongoing
efforts to reduce tensions and promote security and stability. Iraq’s balanced
relations with regional actors, he added, position it to support dialogue and
help ease tensions.Addressing the issue of limiting arms to the state, al-Aboudi
said it is “a sovereign Iraqi matter” to be managed in accordance with the
constitution and the law, through an independent national decision, as part of
the government’s program to strengthen state sovereignty and the rule of law.
Government and media circles, meanwhile, say al-Zaidi is expected to raise with
Iranian officials the issue of dissolving armed factions and surrendering their
weapons before the scheduled withdrawal of US and international coalition forces
from Iraq at the end of September.
Many Iraqi observers believe dismantling the factions and disarming them can
only be achieved through an understanding with Tehran, given its influence over
most armed groups that oppose disarmament. Others doubt al-Zaidi can secure
meaningful concessions from Iran, particularly as Tehran faces mounting US
military and economic pressure. Some also believe Iran could deliberately put
him in an awkward position in response to his restrained handling of Trump’s
remarks about Soleimani and al-Muhandis. During last week’s White House meeting,
Trump boasted about ordering the January 2020 strike near Baghdad International
Airport that killed Soleimani and al-Muhandis. Jokingly, he asked al-Zaidi
whether he had done Iraq “a favor.” Al-Zaidi replied that he had not been
involved in politics at the time and that his visit was focused on the future, a
response that drew sharp criticism from Iran and its Iraqi allies. Among the
harshest critics was Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Iran’s supreme
leader, who described the visit as “regrettable” and said it had harmed the
Iraqi people’s struggle. Amid the criticism, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas
Araghchi sought to ease tensions during a phone call Sunday with Iraqi Foreign
Minister Fuad Hussein, stressing that the remarks directed at al-Zaidi were
“personal and unofficial” and would not undermine the two countries’ strategic
relationship, according to Iran’s IRNA news agency. Iraq’s Foreign Ministry
issued no statement on the call.
The Latest LCCC analysis & editorials from
miscellaneous sources published
on 21-22 July/2026
Despite its military support for Iran… China avoids a security role in the Gulf,
leaving the arena to the West
Riad Kahwaji/Al-Nahar/July 21, 2026 (Google translation from
Arabic)
As American missiles and bombs resume pounding Iranian cities after a brief
pause, many observers around the world, and even Iranian officials, are turning
their attention to Beijing's actions and whether it will come to the aid of its
strategic partner. However, in the previous war, China did not deploy any
aircraft carriers, warships, or bombers to assist Tehran. Instead, it limited
itself to providing technical and intelligence support, which enhanced the
effectiveness of drones and ballistic missiles. China chose forms of support
that allowed it to maintain plausible deniability before its allies in the Gulf
states, with whom it has strong economic ties. At the same time, it provided its
Iranian ally with military support in a manner and scale that suited its own
interests, not necessarily those desired by the Iranian leadership. According to
reports in May by The New York Times and CNN, China supplied components for
manufacturing suicide drones for Iran and approved the sale of advanced
shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles to Tehran. It also contributed
intelligence and technical support that enabled Tehran to target strategically
important sites in the Gulf and Israel. Therefore, China cannot be considered a
neutral party in the recent war, although it did not demonstrate the direct
military commitment that some, particularly within the Iranian regime, had
anticipated. According to a recent study published by the East Asia Forum at the
Australian National University, China chose not to become directly involved in
the recent war, instead seeking to de-escalate tensions and protect oil supplies
from the Arabian Gulf to its ports. It did not play any security role or offer
any services to provide a new security system for protecting navigation in the
Strait of Hormuz. Rather, it preferred to remain in the background, engaging in
diplomatic efforts while continuing to provide technical and intelligence
support to Tehran. The study indicates that Beijing presents itself to the Gulf
Arab states as a major power on par with the United States, preferring soft
power (diplomacy) over hard power (military force). According to the study, the
Middle East remains far removed from Beijing's current priorities, which revolve
around strengthening its national (internal) defense capabilities and
consolidating its dominance in Southeast Asia and the Far East. The Middle East
remains geographically distant from Beijing, and its importance is limited to
energy resources and trade relations. Consequently, China is not yet ready to
play any security role there, unlike Washington, which, along with its Western
allies, continues to act as the security guarantor in the Gulf. While this may
change at some point in the future, the countries of the region want a security
partner now, not tomorrow.
Meanwhile, some military analysts believe that Beijing is closely monitoring US
military operations to understand the performance and capabilities of the
weapons used and to assess the effectiveness of US military doctrine and
tactics. According to strategic analyst Peter Singer in an article published on
the Defense One website, Beijing is attempting to identify weaknesses in
American systems and tactics in the war against Iran and learn from its
mistakes. He adds that the war revealed numerous problems and challenges faced
by American forces, which were based on outdated concepts and a lack of
understanding of the scale of the threat and the diverse offensive and defensive
uses of suicide drones and ballistic missiles, especially when used in large
numbers. The most significant revelation of the recent war was the rapid
depletion of American stockpiles of various types of air defense missiles and
Tomahawk cruise missiles. Naturally, this prompted Washington to approve
contingency plans to bolster its defense industries and strengthen its supply
chain for weapons and various systems. Consequently, China benefits from
remaining outside military conflicts to learn from the mistakes of others, while
simultaneously forcing Washington to deplete its military reserves and strain
its economy. Conversely, American and Western forces gain valuable experience
from their field operations, enabling them to identify and correct flaws in
their plans, adjust their armament and training programs based on these lessons,
and improve their supply chains and military manufacturing to prevent shortages
of ammunition, weapons, and spare parts in future wars. This will, of course,
benefit America's and Western powers' security partners who contributed to the
defense of some Gulf states, such as Britain and France. Despite some Gulf
states' resentment towards Washington for the limited strategic gains from a war
they were drawn into without prior notice, they recognize the importance of
their military partnership with the US. Meanwhile, Tehran has no option but to
rely on limited support from China.
Diplomacy Apologizes, Missiles Launch
Ali Obaid Al-Hamli/Al-Bayan/July 21, 2026 (Google translation
from Arabic)
One of the strangest statements we heard from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas
Araqchi was his response to a journalist's question about whether they feared
losing their relationship with Qatar and Oman due to their attacks on them.
These two countries are mediating between Iran and the United States. He said
that what happened was not Iran's choice, and that he had instructed the armed
forces to be cautious about the targets they select. He added that Iranian
military units have become independent and isolated, operating according to
general instructions they received in advance. He asked their brothers in the
region—meaning the Gulf states they are bombing—to understand their position as
neighboring countries with whom they have good relations, because they are
acting to protect themselves. This statement is not ordinary diplomatic talk
that can be categorized as an attempt to justify an embarrassing political
position. Rather, it is a highly dangerous admission that reveals an aspect of
the turmoil plaguing the decision-making system within Iran. This is enough to
raise many questions about who governs Iran, who makes the decision to launch
missiles and drones, and whether the Foreign Ministry, or even the Iranian
government, has any real authority over the forces conducting military
operations beyond its borders. The statement is not meant to reassure the
countries of the region, as its author might assume, but rather is an additional
source of concern. When a country's foreign minister admits that its military
units operate independently and in isolation, it means that this country does
not have complete control over its weapons, or that it is trying to evade
responsibility for their use. In either case, the matter appears extremely
serious. Strangely, Araqchi asks the countries of the region to understand
Iran's position because, according to him, his country is defending itself
against the United States. But this logic distorts reality and treats the
sovereignty of neighboring countries as if it were a negotiable issue. The
presence of American facilities or forces on a country's territory does not give
Iran the right to attack that country, nor does it absolve it of responsibility
for the consequences of launching its missiles and drones against it. This is
especially true given that the Gulf Arab states have repeatedly affirmed that
they will not allow their territories and airspace to be used to attack Iran.
Countries are not open arenas for settling scores between rival powers.
What Araqchi said reflects a long-standing and recurring contradiction within
the Iranian regime. Iranian diplomats speak of good neighborliness, dialogue,
and respect for national sovereignty, while military leaders speak the language
of missiles, drones, threats, and the closure of maritime routes. When attacks
occur, diplomats appear to offer apologies and explanations, as if the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs were merely a firefighting apparatus for the fires ignited by
the Iranian military establishment. This contradiction is not simply a
difference in style between a diplomat and a general. It is a genuine duality of
power and rhetoric. The Revolutionary Guard enjoys broad military, political,
and economic influence and is directly linked to the supreme leadership, while
the government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs often appear incapable of
controlling or anticipating military movements. If Araqchi's statement is
accurate, the problem is far greater than it appears, because the region is
facing military units carrying out general orders without sufficient
communication with their political leadership. However, if his statement is
merely an excuse to evade responsibility, the problem is even more serious,
because it means that Tehran is using institutional chaos as a political cover
to justify aggression against its neighbors. International relations are not
built on phone calls made by the Iranian foreign minister after missile and
drone strikes, but rather on respect for borders, sovereignty, and international
agreements. An apology does not change the fact that an attack is a decision for
which the state that launched it bears full responsibility. Araqchi intended his
statement to justify, but it revealed; he intended to reassure, but it alarmed;
he intended to absolve his country of responsibility, but he confirmed that
within Iran there are voices speaking of peace while hands simultaneously press
missile buttons and launch drones. This is the dilemma facing the countries of
the region with Iran: we do not know which Iran to believe—the Iran of diplomats
who speak of good neighborliness and shared interests, or the Iran of the
military who are turning the region into a battlefield? Until Tehran answers
this question with clear actions, every Iranian call for dialogue will remain
shrouded in doubt, and every outstretched diplomatic hand will remain
questionable, as long as the other hand is launching missiles and drones.
The United Nations Has Run Out of Alibis
Pierre Rehov/Gatestone Institute/July 21, 2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22692/united-nations-alibis
For the United Nations, voting patterns, internal investigations and its own
decisions this year no longer support the fiction of neutrality. An UNRWA school
in Gaza sat above a Hamas tunnel shaft and three anti-tank positions, and its
own principal was on the payroll of both institutions at once -- a fact that
American investigators, not the UN, brought to light.
The pattern is old: during the oil-for-food scandal, a mid-level program
director faced US prosecution while the officials who managed the program from
above kept their positions. When UN failures surface, line staff absorb the
exposure. The people who set the policy rarely do.
The arithmetic alone dismantles the pretense of balance. In 2025 the UN General
Assembly (UNGA) adopted 15 resolutions targeting Israel, and only 11 addressing
the rest of the planet combined -- a tally covering North Korea, Iran, Myanmar,
Russia and the United States together. From 2015 through 2024, the total reached
173 resolutions against Israel, compared to 80 for all other member states
combined.
On November 20, 2025, the UNGA's Fourth Committee passed six resolutions
condemning Israel while producing not a single resolution on Sudan, where
fighting has killed more than 150,000 people and driven 12 million from their
homes. The bloc that commands the UNGA's automatic majority sets these
priorities; the scale of actual human suffering has nothing to do with it.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near
East (UNRWA) supplies the starkest illustration. After October 7, the agency's
own internal review found that nine employees may have taken part in the
massacre -- a figure American investigators have since made look negligible.
"The USAID Office of Inspector General (USAID OIG), a statutorily independent
law enforcement and oversight entity, has referred for suspension/debarment
consideration the names of 101 current or former staff at the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) for participation in the
October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks and/or affiliation with the military wing
(al-Qassam Brigades) of Hamas. Among the individuals referred were UNRWA school
principals, teachers, security personnel, attendants, psychosocial counselors,
and medical professionals..." — USAID, June 5, 2026.
Groups tracking UNRWA's personnel put the true scale of Hamas penetration
considerably higher, closer to 1,500 employees still drawing a UN salary.
[T]he "Board of Peace," the body now overseeing Gaza's postwar administration,
announced that UNRWA "has no place in the new Gaza" and described continued
dependence on the agency as an obstacle to recovery rather than a form of
relief.
The UN's largest financial scandal, the oil-for-food program, saw then Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein extract $1.8 billion in kickbacks starting in 1996,
with help from more than 2,000 companies... The program's own director was later
indicted in the United States for bribery; senior UN officials mostly walked
away untouched.
Sexual exploitation by peacekeepers followed an identical script, with nearly
2,000 allegations accumulated over 12 years and only a fraction of the accused
ever serving prison time.
The historical ledger is worse than the bureaucratic one. In 1994, UN
representatives and peacekeepers watched as more than 800,000 people were
murdered in Rwanda over roughly 100 days, while its own commander in the field
begged for reinforcements and was refused.
Rwanda, Bosnia, Haiti and Gaza share the same organizational reflex: investigate
quietly, discipline the lowest-ranking staff available, and leave the people who
set policy in place.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council after October 7
that the Hamas attacks "did not happen in a vacuum," a formulation he has since
echoed on UNRWA's failures -- careful language built to avoid naming the
agency's own culpability.
The United Nations was founded to make atrocities costly for those who commit or
enable them. It has instead built a machine that absorbs those costs internally,
so long as the people responsible sit inside the institution or represent the
states that control its votes.
The record speaks plainly enough on its own. What remains open is how much
longer the rest of the world intends to keep paying for it.
An UNRWA school in Gaza sat above a Hamas tunnel shaft and three anti-tank
positions, and its own principal was on the payroll of both institutions at once
-- a fact that American investigators, not the UN, brought to light.
Institutions built to prevent atrocities eventually face the question of what
they actually protect. For the United Nations, voting patterns, internal
investigations and its own decisions this year no longer support the fiction of
neutrality. An UNRWA school in Gaza sat above a Hamas tunnel shaft and three
anti-tank positions, and its own principal was on the payroll of both
institutions at once -- a fact that American investigators, not the UN, brought
to light.
The pattern is old: during the oil-for-food scandal, a mid-level program
director faced US prosecution while the officials who managed the program from
above kept their positions. When UN failures surface, line staff absorb the
exposure. The people who set the policy rarely do.
The arithmetic alone dismantles the pretense of balance. In 2025 the UN General
Assembly (UNGA) adopted 15 resolutions targeting Israel, and only 11 addressing
the rest of the planet combined -- a tally covering North Korea, Iran, Myanmar,
Russia and the United States together. From 2015 through 2024, the total reached
173 resolutions against Israel, compared to 80 for all other member states
combined. The UN Human Rights Council has run comparable numbers since 2006,
adopting 112 resolutions against Israel compared to 45 against Syria, despite a
civil war there that killed hundreds of thousands.
On November 20, 2025, the UNGA's Fourth Committee passed six resolutions
condemning Israel while producing not a single resolution on Sudan, where
fighting has killed more than 150,000 people and driven 12 million from their
homes. The bloc that commands the UNGA's automatic majority sets these
priorities; the scale of actual human suffering has nothing to do with it.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near
East (UNRWA) supplies the starkest illustration. After October 7, the agency's
own internal review found that nine employees may have taken part in the
massacre -- a figure that American investigators have since made look
negligible. According to USAID:
"The USAID Office of Inspector General (USAID OIG), a statutorily independent
law enforcement and oversight entity, has referred for suspension/debarment
consideration the names of 101 current or former staff at the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) for participation in the
October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks and/or affiliation with the military wing
(al-Qassam Brigades) of Hamas. Among the individuals referred were UNRWA school
principals, teachers, security personnel, attendants, psychosocial counselors,
and medical professionals, including:
A deputy school principal serving as an al-Qassam deputy company commander in
the Ain Gallout/5th infantry battalion.
A deputy school principal serving as squad leader for the Khan Younis
Brigade/2nd infantry battalion.
A teacher serving as squad leader in Hamas' military security
department/intelligence unit who tracked assignment of explosive devices.
A teacher serving as a platoon commander of the Central Brigade/Al Quds 2nd
Battalion.
A math & computer teacher with ties to an al-Qassam intelligence squad.
A teacher with expertise as a sniper for Hamas.
A teacher and Hamas soldier with orders to bring two anti-tank missiles to a
prescribed location during the October 7 terror attacks.
A deputy school principal serving as a platoon commander in Hamas' Nuseirat
battalion with communications responsibilities on October 7th.
A school principal assigned to the chemical department of a Hamas military
manufacturing unit whose school had three anti-tank positions and a tunnel shaft
located under the facility."
One of those referred, Hafez Mousa Mohammed Mousa, coordinated with fellow
operatives during the October 7 massacre while running an UNRWA school, and
became the first person affiliated with a UN humanitarian agency ever debarred
by the US government for terrorism. Under mounting pressure, UNRWA itself
dismissed 70 staff linked to terrorist organizations in Gaza in the weeks before
the referral was published, an admission that followed the release of evidence
rather than the agency's own vetting. Groups tracking UNRWA's personnel put the
true scale of Hamas penetration considerably higher, closer to 1,500 employees
still drawing a UN salary.
The reckoning caught up with the agency in public on July 1, 2026, when the
"Board of Peace," the body now overseeing Gaza's postwar administration,
announced that UNRWA "has no place in the new Gaza" and described continued
dependence on the agency as an obstacle to recovery rather than a form of
relief.Washington's ambassador for UN reform, Jeff Bartos, told the annual
pledging conference the same day that member states funding UNRWA had spent
years choosing incitement, terrorism and stagnation over an alternative, and
warned that history would remember the choice. Within hours, the Palestinian
Authority and the Arab League rejected the announcement and insisted that
UNRWA's mandate cannot be dissolved by an administrative statement.
Whatever the outcome of this dispute, an institution long marketed as
irreplaceable is being dismantled in real time by the very coalition managing
the territory it was built to serve.
This state of affairs is not new behavior wearing new language. The UN's largest
financial scandal, the oil-for-food program, saw then Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein extract $1.8 billion in kickbacks starting in 1996, with help from more
than 2,000 companies, while the Volcker inquiry found that weak UN oversight and
Security Council paralysis had made the scheme possible. The program's own
director was later indicted in the United States for bribery; senior UN
officials mostly walked away untouched.
UN peacekeeping missions have produced a smaller, steadier version of the same
pattern: a procurement task force documented more than $630 million in tainted
contracts and two dozen confirmed corruption schemes, only to be shut down in
2008 after member states with implicated nationals refused to renew its
mandate.Sexual exploitation by peacekeepers followed an identical script, with
nearly 2,000 allegations accumulated over 12 years and only a fraction of the
accused ever serving prison time.
The historical ledger is worse than the bureaucratic one. In 1994, UN
representatives and peacekeepers watched as more than 800,000 people were
murdered in Rwanda over roughly 100 days, while its own commander in the field
begged for reinforcements and was refused. A year later, the UN declared the
Bosnian town of Srebrenica a protected zone, then denied the air support its
peacekeepers requested as 8,000 men and boys were murdered under the UN flag. In
Haiti, UN peacekeepers introduced cholera into a country that had been free of
the disease for a century; nearly 10,000 people died before the organization
admitted any responsibility --- six years after the outbreak began. The
zero-tolerance policies announced afterward changed little about how missions
were run or how misconduct was punished.
Rwanda, Bosnia, Haiti and Gaza share the same organizational reflex: investigate
quietly, discipline the lowest-ranking staff available, and leave the people who
set policy in place.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council after October 7
that the Hamas attacks "did not happen in a vacuum," a formulation he has since
echoed on UNRWA's failures -- careful language built to avoid naming the
agency's own culpability.
The United Nations was founded to make atrocities costly for those who commit or
enable them. It has instead built a machine that absorbs those costs internally,
so long as the people responsible sit inside the institution or represent the
states that control its votes.
Even the coalition now running Gaza's transition has concluded that one of the
UN's flagship agencies does not belong there. This verdict came from the "Board
of Peace," the body tasked with cleaning up what the war left behind -- not from
Jerusalem or from Washington's harshest critics of the UN. The record speaks
plainly enough on its own. What remains open is how much longer the rest of the
world intends to keep paying for it.
**Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter,
novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including
"Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from
French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre
- La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced
and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern
war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of
Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of
ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the
October 7 massacre.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Aoun's Washington Visit: An Opportunity That Leaves No Room
for Ambiguity
Sam Menassa/Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun's visit to Washington carries exceptional
significance, not because it is the first presidential visit of this level in
years, but because it comes at a regional moment in which Lebanon has returned
to the forefront of American attention after decades of slipping down the list
of priorities. That renewed interest does not reflect a lasting shift in US
policy toward Lebanon so much as the consequences of the latest war and what it
exposed: the risks posed by Hezbollah's continued existence as an armed force
operating outside the authority of the state, and the implications for Israel's
security and the regional balance of power. For that reason, caution is
warranted against any attempt to sabotage the visit through security incidents
at home or along the southern border with Israel while it is underway.
The visit is more than another stop in bilateral relations or an occasion to
reiterate Lebanon's demands. It is a test of the state's ability to convince
Washington that it is serious about restoring its sovereignty and that it is a
partner worthy of political, security, and economic investment.
Aoun possesses advantages unavailable to his predecessors. For the first time in
years, after prolonged division and hesitation, the president and the prime
minister are aligned on the priority of ensuring that arms remain exclusively in
the hands of the state and completing implementation of the relevant
international resolutions, in line with the expectations of the United States
and its Arab and Western partners. Such alignment could help rebuild confidence
within the international community.
Nor does the matter stop with weapons. It also extends to implementing the
US-brokered framework agreement with Israel. The agreement's strategic objective
is not merely to consolidate the ceasefire but to move toward peace. The words
peace and peaceful appear ten times in the text, while the use of the phrase
irreversible reflects an effort to make this course a permanent
choice—explaining Washington's insistence on playing a central role in
overseeing and safeguarding its implementation.
The visit's success will depend less on what is said in the White House than on
what the president brings with him to a Washington that already knows what it
wants from Lebanon. The question is whether Lebanon has decided what it wants
for itself.
Above all, the president must dispel the perception that the state remains
hesitant to translate its declared positions into concrete action. That
impression persists because of continuing domestic divisions over the state's
exclusive right to bear arms and lingering doubts about the state's
capacity—particularly that of the army—to enforce its decisions. In this
context, it is equally important for the president to press for stronger
American pressure on Israel to comply with the agreed model zones and withdrawal
commitments.
It would also strengthen his position if he were to secure Arab—particularly
Gulf—support for the project of restoring the Lebanese state. While these
countries are preoccupied with escalating Iranian threats, those very threats
make Lebanon's recovery part of the broader Arab security architecture rather
than merely an internal Lebanese matter. Such backing would reinforce the
president's negotiating position and give Washington greater confidence that
Lebanon is not pursuing this course alone. A third essential element is the
Lebanese leadership's recognition that the country can no longer remain in the
gray zone between the Iranian project and the Arab and Western worlds. That
balancing strategy has exhausted its usefulness, producing political isolation,
economic losses, and deep internal divisions. What is now required is a clear
strategic vision that removes Lebanon from under the Iranian umbrella, firmly
anchors it within its Arab environment, and affirms that its relationship with
the United States and the West is a strategic choice serving the state's
stability and development, rather than a temporary alignment imposed by crises.
It is equally important for the president to make clear that the state's
exclusive control of weapons has become a prerequisite for restoring sovereignty
and building an effective state. Reaffirming the principle alone will not
suffice. What is needed is the political will to translate it into practical
measures, because Lebanon's partners are concerned less by the absence of
declared positions than by continued hesitation. The president should also
stress that honoring the understandings reached with Israel under American
sponsorship is not simply a matter of implementing security arrangements, but
the gateway to lasting stability—one that makes reconstruction possible, revives
the economy, attracts investment, and restores confidence in Lebanon.
A long-term partnership with Washington should extend beyond military assistance
and institutional support to include counterterrorism, border security, and
combating the illicit economy. Washington will not invest in a hesitant state;
it will invest in one that has a clear vision for restoring its authority. The
hope is that Aoun can present convincing evidence of his commitment to
dismantling Hezbollah's weapons, enough to persuade President Trump to abandon
the option of Syrian intervention in Lebanon.
Negotiating with Washington is never easy, and the Lebanese have not forgotten
past episodes of American disengagement and withdrawal from the region. Even so,
this opportunity may not come again. The visit's success will ultimately be
measured by the president's ability to convince Washington that Lebanon has made
its strategic choice and that the objective is now clear: a "comprehensive and
complete peace" under the framework agreement, in return for a long-term
American commitment to political, security, and economic partnership. If he
succeeds, the visit could mark the beginning of a new chapter. Continued
hesitation and ambiguity, however, could squander one of the rarest
opportunities available at a moment when the cost of failure has become
devastating.
The Understandings of the ‘Framework Agreement’ in Practice
Hanna Saleh/Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Every path toward restoring a capable and just state, one that protects its
citizens and exerts absolute, unshared sovereignty, runs directly through the
state's monopoly on arms and violence. The foundation for this remains the
disarmament of Hezbollah and all illegal weapons, alongside the dismantling of
both military and militia infrastructures and, with equal urgency, the
infrastructure of the parallel black economy. The collapse of the US-Iranian
memorandum of understanding has thrust the region into a highly dangerous phase.
Deploying calculated, surgical operations, Washington has begun retaliating
against Iranian piracy in the Strait of Hormuz with crushing strikes designed to
undermine the capabilities of the Revolutionary Guard. These actions aim to
isolate western Iran overlooking the Arabian Gulf by destroying the bridges
connecting it to the interior. The expanding scope of these American maneuvers,
which are turning Iran's regional leverage to ash, stretches from Lebanon to
Iran and back, severely narrowing the room for maneuver available to the
regime's proxies.
A significant indicator was embodied by the visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Ali
al-Zaidi to the US. Tehran condemned the visit, particularly its timing, as well
as the accompanying military talks and economic agreements, especially in the
energy sector. This underscores an approach aimed at liberating Baghdad's
decision-making, position, and regional role, despite the depth of Iranian
influence. Compounding this indicator is a major decision setting the end of
this coming September as the deadline to rid Iraq of illegal weapons. While the
visit of Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, who meets today, Tuesday, with US
President Donald Trump at the White House, cements Lebanon’s exit from the “axis
of ruin” and carries the implications of permanently severing Lebanon from the
Iranian orbit, it inaugurates a new phase between the two countries. The most
prominent feature of this phase is the execution of commitments arising from the
trilateral framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, in partnership with
the US.
This is the agreement that has begun putting its included understandings into
practice, chief among them the gradual withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces
from Lebanese territories. While the text underscored "redeployment," it
confirmed that the trajectory is "outside Lebanese territories," thereby
dismantling the "security belt" and its dangers - all of which announces a
diplomatic achievement by forcing Israel to pull back from the South as a
prelude to establishing sustainable stability. The most prominent Lebanese
commitment remains the continued implementation of the “land for arms” equation,
meaning only Lebanon’s legitimate forces can carry weapons. The recovery of land
means ending the Israeli occupation, and the disarmament of illegitimate weapons
strips the “fig leaf” of disguised Iranian influence, thus completing the
liberation. It goes without saying that the government provided political cover
for this approach, both through the ministerial statement and through historic
decisions to restrict arms, ban Hezbollah's military and security operations,
and deport Revolutionary Guard members, after they were proven responsible for
devastating wars that again led to occupation following the catastrophic
“support” war for Gaza.
Ultimately, the success of this trajectory hinges entirely on implementation.
Proper execution will fulfill key US requirements for trusting Lebanese
authorities, thereby bolstering the state's legitimacy in sovereign decisions.
This sovereignty must extend across the board, from enforcing territorial
control to reclaiming economic and financial governance through strict
accountability within a framework of financial and economic reforms.
Crucially, the framework agreement includes a concrete US commitment to convene
an international financial conference aimed at rescuing the country. This means
the era of political maneuvering, where the "heist of the century" was softly
euphemized as a mere financial "gap", is rapidly coming to an end. The earth did
not simply swallow $200 billion. Rather, this heist is the direct translation of
astronomical corruption that thrived during years of coexistence with foreign
occupations and illicit weapons, ultimately culminating in a calculated
financial collapse engineered by ruling mafia and militia forces.
Moving forward, everything remains under a microscope, not just by the United
States, but also by Arab brothers and international allies. Lebanon relies on
these partners to fund the massive reconstruction efforts required after the
devastating Israeli-Iranian war, and to finally pull the country out of the
abyss and onto the track of true recovery
Despite the overlapping commitments and duties, the current phase leaves no room
for stalling or any lapse in implementation. The framework agreement has proven
its durability, mapping out the path toward restoring a state that is capable,
for the first time, of dismantling the sectarian southern canton and reclaiming
the South for Lebanon. The challenges are immense, and overcoming the obstacles
will be costly. This necessitates vigilance and firmness regarding potential
actions by an Iranian regime that lacks unified leadership. Tehran continues to
deny the defeat it brought upon Iran, and it remains incapable of returning to a
ceasefire based on its pledged commitments, such as reopening the Strait of
Hormuz. Instead, it dreams of prolonging the status quo in Lebanon, indifferent
to the resulting deepening of the Lebanese people's tragedies.
Tehran’s priority, having never turned the page on "exporting the revolution",
is to salvage its investment in Hezbollah, not to protect the Lebanese people or
Lebanon. The regime appears obsessed with securing "borrowed time" to allow its
Lebanese proxy to restore some of its capabilities, hoping this will enable it
to keep Lebanon an open arena for regional conflicts and derail the project of
restoring the state. Once again: what is being said about conditioning the
withdrawal of Israeli forces on the disarmament of illegal weapons must be
placed in its proper context. Let us cast aside the nonsense of the
"steadfastness" of illegal weapons. It has betrayed Lebanon, particularly its
south, plunged the country into a terrifying defeat, and brought the most
dangerous catastrophe upon its own community. The antidote to this
"steadfastness" was raised by the voices of the victims, who carried the twin
calls of Tyre and Nabatieh demanding legitimate state authority as an
alternative to that venture and its "party," out of desperation to preserve what
remains of towns, homes, livelihoods, and memory.
The Middle East: Wars or the Beginning of Solutions?
Dr. Nassif Hitti/Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
It appears that the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding and the 60-day
transitional period, intended to ease tensions and create favorable conditions
for negotiations between Washington and Tehran, are on the verge of collapse.
Some consider it to have suffered a knockout blow in light of the military
escalation in the Gulf and the war of words between two sides.Furthermore,
multiple Pakistani, as well as American sources, point to a state of division
within Iran between the "civilian" troika, specifically the President, the
Speaker of Parliament, and the Foreign Minister, whose policies are
characterized by pragmatism, and the radical Revolutionary Guard, which,
according to those sources, holds the actual decision-making power on the ground
and remains hardline in its positions.
All the escalation we are witnessing today, in terms of both geography and
firepower, initiated by Washington alongside an Iranian response reaching the
Gulf states, comes in the form of escalatory Iranian threatening messages. This
is also yielding further negative consequences for the "day after" the war
regarding Iranian relations with the Arab Gulf states.
Every indicator suggests we are facing a moment of escalation whose objective
may be to deliver mutual deterrent messages. However, it constitutes a clear and
highly probable slide, though one cannot be entirely certain in this regard,
toward an open-ended war whose scope, immediate repercussions, and subsequent
ripples across the region no one can predict should it occur. In this respect,
the Middle East is living at a crossroads fraught with open dangers and varying
scenarios, and the coming days will tell us where the region is headed.
In the same context, along the axis of crises and wars from the Gulf to the
Mediterranean, the idea or proposal to form a trilateral US-Iranian-Lebanese
committee to work on stopping the war in Lebanon never took off. This did not
come as a surprise to many, considering that it would have "officially" and
practically cemented Iran’s role, from Washington's perspective, as a "partner"
in managing the Lebanese-Israeli dossier, whether in war, truce, or
understanding. This is something Washington rejects, even if it had accepted it
"verbally" at a certain moment.
Instead, Washington moved toward sponsoring and embracing the Lebanese-Israeli
negotiations. Some argue that the structuring of these talks effectively
decouples the conflicting tracks in the region. This decoupling is something the
Lebanese authorities - both the presidency and the government - adhere to in
principle and with absolute clarity, even as they remain cognizant of the
difficulties and challenges of these negotiations. They maintain this stance on
the grounds that the decision of war and peace, alongside the exclusivity of
weapons, must remain among their core and absolute sovereign responsibilities.
This is precisely what they aim to achieve as a fundamental prerequisite on the
path toward "the return to the state."
This is naturally no easy feat under current conditions. Domestically, the most
significant obstacle remains the principled opposition from forces ideologically
or politically aligned with Iran. This opposition manifests under various
banners, yet its objective is clear: to maintain the de facto "unity of arenas"
and entrench a return to the previously existing balance of power, albeit with
minor adjustments.
Another form of varied opposition exists as well; these factions are not
necessarily against negotiations conducted by the political authority, but they
harbor reservations or criticisms to varying degrees regarding the premises,
rules, and trajectory of the talks, with some offering alternative proposals in
this regard.
These are matters that can be addressed through a serious, necessary, and
much-needed domestic dialogue, in which everyone must participate regardless of
their stance. This dialogue must accompany the negotiations and provide
practical proposals that strengthen Lebanon's negotiating position, while
contributing to the formulation of the roadmap and its reference points that
must be adhered to throughout the negotiating track.
These negotiations face a myriad of challenges, the most significant and
dangerous of which is undoubtedly Israeli policy. This policy aims to entrench
the occupation and enforce control under various pretexts and arguments,
capitalizing on a balance of power on the ground that tilts in its favor.
Consequently, the US role remains more than necessary to pressure Israel in this
regard. Many are asking whether Washington is prepared to alter its well-known
policies and exert the required pressure on Israel to facilitate the negotiating
track - a question to which a clear answer is not easily obtained. This
trajectory, whose primary and foundational objective from Lebanon’s perspective
remains the end of the occupation, requires the Lebanese Armed Forces to exert
total control over the region extending from south of the Litani River to the
internationally recognized Lebanese borders. It also entails finalizing these
borders by settling the remaining disputed points. It is a path fraught with
numerous difficulties and challenges, and it remains undoubtedly affected by the
multifaceted, multi-party conflict across the Gulf and the wider region.
Yet, this trajectory remains essential to liberating the land and reclaiming
actual sovereignty, particularly if it is reinforced - as previously noted - by
a domestic national dialogue. This must be a dialogue of ideas, not of slogans;
a dialogue that crystalizes practical proposals and formulas to support and
strengthen the Lebanese position throughout a "long journey" fraught with
obstacles. This "journey" also undoubtedly aims, alongside the objectives we
mentioned, to terminate a role Lebanon has historically known in its modern
history and for which it has always paid a heavy price: the role of serving as
an "arena for the wars of others," as Ghassan Tueni used to remind us.
Prospects for the Future of Oil
Walid Khadouri/Asharq Al Awsat/21 July 2026
Recent geopolitical developments have revealed that oil remains a fundamental
pillar of the global energy system, despite years of calls to reduce reliance on
it and accelerate the transition to clean energy. Markets have proven that price
fluctuations are often linked more to political and military risks than to
actual supply shortages, which has reaffirmed the robustness of the global oil
industry's structure and its ability to adapt to crises. This reality is
reinforced by the ongoing discovery of new fields, alongside expanding
exploration activities in promising regions like the Arctic, which increases
global reserves and confirms that oil resources will remain available for
decades to come, even with the continued gradual shift towards low-emission
energy sources. The Strait of Hormuz crisis also demonstrated that the existence
of large commercial and strategic inventories, coupled with diversified
production sources and transportation networks, enabled markets to mitigate the
effects of navigation disruptions, despite the Strait's importance as a passage
for about one-fifth of global oil trade.
For instance, the rapid rise in oil prices from approximately $70 to about $110
per barrel had no relation to oil supply shortages. Events flared up in one of
the most crucial global passages for the oil industry (the Strait of Hormuz),
through which approximately 20 percent or one-third of the world's oil
ordinarily passes daily. Yet, despite the obstacles and navigation halts
affecting the "Strait," it was still possible to meet demand in many
petroleum-consuming countries. One of the primary reasons for the industry's
ability to continue and interact with global markets, despite navigation
disruptions or halts in the Strait, lies in the widespread expansion of
commercial storage facilities for most major international companies, and the
strategic storage of industrial countries that are members of the International
Energy Agency, which requires these two types of inventories to meet several
months of future demand for member nations.
Furthermore, the global oil industry has become more interconnected and
integrated than ever before, which has bolstered its ability to adapt to
geopolitical disruptions.
China, the world's largest oil importer, relies primarily on supplies from GCC
countries, Iraq, and Iran, a significant portion of which passes through the
Strait of Hormuz. Nevertheless, China continued to meet its oil needs during
periods of tension, benefiting from commercial and strategic inventories, oil
stored in offshore storage centers belonging to Gulf national oil companies, as
well as diversifying import sources, including American and Venezuelan crude
transported via the Pacific Ocean.
Some countries also rely on the sustainable energy capacities they have
established, which reduces their oil consumption.
Global energy demand is expected to continue its growth in the coming decades,
driven by population increase, improved living standards, and industrial
expansion, particularly in emerging economies. This continuous growth
necessitates increased production to meet rising demand, in parallel with
continued investment in sustainable energy sources, thereby achieving a balance
between supply security and the requirements of energy transition. Furthermore,
energy demand patterns are undergoing a significant transformation with the
emergence of new consumption-intensive sectors. The boom in artificial
intelligence applications has driven major technology companies to seek stable
and low-emission electricity sources, including reliance on small nuclear
reactors to power data centers. Concurrently, the electricity sector continues
to expand its use of solar energy, which has become one of the fastest-growing
energy sources globally. Therefore, the future of energy does not appear to be
based on replacing oil with a single source, but rather on a balanced mix that
combines oil, gas, nuclear, and renewable energy. The energy transition does not
signify the end of the oil era, but rather a redefinition of its role within a
more diverse and sustainable system.
Rubio's Right About Threat Of Leftist Violence
Amb. Alberto M. Fernandez/| MEMRI/July 21/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/07/156118/
The reaction was as tired as it was predictable. When it was known that the
State Department would hold a July 2026 conference of government ministers from
over 60 countries on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism (meaning leftist
political violence) the usual suspects in the media and academia expressed
skepticism about the idea. Some of the derision was due to general dislike of
the Administration, some of it was the concept. The critics had said much the
same thing when the Trump Administration unveiled its counterterrorism strategy
in May 2026, which included "violent left-wing extremists" as a particular area
of concern.[1] And yet even liberal publications highlighted, reluctantly, in
2025 that "left-wing terrorism is on the rise."[2]
This should come as no surprise. We could well be on the cusp of a great third
wave of left-wing terrorism flowing naturally from a rise wave of left-wing (or
far-left) activism and agitation. First of all, the terror of the left never
actually disappeared. Depending on definitions, one might say that the first
"modern" type of terrorism was left-wing, the bomb throwing, often anarchist,
assassins of the late 19th and early 20th century. They were the first Antifa –
even before there was something called "fascism" to be against – immortalized in
Joseph Conrad's great novel The Secret Agent.
The 20th century saw the emergence of organized Red Terror as communist regimes
from Moscow to Havana to Addis Ababa and Phnom Penh waged bloody campaigns of
political violence against their internal enemies. Two million people died in
the Chinese "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" alone, which lasted only a
few years. Two million others died in the Soviet Gulag. And the domestic Red
Terror of many of these regimes spilled over internationally as they became the
patrons, bankers, and promoters of leftist revolution worldwide.
If the first wave of leftist terror was that of leftist regimes, the second
broke out in the late 20th century. The activism and agitation, much of it
idealistic, of the young would be transformed into direct action, political or
revolutionary violence. Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof, Shining Path, Weather
Underground, we all know the names. As Bryan Burroughs notes in his famed book
on revolutionary violence in the United States during the period, these radicals
"mistakenly believed the country was on the brink of genuine political
revolution, who thought that violence would speed the change."
Those bloody years of American leftist political violence were matched by
similar movements in Western Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. These
homegrown groups cross-fertilized – German leftists would commit terror for the
sake of Palestine, Japanese terrorists would be trained in Lebanon – and also
were abetted by regimes, by Fidel Castro and Qaddafi, by the KGB and the East
German Stasi.
The leftist revolutionaries of the 1970s, those that survived, became the
academics and activists of the 80s and 90s. Bill Ayers, the former Weather
Underground terrorist who co-wrote Prairie Fire: the Politics of Revolutionary
Anti-Imperialism in 1974 (dedicated to, among many others, to Sirhan Sirhan, the
Palestinian assassin of Senator Robert F. Kennedy),[3] would have some sort of a
relationship – how close was a matter of controversy in 2008 – with young
activist Barrack Obama.
That the youth revolt of 1968, and campus ferment against the Vietnam War, had
something to do with the subsequent revolutionary violence is not in doubt. How
much and why is something that can be debated but the connection was there.
It is not inconceivable that the widespread protests and politics in the West
triggered by the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent events
can also lead to radical violence as it has already led to radical politics.
Most of those who marched in the 60s against the Vietnam War did not become
actual terrorists, but a few did. As Secretary Rubio noted, "here in the United
States, the share of left-wing terrorist attacks and plots has risen to levels
not seen in decades."[4]
MEMRI began the Violent Extremist Threat Monitor (VETM) years ago to document
and analyze rhetoric and threats issuing from far-left and far-right
extremists.[5] We are seeing today the same cross pollination and political
trends that were observed in earlier outbreaks of extremist violence. The recent
funeral of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei underscored this type of
overlapping appeal as American "leftists" Jackson Hinkle, Chris Helali, and
Calla Walsh attended in order to support the struggle of Islamic Iran against
the United States.[6]
Hinkle and Helali are leaders of the so-called American Communist Party.[7]
Walsh's path took her from liberal Democratic politics to support for the Castro
regime in Cuba to pro-Palestine political activism (and vandalism) to Iran.[8]
The same Islamic Iran which once killed thousands of local communists is today
hailed as a leader in the anti-American and anti-West front, which, of course,
is true.[9]
While it is easy to dismiss the rhetoric of the Hinkles and Walshes as marginal,
the much more mainstream Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a rising power
within American politics and in certain urban sectors of the Democratic Party,
poses both as merely a Scandinavian-style social democratic movement and
indulges in what seems to be much more extreme discourse.[10] To paraphrase Mao,
the potential sea for the revolutionary of today to swim in is getting
bigger.[11]
Burroughs' 2015 book Days of Rage begins with the tale of the first bomber to
"take anti-government violence to the next level, building large bombs and using
them to attack symbols of American power" a man named Sam Melville (born Samuel
Grossman). Even then there was an international dimension as there is today.[12]
Melville was helped in his quest by Cuban-supported Canadian terrorists of the
Front de libération du Québec (FLQ). Burroughs also shows in his book how law
enforcement was caught basically unaware by the explosion of leftist violence in
the 70s even though all the warning signs were there.
We are fortunate that the U.S. government is this time taking the flashing
warning signs seriously. There are certainly plenty of them.[13] The terror is
already happening.[14] Working with allies worldwide to "disrupt, identify,
defund, debank, arrest and prosecute" far-left violent extremists, now rather
than later, is the smart, prudent path to take.
*Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.
[2] Theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/charlie-kirk-left-wing-terrorism/684323,
September 23, 2025.
[3] Archive.org/details/PrairieFireThePoliticsOfRevolutionaryAnti-imperialismThePolitical/page/n3/mode/2up,
1975.
[4] State.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/07/remarks-at-the-opening-of-the-ministerial-on-the-resurgence-of-political-terrorism,
July 16, 2026.
[6] Aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/7/8/down-with-the-usa-us-influencer-jackson-hinkle-attends-khameneis-funera,
July 8, 2026.
[8] X.com/thestustustudio/status/2078880941884506146, July 19, 2026.
[9] Theatlantic.com/culture/2026/01/the-iranians-who-feel-betrayed-by-the-left/685644,
January 16, 2026.
[10] City-journal.org/article/democratic-socialists-of-america-workers-deserve-more,
June 17, 2026.
[11] Marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/FMFRP%2012-18%20%20Mao%20Tse-tung%20on%20Guerrilla%20Warfare.pdf,
April
[12] State.gov/cuba-the-capital-of-21st-century-communism, July 20, 2026.
[13] Justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/antifa-cell-members-convicted-prairieland-ice-detention-center-shooting,
April 5, 1989.
[14] Theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/04/leftwing-militants-responsibility-arson-attack-berlin-power-grid,
January 4, 2026.
dent Trump for rehabilitating the dignity and Sovereignty of Lebanon, it’s a
moral debt
Selected Face Book & X tweets on
21 July/2026
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun (left pic) with President Trump in the Oval
Office today. Aoun is assertive, brave, and not afraid to put the interests of
Lebanon ahead of those of the Palestinians, Iranians, or others. He is bent on
restoring sovereignty by disarming Hezbollah, recovering territory from Israel,
and signing a peace treaty. The last charismatic, assertive, strong Lebanese
leader was Rafic Hariri (right pic), with President Bush in the Oval Office in
2004. After the UN certified that Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon in
accordance with UN Resolution 425, Hariri worked to convince Hezbollah to
surrender its arms to the state (given there was no more need for “resistance”).
Hezbollah refused and, per a UN Tribunal, killed Hariri in 2005. Lebanon did not
get an inspiring and confident leader until Aoun was elected in 2024. Whether
Aoun finishes the job and puts Lebanon on the track toward peace and prosperity
remains to be seen. He will be remembered for a long time if he succeeds.
Charles Elias Chartouni
Thank you President Trump for rehabilitating the dignity and Sovereignty of
Lebanon, it’s a moral debt