English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News
& Editorials
For June 16/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the
lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.june16.26.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since
2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Click On
The Below Link To Join Elias Bejjaninews whatsapp group
https://chat.whatsapp.com/FPF0N7lE5S484LNaSm0MjW
اضغط
على الرابط في
أعلى للإنضمام
لكروب
Eliasbejjaninews whatsapp group
Elias Bejjani/Click on
the below link to subscribe to my youtube channel
الياس
بجاني/اضغط
على الرابط في
أسفل للإشتراك في
موقعي ع اليوتيوب
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAOOSioLh1GE3C1hp63Camw
Bible Quotations For today
Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks! Occasions for
stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling-block
comes
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 18/06-10/:"‘If any of you
put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it
would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and
you were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of
stumbling-blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one
by whom the stumbling-block comes! ‘If your hand or your foot causes you to
stumble, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed
or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown into the eternal
fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away; it
is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be
thrown into the hell of fire. ‘Take care that you do not despise one of these
little ones; for, I tell you, in heaven their angels continually see the face of
my Father in heaven."
Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related
News & Editorials published on
15-16 June/2026
Israel remains tasked with eradicating Hezbollah from all of Lebanon, and
its army will not withdraw before that/Elias Bejjani/June 15/2026
Gebran Bassil and Walid Jumblatt are enemies of Lebanon and are Trojan-horse
mercenaries working for Hezbollah/Elias Bejjani/June 13, 2026
Dhimmi, shortsighted, and ignorant of the concepts of Wilayat al-Faqih is anyone
who equates Israel on one hand, with Iran and Hezbollah on the other./Elias
Bejjani/June 12/2026
Video link to an interview with Dr. Salah Machnouk from This Is Beirut Youtube
Platform
Israel Pushes Beyond ‘Yellow Line’ in Lebanon to Target Hezbollah and Bolster
Negotiating Leverage
Minister Says Israel Won’t Withdraw from Occupied Land in Lebanon, Syria and
Gaza
US-Iran Deal Leaves Major Lebanon Questions Unresolved
Lebanese Mourn Homes, Livelihoods Destroyed by Israel in Southern City
US-Iran deal to end war signed, US official says; Lebanon remains sticking point
Hezbollah says has repelled an Israeli force in south Lebanon
Lebanon’s Aoun Hopes US-Iran Deal Will Put ‘Definitive End’ to Israel-Hezbollah
War
Trump says resolving conflict in Lebanon 'should not be tough'
Berri says phased, 60-day Israel pullout mentioned in Iran-US deal
Netanyahu says Israeli forces to stay in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza 'as long as
necessary'
Araghchi stresses 'importance of respecting Lebanon's sovereignty' in call with
Aoun
1 killed, many hurt, including reporter, in 3 Israeli attacks on Kfartebnit
In Nabatieh, residents mourn destroyed homes, livelihoods
Hezbollah MP says Iran told them Israeli pullout part of deal
US-Iran deal a 'catastrophe' for Israel, analysts say
Successful Negotiations Depend on the Return of the State/Sam Menassa/Asharq Al-Awsat/June
15/2026
on
15-16 June/2026
President Donald Trump, right, meets with
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the
In US, Trump’s Iran deal receives mixed reception
Trump Arrives with Iran Deal to Meet Wary World Leaders at G7 Summit
Trump Says Iran Deal Has Been Signed, Text to Come Soon
Vance Says Funds Won’t Be Transferred to Iran in Exchange for Signing Deal to
Halt War
Iran's Fars News Agency Says Hormuz Maritime Fees Added to US Deal Last Minute
The Iranian Leaders Killed in Israeli-US War
Obama Doubts Trump-Iran Deal Will Make Improvement Over His 2015 Pact
Netanyahu says war with Iran saved Israel from threat of ‘nuclear annihilation’
Israel Concerned about US-Iran Deal but Does Not Want to Anger Trump
Saudi Arabia Welcomes US-Iran Deal to End Military Operations
Arab Parliament Speaker Welcomes US-Iran Agreement
No EU Consensus on Sanctioning Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir, Says Kallas
One Syrian Security Member Killed in ISIS Attack in Raqqa
Egypt Says US-Iran Deal Could Be ‘Turning Point’ for Middle East Peace
Dutch Court Jails ‘Assad Torturer’ for 26 Years for Torture, Rape
Somaliland Opens Embassy in Jerusalem
Israeli fire kills four in Gaza, mediators hold more ceasefire talks
Titles For The Latest
English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published
on
15-16 June/2026
The Two-State Fantasy: Europe on Board for Israel’s Destruction/Bassam
Tawil/Gatestone Institute/June 15/2026
Iran Wants To Punish Jordan for Hosting U.S. Forces/Ahmad Sharawi and Behnam Ben
Taleblu/FDD-Policy Brief/June 15/2026
Trump's Iran Deal: A Strategic Opening/Ahmed Charai/Gatestone Institute/June 15,
2026
G7 summit: US-Iran deal, Mideast stability and global priorities take center
stage/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al ASrabiya English/June 15/2026
Which Iran, Which Iraq, and Which Israel?/Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/June
15/2026
Is Defensive Neutrality a Strategy?/Mamoun Fandy/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Iran and Us: The Alternative and Al-Badli/Mishary Dhayidi/Asharq Al-Awsat/June
15/2026
Lebanon Cannot Carry This Burden Alone …Hezbollah, Iran, and the Question of
Sovereignty/By: TONI NISSI – President of the committee for the United Nations
security council resolutions on Lebanon
Selected Face Book & X tweets on 15 June/2026
on
15-16 June/2026
Israel remains tasked with
eradicating Hezbollah from all of Lebanon, and its army will not withdraw before
that
Elias Bejjani/June 15/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155280/
The era of the criminal, terrorist,
and theocratic jihadist Hezbollah is over. It should be noted that despite all
the illusory Iranian jubilation following the signing of the Iranian-American
agreement, Israel remains tasked with eradicating Hezbollah from all of Lebanon,
and its army will not withdraw from Lebanon before that. The bluster of the
mullahs is empty and nothing but delusions.
Do not believe any leaks about the terms of the US-Iranian agreement currently
circulating in Arab media.
Most of these leaks originate from the Iranian Mehr News Agency, known as a
propaganda platform for the Iranian regime, and not a reliable source for
revealing details of an agreement of this magnitude. Trump has not yet announced
all the actual terms and details of the agreement, and there is still a 60-day
period during which sensitive and crucial issues will be addressed, most
notably:
- The ballistic missile program.
- Support for armed proxies and militias.
- Support for Hezbollah.
- The negotiations between Lebanon and Israel.
- Israel's conditions for withdrawing from southern Lebanon.
Therefore, everything published today about the final and decisive details of
the agreement should be treated with extreme caution until the full official
statements and documents are released.
Gebran Bassil and Walid Jumblatt are
enemies of Lebanon and are Trojan-horse mercenaries working for Hezbollah.
Elias Bejjani/June 13, 2026
Gebran Bassil has been, still is, and will remain tied by the neck and tongue to
the humiliating ropes of the Party of Satan (a derogatory reference to
Hezbollah). His continued presence as a politician is an insult to free people,
the martyrs, and history.
Walid Jumblatt, a man of abandonment and opportunistic transformations—an
opportunist, a chameleon, and a submissive figure—is alienated and estranged
from the Druze community (Bani Ma‘ruf), their values, pride, patriotism,
dignity, and honor.
Dhimmi, shortsighted, and ignorant of the concepts
of Wilayat al-Faqih is anyone who equates Israel on one hand, with Iran and
Hezbollah on the other.
Elias Bejjani/June 12/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155244/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjmYqJxPX9Y
The State of Israel is liberating Lebanon from the
occupation of the Iranian and its jihadist Hezbollah, not out of love for
Lebanon or the Lebanese, but because Iran and Hezbollah poses an existential
threat to its entity and its people… Its interests transitionally align with the
interest of Lebanon… Therefore, no equivalence should be made between a
liberator (the State of Israel)—despite all its violence and destructive
capacity—and a barbaric, jihadist, terrorist, and criminal occupier that
destroyed Lebanon, seized its governance, and holds absolute control over its
rulers, while hijacking the Shiite community, stripping it of its Lebanese
identity, taking it hostage, displacing it, destroying its areas, and killing
its youth in the futile wars of the Mullahs. Wisdom, reason, logic, and
foresight dictate that all free people of Lebanon and friendly countries should
not miss the golden opportunity that Israel offers, but should welcome it and
support it by all available means, while at the same time freeing themselves
from the complexes, illusions, hallucinations, and daydreams of the Nasserists,
the nationalists, the rotten left, and the merchants of the lie of resistance.
Introduction: Defining Friend and Foe (00:00)
Greetings from Canada, Friday, June 12, 2026. Today’s commentary is titled: "Who
is the Enemy, Who is the Friend, Who is the Occupier, and Who is the Liberator?"
We must look at this without emotions, illusions, or the outdated ideologies of
Pan-Arabism or Political Islam (both Sunni and Shia). Free Lebanese seeking
liberation must identify who occupies our country today and who is actually
trying to free it.
01:07 | The Danger of Political Islam and the "Wilayat al-Faqih" Project
The true enemy is Political Islam. This includes the Iranian regime’s
project—not the Iranian people, but the "Wilayat al-Faqih" system that seeks to
export its revolution and impose a dictatorship through proxies like Hezbollah,
the Houthis, and the PMF. Simultaneously, Sunni Political Islam, represented by
Erdogan’s ambitions in Lebanon and Syria, poses a similar threat. The reality is
that Iran and Hezbollah are the ones currently occupying Lebanon.
02:51 | Hezbollah’s Practices and Tunnel Infrastructure
Hezbollah acts as Iran’s "assassination machine." It has turned Lebanon into a
honeycomb of tunnels, acting like a "mole" that destroys the land from beneath.
From Beirut to the mountains and the South, they have dug tunnels under homes,
schools, hospitals, and even historic sites like the Beaufort Castle (Qala'at
al-Shaqif). This proves this occupier has no respect for Lebanese heritage or
the safety of its citizens.
04:15 | The Shia Community as a Hostage to Iran’s Futile Wars
The Iranian occupier has taken the Shia community hostage, using its youth as
"sacrifices" on the altar of the Iranian regime's futile regional wars. These
fighters are victims of a project that does not serve Lebanon.
04:39 | Israeli Peace Messages and the Legacy of the Cairo Agreement
The Israeli Prime Minister has recently messaged the Lebanese people, stating
they want peace and cooperation, similar to the era before the 1969 Cairo
Agreement. That agreement brought chaos by allowing foreign armed groups
(Palestinian, then Syrian, then Iranian) to control Lebanon. Now, even Turkey is
attempting to exert influence through certain local politicians.
05:28 | Historic Intersection of Interests to Liberate Lebanon
Today, a unique opportunity exists. Israel is not dismantling Hezbollah out of
"charity" for Lebanon, but because Hezbollah and Iran pose an existential threat
to Israel. However, Israeli interests now perfectly align with the interests of
free Lebanese. While Israel uses force, it has shown in the past (such as the
2000 withdrawal) that it has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon. Only those
stuck in the past or fueled by the hatred of Political Islam claim otherwise. We
must recognize Israel as a liberator from Iranian hegemony.
08:03 | Criticism of "Dhimmi" Politicians, Media, and Clergy
Many "subservient" (Dhimmi) journalists and politicians—products of Syrian and
Iranian influence—claim there are "two occupations": Iranian and Israeli. This
is false. Israel is acting in self-defense and has stated it wants peace once
the Hezbollah threat is removed. Many religious leaders are also criticized here
for prioritizing their personal interests over the long-term vision of a free
Lebanon.
09:44 | The Error of Demanding Israeli Withdrawal Before Disarmament
It is foolish for Lebanese leaders to demand an Israeli withdrawal while
Hezbollah is still armed. If Israel leaves now, who will stop Hezbollah? The
current political class is largely compromised or controlled by Hezbollah
through fear and manufactured legal files. The President’s recent interviews
suggest he is still mentally shackled by the "resistance" culture.
11:20 | Refuting Historical Distortions in President Aoun's Interview
The claim that Hezbollah was merely a "result" of Israeli occupation is a
fabrication. Many of Hezbollah's own founders have admitted the group was
created as an Iranian military arm to project power to the Mediterranean.
Claiming Israel is the "aggressor" ignores the fact that Hezbollah initiated the
current conflict to support Gaza and Iran.
13:55 | The Role of Arab States and the "Islamic" vs. "National" Cause
Waiting for the Arab League or other Arab nations to save Lebanon is
unrealistic. Most of these countries have already made their own peace deals
with Israel (officially or unofficially) to serve their own interests. For
Political Islam, the "Palestinian Cause" is a religious issue, not a national
one. Lebanon must prioritize its own national interest, which lies in peace and
normalization.
14:50 | A Historic Opportunity Through the Abraham Accords
Free Lebanese should view the US-led Abraham Accords and Israel as the path to
stability. Our "friends" are those who want peace. Our "enemies" are the Iranian
occupiers and those (like certain regional players) who want to keep Lebanon as
a "battlefield" for their proxy wars. We have gained nothing from decades of
"resistance" slogans except destruction.
18:08 | The Real Distinction: Occupier vs. Liberator and Lebanon’s Future
In summary, we cannot equate Israel with Iran. There is only one occupation
(Iran) and one force currently dismantling it (Israel). Israel’s military
actions are a reaction to attacks launched from Lebanese soil. A responsible
Lebanese official should stop calling for Israeli withdrawal until the
existential threat of Hezbollah is completely dismantled. Lebanon’s future
depends on being free from both Sunni and Shia Political Islam and joining the
regional trend of peace and stability.
Long live Lebanon, freed by its true friends.
رابط فيديو مقابلة بالإنكليزية مع د. صالح
المشنوق من موقع "هذه بيروت"/أجرت المقابلة كلوديا كرولنك
Video link to an interview with Dr. Salah Machnouk from This Is Beirut Youtube
Platform
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4BmhYk5IJs
Saleh Machnouk: The Only Obstacle To Peace Between Lebanon and Israel is Iran
an exclusive interview with This is Beirut, Dr. Saleh Machnouk discusses
Lebanon’s path toward sovereignty, Hezbollah’s disarmament, the role of the
Lebanese Armed Forces and the prospects for peace with Israel. He argues that
the country’s current political moment presents a rare opportunity to redefine
Lebanon’s future free from external influence and armed non-state actors.The
interview was conducted by Claudia Groeling is a reporter at This is Beirut
covering Hezbollah, Lebanese politics, and U.S. policy in the Middle East, with
previous experience at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Israel Pushes Beyond
‘Yellow Line’ in Lebanon to Target Hezbollah and Bolster Negotiating Leverage
Paula Astih/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Israel’s latest advance beyond the self-declared “Yellow Line” in southern
Lebanon has raised questions about whether the expansion is driven solely by
military objectives or also reflects broader political calculations,
particularly as it coincides with reports of a US-Iran agreement that would
include a comprehensive ceasefire in Lebanon.On Saturday, Israeli forces made
fresh gains along both the western and eastern fronts beyond the Yellow Line.
Troops advanced toward the outskirts of Majdal Zoun following four days of
artillery and air strikes, while forces also pushed into Kfartebnit, reaching
the approaches to the strategically important Ali al-Taher Heights, which
overlook the city of Nabatieh and much of the surrounding region. The “Yellow
Line” is the term adopted by the Israeli military in spring 2026 for a belt of
territory inside southern Lebanon that it considers a military buffer zone,
similar to the model previously employed in Gaza. The zone extends roughly 4 to
10 kilometers into Lebanese territory and encompasses about 55 border towns and
villages. Retired Brig. Gen. Mounir Shehadeh said military operations beyond the
Yellow Line are concentrated in Kfartebnit, Zawtar al-Sharqiya, Yahmar al-Shaqif,
Arnoun, and the Beaufort Castle area. Speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat, Shehadeh
argued that Israel is “racing against time” because it believes any US-Iran
agreement could force an end to hostilities. As a result, he said, Israel is
seeking to advance as far as possible before negotiations begin, allowing it to
bargain from a position of strength. He noted a distinction between villages
entered by Israeli troops and those brought under operational control. Some
communities have been incorporated into what Israel describes as a security
zone, where residents are barred from returning and where Israeli forces
maintain control through surveillance and firepower, even without a permanent
troop presence.
According to Shehadeh, Israeli-controlled areas now extend between 5 and 10
kilometers inside Lebanese territory and include villages whose residents have
been prohibited from returning. Israel’s stated goal, Shehadeh underlined, is to
push Hezbollah forces farther from its northern border, prevent future
cross-border attacks on Galilee communities, destroy military infrastructure and
weapons stockpiles, and establish a buffer zone to protect border settlements.
Its unstated objectives, however, may be broader. These include creating a new
security belt resembling the zone Israel occupied between 1982 and 2000, turning
border villages into sparsely populated areas that would make it difficult for
Hezbollah to reestablish itself, and securing strategic high ground and
transportation corridors. Such gains could provide Israel with significant
leverage in future negotiations involving Lebanon and the postwar regional
order. For his part, Dr. Riad Kahwaji, defense and security analyst, said Israel
is advancing along three separate axes, primarily to eliminate Hezbollah
infrastructure, some of it located beyond the Yellow Line.The eastern axis runs
from Beaufort Castle through Kfartebnit and the Ali al-Taher Heights, placing
Israeli forces in a position overlooking Nabatieh and potentially opening the
way toward the Iqlim al-Tuffah region, where Hezbollah is believed to maintain
tunnel networks. The central axis stretches north of Bint Jbeil and Tebnine
toward Ghandouriyeh in an effort to encircle Wadi al-Hujayr, long regarded as a
key defensive zone and another suspected tunnel hub.The western axis centers on
Majdal Zoun and extends toward Qlayleh, potentially bringing Israeli forces
closer to the approaches of the coastal city of Tyre.
Minister Says Israel Won’t Withdraw from Occupied Land in
Lebanon, Syria and Gaza
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Israel’s defense minister said Monday that Israel won’t withdraw from land
occupied in Lebanon as the interim deal between Iran and the United States is
pending. Israel Katz’s remarks were the first official Israeli comments after
the announcement of the interim deal. The two sides plan to meet Friday in
Geneva to sign it, Pakistan has said. Katz said Israel plans to stay
“indefinitely” in lands it holds in Lebanon, as well as Syria and the Gaza
Strip. Iran has tied the interim deal over the war to halting Israel’s attacks
on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Katz also threatened that if Iran attacks Israel over
Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Israel will strike Iran with “great force.” Over the
past two and a half years, Israel has taken control of areas in Gaza, Lebanon,
and Syria amounting to 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles) of territory —
an area that is slightly smaller than New York City.
'Bad for Israel' -
Meanwhile, two Israeli far-right ministers denounced the deal between the United
States and Iran. "Trump's agreement does not bind us... we are not party to this
agreement. It does not safeguard our security," National Security Minister
Itamar Ben-Gvir said on his Telegram channel. "We must not settle for anything
less than the dismantling of Hezbollah. We must not withdraw from a single inch
of territory that our soldiers have captured and cleared of terrorist
infrastructure," he said. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also echoed the
sentiment, calling the deal "bad for Israel". "The joint (US-Israel) campaign
achieved many successes in weakening Iran, and those achievements have not been
in vain," Smotrich said. "We will have to continue the campaign to bring down
the regime ourselves, using creative means, and ensure that Iran never acquires
nuclear weapons." Smotrich also called for a stronger campaign in Lebanon. "We
will be judged in Lebanon. This is our war, our soldiers, and the immediate
security of our northern residents," he said. "I will continue working to ensure
that we stand firm on our position and allow the Israeli army complete freedom
of action to continue pushing Hezbollah farther away." US and Iranian officials
said they had reached an agreement to end their war and reopen the Strait of
Hormuz, a preliminary pact that sent oil prices falling but leaves the fate of
Tehran's nuclear program to further negotiations. While still a framework, the
deal marked the biggest breakthrough towards resolving the conflict that has
killed thousands and upended energy markets since it began with joint US-Israeli
strikes on Iran in February. The precise terms of the deal were not immediately
known. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said in a post on X that the pact
called for "the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on
all fronts, including in Lebanon."Lebanon has been a sticking point in
negotiations, with Israel and Hezbollah ignoring calls from Trump and others to
stop their attacks on each other in recent weeks.
'Dangerous turn' -
Opposition figures also condemned the agreement, criticizing Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the war and its aftermath. The deal marked a
"dangerous turn for Israel's security", said Naftali Bennett, a former prime
minister and a leading contender in Israel's upcoming election. "In the past
1,000 days, we have discovered time and again the greatness of our nation and
the weakness of the government," he said in a statement. "We have a clear
strategic plan to collapse the Iranian regime," said Bennett. "With one hand, we
will not allow Iran to break out to a nuclear weapon, and with the other hand,
we will bring about the disintegration of the regime through combined
diplomatic, intelligence, economic, technological, and military means." Yair
Golan, head of the left-wing Democrats Party, argued that the deal effectively
wiped out Israel's military gains. "With the stroke of a pen, enormous military
achievements -- achieved through the courage of our pilots and the sacrifice of
our soldiers -- have been erased, while Netanyahu stood on the sidelines: weak,
ill, isolated, and without influence," Golan said in a statement. "Trump is
signing an agreement that pours billions into the mullahs' regime, leaves the
nuclear infrastructure intact, leaves the ballistic threat unresolved, and
provides a lifeline to the murderous regime in Tehran," he added.
US-Iran Deal Leaves Major Lebanon Questions Unresolved
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
A deal between Washington and Tehran that ends the Israel-Hezbollah war leaves
many issues in Lebanon unresolved, failing to mention Israel withdrawing from
the country or an end to Tehran's support for the armed group. Under US
pressure, Lebanese officials have been holding direct talks with Israel aimed at
reaching a separate agreement on ending the hostilities, but Beirut appeared to
have been sidelined with the overnight announcement on the regional conflict.
AFP looks at the deal and the questions it raises in Lebanon.
- What does the deal involve? -
Details of the agreement to end the Middle East war on all fronts have not been
made public, but Iran and mediator Pakistan have both said it includes
Lebanon.Hezbollah drew the country into the Middle East war on March 2 with
rocket fire at Israel to avenge the killing of Iran's supreme leader in
US-Israeli strikes. Israel responded with airstrikes and a ground invasion that
Lebanon says have killed more than 3,700 people and displaced more than one
million others. An official source told AFP that "Lebanon was not informed of
the terms of the agreement or the time of the ceasefire". Influential Lebanese
parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally and intermediary for the group,
thanked Washington and Tehran for their "insistence on including... an essential
and binding clause on halting the Israeli aggression on all of Lebanon".
Hezbollah on Monday had so far not claimed any fresh attacks on Israeli targets.
- Israeli withdrawal? -
Information circulating about the deal does not mention any Israeli withdrawal
from south Lebanon, and Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Monday said
forces would remain in the country indefinitely. Karim Bitar, a lecturer in
Middle East Studies at the Sciences Po University in Paris, said that "the deal
does not seem to involve Israel, which immediately meant that it wasn't a party
to it... So it's very unlikely that there will be an Israeli withdrawal from
south Lebanon."Israeli forces control a strip of Lebanese territory running
along the entire border. A Western military source told AFP that Israeli forces
had crossed the Litani River at several points, referring to the waterway
running about 30 kilometers (20 miles) from the frontier but closer in some
areas. "Tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers" are in south Lebanon where they
hold some established positions, the source said, adding that Hezbollah still
had a presence there. "It's the biggest invasion since their withdrawal in
2000," the source said, referring to Israel's previous pullout after some two
decades of occupation. Hezbollah says it sent reinforcements south of the Litani
after the latest war erupted. Under a 2024 ceasefire that followed a previous
round of hostilities, Hezbollah fighters were supposed to withdraw from the
area.
- What future for Hezbollah? -
Washington has pressured Lebanese authorities to disarm Hezbollah for months,
but the accord makes no mention of the group. "Iran doesn't seem to have
committed to ending its support and financing for Hezbollah," Bitar said.
Military expert Riad Kahwaji said that "Hezbollah will not agree to give up
arms... and this crisis will be protracted."He said this could lead to political
instability and even unrest, "especially now Hezbollah believes that through
Iran it has emerged victorious from this agreement, and therefore is going to
try and dictate its terms on who rules."
- Lebanon-Israel negotiations? -
Lebanon and Israel have been holding direct talks in Washington since April,
seeking to end the hostilities and to separate Lebanon from the regional war.A
new round is scheduled for later this month. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam
said Monday that "we will redouble our efforts" through the Washington
negotiations "to secure a full Israeli withdrawal."But after the Iran-US
announcement, some cast doubt on the effectiveness of the bilateral
negotiations. Bitar said that "Lebanon could find itself once again as a
scapegoat that pays the price both of American amateurism, Iranian cynicism,
Israeli hubris and... the lack of a clear strategy from its own political
class."
Lebanese Mourn Homes, Livelihoods Destroyed by Israel in Southern City
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
When Kamal Kamal heard a ceasefire deal had been agreed between Iran and the
United States, he rushed back to the southern city of Nabatieh only to find an
Israeli strike had reduced his life's work to rubble. The city, usually home to
some 90,000 people before the latest war between Israel and Hezbollah erupted on
March 2, was largely deserted as Israel pressed its military offensive in the
area in recent days. Kamal fought back tears as he stared stunned at the pile of
rubble that used to be his roastery and warehouse for coffee and other products,
after Israel pummeled the region with strikes and issued sweeping evacuation
orders. "When I opened it in the seventies, I was still a young man... now
nothing is left," he said, leaning heavily on a walking stick and surveying the
vast destruction.
"How my life has been spent in vain here!"
The war in Lebanon has been included in the framework deal to end the broader
Middle East war.But Lebanon's army on Monday urged displaced residents to delay
their return to southern border villages, citing the "risk of Israeli violations
and attacks". Iran-backed group Hezbollah issued a similar warning. Yet
residents who have cautiously returned to Nabatieh have expressed dismay at the
huge damage Israel inflicted on the city's neighborhoods and its famed market,
where the roofing had collapsed and shops were devastated. An AFP photographer
also saw destruction to homes and businesses in the city, which has served as a
hub of economic, social and services activity.
'Sorrow and grief' -
The city's municipality said in a statement that it had asked residents not to
return "at the present time under any circumstances", citing the security
situation. The Lebanese army had set up a checkpoint at the entrance to the
city, advising locals about the roads that they could take as intermittent
artillery shelling rang out and smoke rose up. The flow of residents to Nabatieh
picked up later in the day, with people inspecting their homes and properties as
heavy machinery worked to remove rubble and clear roads. In one heavily damaged
neighborhood, Rana Nasrallah surveyed her destroyed home, the rubble strewn with
clothes, furniture and pot plants. The 45-year-old had fled with her family to
the coastal city of Sidon during the war. "We grew up in this neighborhood. We
used to play here as children. And here's where the older women used to sit and
chat, the historic Nabatieh market before us... the landmarks that they perhaps
wanted to erase," she said. "As soon as the ceasefire was declared and before
any official (Lebanese) announcement... we got going and came here. We couldn't
wait any longer. "We came to breathe in the scent of our land... even if there
are no homes to shelter us and there is no work, still it's a relief for our
souls." In the face of the huge damage in Nabatieh and other south Lebanon towns
and villages, including where Israeli forces have carried out sweeping
demolitions, Nasrallah still expressed hope of returning permanently. "Despite
the sorrow and grief at seeing the city destroyed... we are filled with hope
that we will rebuild," she said."Not once did we feel defeated or that we would
not triumph, or that we would not return to rebuild Nabatieh."
US-Iran deal to end war signed, US official says; Lebanon
remains sticking point
AFP/15 June ,2026
The memorandum of understanding aiming to end the war in the Gulf has already
been signed by US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and the
speaker of Iran’s parliament who heads its negotiating team, a US official said
on Monday. There was no immediate response from Tehran to the report that the
agreement, which both sides announced overnight, had already been signed.
Previous reports from both sides had suggested it would be signed officially at
a ceremony in Geneva on Friday. In an early reminder of the agreement’s
fragility, Israel - which launched the war alongside the United States in
February and was not consulted on the talks to end it - struck a car with a
drone in southern Lebanon, where it has been battling the Iran-aligned Hezbollah
movement. Iran has said the deal must bring a full cessation of hostilities
there. The terms of the memorandum of understanding, reached after more than two
months of negotiations, have yet to be published. The US official, speaking on
condition of anonymity, said he expected the terms would be made public in the
next 24-48 hours. Oil prices tumbled on the prospect of an end to disruption to
global energy supplies, and share prices soared, some hitting new records.
Trump, who had earlier said the blockaded Strait of Hormuz would be open on
Friday, said on Monday that ships had already begun transiting it. However, the
US military told shippers it had not yet lifted its blockade of Iranian ports.
60-day negotiation period
According to accounts from both sides, the agreement would reopen the blockaded
strait and extend a ceasefire for a 60-day negotiation period, when contentious
issues such as the future of Iran’s nuclear program are due to be decided.
Vance, speaking to CBS News, said the deal could ultimately end with Iran being
given access to a reconstruction fund of up to $300 billion, funded by its Gulf
Arab neighbors, provided it fulfills promises to give up nuclear material.
Meanwhile, the immediate fate of the pact could hinge on Lebanon, where Israel
has been battling the Iran-aligned Hezbollah armed group in parallel with the
wider war that it launched alongside the United States against Iran in February.
Iran has said the preliminary agreement requires a cessation of hostilities on
all fronts, including in Lebanon. Israel, which was not consulted on the
preliminary deal, has said it reserves the right to act in Lebanon against
Hezbollah threats. Security sources said fighting in southern Lebanon had tamped
down on Monday after the agreement was announced but had not ceased entirely. In
the first strike of its kind since the announcement, an Israeli drone struck a
car in the southern Lebanese town of Kfar Tebnit, killing the driver, Lebanese
state media reported. There was no immediate comment from the Israeli military
on the strike.
Lebanon has been a sticking point
While the US and Iran had largely ceased hostilities in early April, fighting
has not ceased in Lebanon, where Hezbollah opened fire on Israel in support of
Tehran on March 2 and Israel responded with an air campaign and ground invasion
that has uprooted some 1.2 million people. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi
said there must be a complete halt to Israeli attacks against Lebanon and wrote
on Telegram that the US bears responsibility for implementing the framework
deal. Hezbollah welcomed the deal and said the inclusion of Lebanon reflected
Iran’s commitment to securing a halt to the war and preserving Lebanon’s rights.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to respond publicly to the
US-Iran agreement. But Defense Minister Israel Katz said that Israel would
remain “indefinitely” in areas it is occupying in southern Lebanon to eliminate
what it perceives as militant threats.
Privately, Israeli officials’ views of the deal have been negative. One senior
Israeli official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that the agreement was
“terrible for Israel,” and that this assessment was shared throughout the
government from Netanyahu on down. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz would
help solve a global energy crisis precipitated by the war, which has hurt
Trump’s political fortunes by forcing up gasoline prices in the United States.
“Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” he wrote on Sunday.
On Monday he announced: “Ships are starting to move, many loaded up with Oil,
out of the Strait of Hormuz.”
Hezbollah says has repelled an Israeli force in south Lebanon
AFP/15 June ,2026
Lebanese militant group Hezbollah said on Monday it had repelled an Israeli
force that was trying to “advance” in southern Lebanon, despite the US-Iran
agreement to end the Middle East war on all fronts including in Lebanon.
Fighters from the group “using rockets and drones” blocked an Israeli force
consisting of an excavator and two Merkava tanks that was “advancing” in the
vicinity of Kfar Tebnit town near the southern city of Nabatieh, Hezbollah said
in a statement. Earlier on Monday, an Israeli drone targeted a car in the same
area “killing its driver,” Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reported,
marking the first reported deadly strike since the agreement was announced.
Details of the agreement to end the Middle East war on all fronts have not been
made public, but Iran and mediator Pakistan have both said it includes Lebanon.
Hezbollah drew the country into the Middle East war on March 2 with rocket fire
at Israel to avenge the killing of Iran’s supreme leader in US-Israeli
strikes.Israel responded with airstrikes and a ground invasion that Lebanon says
have killed more than 3,700 people and displaced more than one million others.
An official source told AFP that “Lebanon was not informed of the terms of the
agreement or the time of the ceasefire.”
Lebanon’s Aoun Hopes US-Iran Deal Will Put ‘Definitive End’
to Israel-Hezbollah War
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Monday expressed hope that a deal between
Washington and Tehran to end the Middle East war would put a "definitive end" to
the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. In a statement issued by his office,
Aoun praised the memorandum's affirmation that "Lebanon's security and safety
are an integral part of any effort to consolidate stability in the region".The
Lebanese people "look forward to these understandings transforming into
practical steps that put a definitive end to the cycle of violence and establish
a phase of stability, security, recovery and reconstruction," the statement
added. Israel’s defense minister said Monday that Israel won’t withdraw from
land occupied in Lebanon as the interim deal between Iran and the United States
is pending. Katz said Israel plans to stay “indefinitely” in lands it holds in
Lebanon, as well as Syria and the Gaza Strip.Iran has tied the interim deal over
the war to halting Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon. Meanwhile, two
Israeli far-right ministers denounced the deal. "We must not settle for anything
less than the dismantling of Hezbollah. We must not withdraw from a single inch
of territory that our soldiers have captured and cleared of terrorist
infrastructure," National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said on his Telegram
channel said. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich also echoed the sentiment,
calling the deal "bad for Israel". He also called for a stronger campaign in
Lebanon. "We will be judged in Lebanon. This is our war, our soldiers, and the
immediate security of our northern residents," he said.
Trump says resolving
conflict in Lebanon 'should not be tough'
Naharnet//June 15/2026
U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday hinted that he wants to put an end to the
Israel-Hezbollah conflict. "We do wanna see if we can straighten out the Lebanon
thing, because it just seems to just never end, and it's a mini version of what
we were doing, but it should not be tough ... Hezbollah -- we have to have a
little talk with them," Trump said in remarks to the press at the G7 summit in
France. Israel carried out three drone strikes in south Lebanon and opened
artillery fire at several towns on Monday despite a U.S.-Iran deal announced
overnight that calls for ending the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon.
The Israeli attacks prompted Hezbollah to retaliate by firing rockets and drones
at Israeli forces occupying parts of south Lebanon. Several previous ceasefires
had also failed to halt the fighting between the two sides.
Berri says phased, 60-day Israel
pullout mentioned in Iran-US deal
Naharnet/June 15/2026
Speaker Nabih Berri revealed Monday that a phased, 60-day Israeli withdrawal
from south Lebanon is mentioned in the latest peace deal between Iran and the
U.S., whose details are yet to be officially disclosed. In remarks to the "Whyz"
news portal, Berri added that he rejects the so-called "pilot zones" that have
been recently proposed by Washington. "Lebanon consists of 24 districts, not 24
pilot zones," he said. Pilot zones are areas from which Israel would withdraw
its forces to be replaced by Lebanese troops who would clear the area of any
weapons belonging to nonstate actors. Asked what guarantees that Israel would
implement the terms of any agreement, Berri said: "This agreement is bigger than
Lebanon and its implementation cannot be flouted as happened in the 2024
agreement, because U.S. President Donald Trump has take it upon himself."
Netanyahu says Israeli forces to stay in Lebanon, Syria,
Gaza 'as long as necessary'
Agence France Presse/June 15/2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Israel's forces
would remain in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria "for as long as necessary," hours after
a deal was announced between Iran and the U.S. to end the Middle East war. "We
established deep security zones around the State of Israel. We did this in Gaza,
in Lebanon, and in Syria," Netanyahu said in a televised press conference. "And
I want to make it clear: we will remain in these security zones for as long as
necessary to protect our country."Netanyahu also noted that Israel has seized
control of strategic areas in south Lebanon and that Hezbollah "only retains 8%
of its 150,000 rockets." Boasting that Israel had killed Hezbollah's historic
leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, Netanyahu told the Israeli public opinion that
the army also prevented Hezbollah from invading the Galilee.
Araghchi stresses 'importance of respecting Lebanon's
sovereignty' in call with Aoun
Agence France Presse
President Joseph Aoun on Monday welcomed the announced U.S.-Iran deal to end the
Middle East war during a call from Tehran's top diplomat and foreign minister
Abbas Araghchi, the Lebanese presidency said in a statement. The Lebanese leader
said he hoped the agreement would be a "positive step towards reducing tensions
and opening the door to diplomatic solutions," while Araghchi emphasized "the
importance of respecting Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity by all
parties," the statement said.
1 killed, many hurt, including reporter, in 3 Israeli
attacks on Kfartebnit
Naharnet/June 15/2026
An Israeli drone targeted Monday a car in the southern town of Kfartebnit near
the Israeli-designated "Yellow Line", where Israeli troops remain despite the
announcement of a U.S.-Iran deal. The strike killed the car's driver. Another
drone strike on a car earlier in the day had wounded several people in the same
town. An Israeli shell meanwhile landed near Lebanese reporter Hadi Hoteit, also
in Kfartebnit, wounding him in the leg. Israeli figures slammed on Monday the
deal between the United States and Iran to end the Middle East war, including in
Lebanon, saying it would not protect their country's security.
Israeli media meanwhile reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told
U.S. President Donald Trump that Israel will not withdraw from its current
positions in Lebanon and does not consider itself bound by the Lebanese clause
in the emerging U.S.-Iran agreement.
Israeli artillery shelled Kfartebnit and Nabatiyeh al-Fawqa on Monday, while
Hezbollah has not claimed any attacks since the announcement of the deal. The
army on Monday urged displaced residents to delay their return to southern
border villages."The army command emphasizes the need for residents to delay
returning to southern border villages and towns, and to adhere to instructions
of the deployed army units, in order to safeguard their safety from the risk of
Israeli violations and attacks," a statement said. Since early Monday, displaced
citizens were seen cautiously returning to several south Lebanon areas where
Israeli forces are not present, while drones were flying at low altitude over
south Lebanon and Beirut.
In Nabatieh, residents mourn destroyed homes, livelihoods
Agence France Presse/June 15/2026
When Kamal Kamal heard a ceasefire deal had been agreed between Iran and the
United States, he rushed back to the southern city of Nabatieh only to find an
Israeli strike had reduced his life's work to rubble. The city, usually home to
some 90,000 people before the latest war between Israel and Hezbollah erupted on
March 2, was largely deserted as Israel pressed its military offensive in the
area in recent days. Kamal fought back tears as he stared stunned at the pile of
rubble that used to be his roastery and warehouse for coffee and other products,
after Israel pummelled the region with strikes and issued sweeping evacuation
orders. "When I opened it in the seventies, I was still a young man... now
nothing is left," he said, leaning heavily on a walking stick and surveying the
vast destruction. "How my life has been spent in vain here!"The war in Lebanon
has been included in the framework deal to end the broader Middle East war. But
Lebanon's army on Monday urged displaced residents to delay their return to
southern border villages, citing the "risk of Israeli violations and attacks".
Hezbollah issued a similar warning.
Yet residents who have cautiously returned to Nabatieh have expressed dismay at
the huge damage Israel inflicted on the city's neighborhoods and its famed
market, where the roofing had collapsed and shops were devastated. An AFP
photographer also saw destruction to homes and businesses in the city, which has
served as a hub of economic, social and services activity.
'Sorrow and grief' -
The city's municipality said in a statement that it had asked residents not to
return "at the present time under any circumstances", citing the security
situation. The Lebanese Army had set up a checkpoint at the entrance to the
city, advising locals about the roads that they could take as intermittent
artillery shelling rang out and smoke rose up. The flow of residents to Nabatieh
picked up later in the day, with people inspecting their homes and properties as
heavy machinery worked to remove rubble and clear roads. In one heavily damaged
neighborhood, Rana Nasrallah surveyed her destroyed home, the rubble strewn with
clothes, furniture and pot plants.The 45-year-old had fled with her family to
the coastal city of Sidon during the war. "We grew up in this neighborhood. We
used to play here as children. And here's where the older women used to sit and
chat, the historic Nabatieh market before us... the landmarks that they perhaps
wanted to erase," she said. "As soon as the ceasefire was declared and before
any official (Lebanese) announcement... we got going and came here. We couldn't
wait any longer."We came to breathe in the scent of our land... even if there
are no homes to shelter us and there is no work, still it's a relief for our
souls."
In the face of the huge damage in Nabatieh and other south Lebanon towns and
villages, including where Israeli forces have carried out sweeping demolitions,
Nasrallah still expressed hope of returning permanently. "Despite the sorrow and
grief at seeing the city destroyed... we are filled with hope that we will
rebuild," she said. "Not once did we feel defeated or that we would not triumph,
or that we would not return to rebuild Nabatieh."
Hezbollah MP says Iran told them Israeli pullout part of
deal
Naharnet/June 15/2026
MP Hussein al-Hajj Hassan on Monday said that Hezbollah and Speaker Nabih Berri
have been informed by Iran that Israeli withdrawal is included within the
"framework of the agreement" with the U.S. and that "its details will be
discussed soon.""If the Israeli army does not withdraw, we will have a stance
then," Hajj Hassan added, in an interview with Al-Jadeed TV, emphasizing that
Hezbollah does not recognize any Israeli-drawn lines. Addressing residents
displaced from south Lebanon, the MP said: "Be patient; we will return with our
heads held high."He added that a joint statement will be issued by Hezbollah and
the Amal Movement once a safe return is possible. Earlier in the day, Israeli
Defense Minister Israel Katz said that Israel does not intend to withdraw from
the so-called security zones in Lebanon, Gaza and Syria.
US-Iran deal a 'catastrophe' for Israel, analysts say
Agence France Presse/June 15/2026
The U.S.-Iran agreement to conclude the Middle East war is a significant
strategic setback for Israel and underscores its waning influence in Washington,
Israeli analysts said. Although the accord, announced by Pakistan early Monday,
remains incomplete and is expected to be finalized within 60 days, its
preliminary framework has already raised concern in Israel. Analysts argue it
effectively locks in Iranian gains while deferring the most sensitive issue for
Israel: its security. According to former intelligence officer Danny Citrinowicz,
this means the U.S.-Iran deal amounts to nothing less than a "political and
security catastrophe for the State of Israel".It is also a blow to Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who once hoped to sail into October elections as
the victor in campaigns against Hamas, Hezbollah and Tehran -- but instead is
under fire for failing to attain Israel's key war aims. "We knew for quite a
long time that it was going to be an agreement that will take into account most
of the interests of the Iranians," said Sima Shine, an analyst with Israel's
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS). "The issues that are important
to Israel, such as the nuclear one, are left for some future that we don't
know," said Shine, also a former Israeli intelligence officer. The U.S. and
Israel launched a joint campaign against Iran on February 28, with Netanyahu
hoping to topple the Islamic republic and dismantle its nuclear and ballistic
missile programs, seen by him as "existential threats".Beyond leaving the
nuclear question unresolved, Citrinowicz said the result of the conflict makes
it unlikely that any future U.S. president would risk renewed military action
against Iran. This, analysts say, effectively allows Tehran to emerge stronger
after more than three months of conflict."At the end of the day, Iran is
becoming stronger, and Israel has no ability to influence the U.S. president's
decisions," Citrinowicz argued.
'Mr Iran
U.S. President Donald Trump excoriated Netanyahu for launching attacks in
Lebanon that threatened to derail the final agreement just hours before it was
announced. "He's a very difficult guy," Trump said of Netanyahu, "and to be
honest with you, he should be very thankful to us for doing this. Because if
Iran had a nuclear weapon, Israel wouldn't be around for two hours."Netanyahu
has yet to publicly respond to the deal, but his coalition ally, National
Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, has already dismissed it, saying Israel is
"not bound" by the agreement. "It's a very, very, very bad development for
Israel, and for Netanyahu specifically, who was, you know, Mr. Iran," said
Citrinowicz, referring to Netanyahu's long history of antagonism with the
Islamic republic. "Mr Iran is stuck with a deal that covers almost none of the
issues that are important to Israel," he said.
'Weak leverage'-
While analysts are not surprised by Israel's absence from the negotiations, they
said they are struck by what they see as its eroding influence in Washington.
"Israel never played a direct role in U.S.-Iran negotiations, but simply weighed
on the talks through DC," said Michael Horowitz, an independent security analyst
and expert on U.S.-Israeli relations."But what's surprising, and hints at
Israel's fading influence in Washington, is that Trump seems to simply have
dashed Israel's concerns," he added. "Not only did Trump ignore Israel, he
effectively decided for Israel and without consulting or even warning it. We're
seeing who is in charge and who gets the final say here."Michael Milshtein, an
expert on Israeli military affairs, said the agreement leaves Israel in a weaker
position than before the war on all fronts. "The only thing that Israel can do
is to say, 'OK, we accept the ceasefire, but let us have a say on the details of
the deal, especially the nuclear project'," Milshtein said."Netanyahu brought us
to a point of very weak leverage," he added, arguing that Israel has limited
influence over both Washington and broader diplomatic processes. "It seems that
right now we are forced to accept any agreement with Iran, for example, but I
assess very soon also with Lebanon and finally with Gaza," he said, referring to
two other theatres where Israeli forces are operating
Successful Negotiations
Depend on the Return of the State
Sam Menassa/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
In Lebanon, debate is widening over the usefulness of continuing direct
negotiations with Israel. One political camp rejects them outright, while
another calls for withdrawing from them, arguing that they are futile in light
of continued Israeli attacks and incursions and the renewed targeting of
Beirut’s southern suburbs.Hezbollah, meanwhile, refuses to accept Israel’s terms
and believes that Israel is using negotiations as diplomatic cover to continue
military pressure and impose new facts on the ground. In contrast, another camp
insists on the need to continue the talks, not because it trusts Israel’s
intentions, but because negotiations constitute the only tool available to
Lebanon in the face of international and Israeli pressure, and because
withdrawing from them would give Israel an opportunity to portray itself as a
party seeking a solution in contrast to a Lebanese state unwilling to engage in
dialogue.
The dispute between the two camps conceals an embarrassing dilemma: what
negotiating cards does the Lebanese state actually possess? The state finds
itself in an exceptional negotiating position. It is not negotiating to end a
war it fought, nor over weapons under its control, but rather over a conflict
between Israel and Hezbollah, at a time when the government considers the
group’s security and military activities to be outside the bounds of legitimacy
and insists that decisions of war and peace must rest exclusively with the
state. As a result, the negotiations have become an attempt to address the
consequences of a reality beyond the state’s control. The paradox becomes even
more complicated when the principal party is not actually participating in the
negotiations, but instead rejects them and adheres to an entirely different
approach. How can a state negotiate over security and political arrangements
that it alone lacks the ability to guarantee? And how can any agreement succeed
if one of the parties concerned does not recognize the process that produced it
in the first place?
Nevertheless, withdrawing from the negotiations could be a political mistake no
less serious than their limited results. Lebanon is not negotiating because it
possesses exceptional leverage, but because it faces issues that cannot be
addressed except through a negotiating process. First, there are the
consequences of the war, including destruction, displacement, and economic
losses, which require measures that would allow residents to return and
reconstruction to begin. Second, there is the issue of the land border and
disputed points, a matter that cannot be resolved through military force alone.
There is also an urgent need for security and political arrangements following
the cessation of hostilities.
Alongside these considerations, negotiations constitute one of the few remaining
channels linking Lebanon to the United States and the Gulf states involved in
efforts to consolidate stability. Withdrawing from them could be interpreted as
the state abandoning its responsibilities or being unable to keep pace with
ongoing diplomatic efforts. In this sense, Lebanon is not negotiating only with
Israel; it is also negotiating over its place in the regional order taking shape
after the decline of Iranian influence in the Levant, unless US-Iranian
negotiations produce the opposite outcome.
Betting on the negotiations’ definitive failure may be premature. Understandings
often begin as fragile arrangements before evolving into more stable realities.
From this perspective, the idea of a “model zone,” despite the ambiguities
surrounding it, may provide an opportunity to return residents to their areas
and create a margin of stability that prevents a return to war. Its success,
however, remains contingent on the Lebanese state’s ability to exercise
effective authority there and on Israel’s willingness to respect its
commitments, neither of which has yet been demonstrated. Nor can one rule out a
potentially helpful factor: the possibility of political changes within Israel
itself that could produce a more moderate government and one less inclined
toward military options.
However, continuing negotiations should not become the state’s sole policy or a
substitute for building its internal sources of strength. The real battle is not
being fought only at the negotiating table, but also within state institutions.
What is required, alongside any negotiating track, is the return of the state to
areas untouched by the war and to those outside the party’s control before
extending across all of Lebanon; strengthening the army and security forces; and
dismantling networks of influence within official institutions that have enabled
the existence of a parallel state within the state for decades.
Equally important is the launch of a new national approach, backed by genuine
Arab and international support, toward Hezbollah’s social base with the aim of
freeing it from the party’s control and domination. Such an approach should be
based on political inclusion rather than isolation, and on partnership rather
than confrontation. The restoration of the state’s role cannot be achieved
through conflict with a major Lebanese constituency. Rather, it requires
providing a political and institutional alternative that reconnects citizens
with the state as the sole authority for protection, representation, and
services.
The main problem may not lie in the negotiations themselves, but in the belief
that they alone can produce a solution. They may address an immediate challenge,
namely the ongoing war. They may reduce risks and provide diplomatic cover for
the state. But they cannot remedy the structural imbalance that led Lebanon into
war without a state decision and left it unable to impose peace afterward.
Unless the state succeeds in restoring its effective monopoly over sovereignty,
arms, and decision-making, Lebanon will not benefit from these negotiations, and
they will remain merely an attempt to manage an open-ended crisis rather than
bring it to an end.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on
15-16 June/2026
President Donald Trump, right, meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu in the
Reuters/15 June ,2026
Benjamin Netanyahu bet that his joint war alongside US President Donald Trump
would topple Iran’s clerical rulers and bolster himself ahead of elections at
home, as the architect of a US-Israeli alliance that would reshape the Middle
East. Instead, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister is on a collision course
with Trump as the US president seeks to extricate himself from the war, with
both men’s goals unmet and Israeli military operations tied down in Lebanon. For
now, Israeli officials have been cautious in public for fear of angering their
most important ally, known for being prickly towards critics. But in private
conversations, the frustration is clear. The preliminary agreement is “terrible
for Israel,” said one senior Israeli official, giving a frank assessment on
condition of anonymity. “And there is no one in the Israeli leadership who views
it otherwise, from the prime minister to the chief of staff.”Washington says
that over the next 60 days, when a ceasefire is in place, it will negotiate full
terms that will address US and Israeli concerns, especially over Iran’s nuclear
program. But Israeli officials told Reuters they thought the negotiating period
under the deal was likely to be extended, tying Israel’s hands from taking
military action, while its concerns remain unresolved. Netanyahu and Trump have
repeatedly clashed over Israel’s refusal to constrain its pursuit of Iran-backed
Hezbollah in Lebanon, where a cessation of hostilities is a key Iranian demand.
At the start of the month, Trump described Netanyahu as “fucking crazy” in an
angry phone call, ordering him not to strike Beirut while the US was seeking a
deal with Iran.
Netanyahu called off attacks that day, but struck Beirut’s southern suburbs a
week later, provoking Iranian missile strikes on Israel and a public rebuke of
both sides from Trump. Hours before the US and Iran announced their interim
deal, Israel hit the Lebanese capital again on Sunday, after rockets were
launched at Israel from Lebanon, fire Trump described as “small and
meaningless.”Netanyahu said that Israel has emerged “strong and steady,” with a
leadership that stands firm and wise. At a press conference in Jerusalem late on
Monday, he acknowledged that he and Trump have sometimes had their differences.
“He is the president of the United States, I am the prime minister of Israel. We
many times see eye-to-eye and there are times when we see eye-to-eye less so. I
am in charge of Israel’s security interests,” Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu, facing autumn elections he is projected to lose, may be more willing
to defy Trump as he contends with an Israeli public that opinion polls show has
grown skeptical of the US president’s commitment to Israel’s security. “This is
a pretty stark moment of divergence of interests,” said Dan Shapiro, a former US
ambassador to Israel under the Obama administration, now with the Atlantic
Council think tank. “He will try to not openly oppose (the deal), so as not to
get into a brawl with Trump,” said Shapiro. “But he will indicate Israel is not
bound by it, and Israel reserves its rights.”
Israel says it’s not bound by US-Iran pact
The memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran is expected to be signed
on Friday in Switzerland. While precise terms were not immediately known,
mediator Pakistan said the pact called for a permanent halt to military
operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon. Netanyahu said that Israel would
keep its forces in southern Lebanon and maintain “freedom of action” against
Hezbollah attacks. “Iran wanted us to withdraw from it but I stood firm,” he
told reporters. “We are keeping our freedom of action and we are keeping the
security zone to protect (Israel’s) northern citizens,” he said. The interim
deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz oil chokepoint while leaving the fate of
Tehran’s nuclear program to be resolved during a 60-day negotiation period
towards a final deal. Two other issues that Netanyahu and Trump had both
declared as justifications for the war at its outset - curbing Iran’s missile
program and ending its support for regional armed groups - are not thought to be
on the agenda during those talks. Three Israeli officials said Israel sees it as
very likely the 60-day pact will be extended to 90 days, with the US maintaining
its deployment of military assets in the region as it negotiates a broader deal.
Two other Israeli officials said that Israel was caught by surprise last week
when Trump first said that a deal with Iran was close. They acknowledged that
Israel has had little success in influencing the talks. All of the officials
spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak
publicly.
Netanyahu unable to sell this agreement to Israeli public, analyst says
Netanyahu, who often clashed with Washington under the administrations of
Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden, has long portrayed himself to the Israeli
public as being uniquely adept in dealing with the Republican Trump. During
Trump’s first term, Israel secured major policy changes from Washington, which
moved its embassy to Jerusalem and backed the Abraham Accords that brought
Israel formal diplomatic ties with the UAE and Bahrain. On Iran, Trump ditched a
nuclear agreement negotiated under Obama that Israel had long complained was too
soft. During elections in 2019, Netanyahu displayed massive campaign billboards
in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem showing him and Trump smiling and shaking hands. But
now, the US-Iran pact undermines Netanyahu’s case that a close relationship with
Trump sets him apart from other candidates for prime minister, said Jonathan
Rynhold, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University, near Tel Aviv.
“(Netanyahu) will be unable to sell this agreement to the Israeli public,”
Rynhold said. “The best that he can hope for is that they fail to reach an
agreement and the war restarts to Israel’s advantage in 60 days.”According to a
poll released on Friday by the Israel Democracy Institute, just 41 percent of
Jewish Israelis think their security is a central consideration for Trump, down
from 64 percent in March. Eli Cohen, Netanyahu’s energy minister, said that
Israel would be prepared to act alone if Iran rebuilds its nuclear and missile
capabilities, though he said the chances of Tehran taking that step during
Trump’s tenure were low. “If Iran tries to renew its nuclear and ballistic
missile programs - we will be there and act,” Cohen told Israel’s public
broadcaster Kan. Read more: US-Iran deal to end war signed, US official says;
Lebanon remains sticking point
In US, Trump’s Iran deal receives mixed reception
AFP/16 June ,2026
US President Donald Trump can claim a diplomatic victory after reaching an
agreement with Iran to end the war in the Middle East, but numerous pitfalls
remain and he has lost political capital. The cautious reception to the Sunday
announcement of the memorandum of understanding with Iran -- scheduled to be
signed in Geneva on Friday -- reflects prevailing skepticism at a time when the
war is unpopular due to the soaring oil prices and inflation it has caused. The
deal ends nearly four months of conflict, paving the way for negotiations on
Iran’s nuclear program and the lifting of sanctions.It effectively extends the
current ceasefire by 60 days and provides for the opening of the Strait of
Hormuz -- a strategic artery for oil and gas shipments -- before the start of
what promise to be extremely sensitive negotiations. Launched on February 28 by
the United States and Israel, the war has set the Middle East on fire and caused
thousands of deaths -- mainly in Iran and Lebanon -- and destabilized global
trade.Thirteen US troops were also killed during the conflict. Trump, who
initially said the war would last four to six weeks, has faced mounting pressure
at home to extricate the United States from the conflict ahead of midterm
elections in November. While close allies immediately hailed him as the
“president of peace,” reactions have been mixed, even within his Republican
party. “I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems
different than what the American negotiating team is claiming,” said Republican
Senator Lindsay Graham, a staunch opponent of Tehran, adding: “Any nuclear deal
with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote.”Senator John Cornyn,
another Republican, reposted a message on X from conservative commentator Pastor
John Hagee that said: “No deal is better than a bad deal.” Senator Chris Murphy,
a member of the opposition Democrats, questioned whether a final agreement will
be reached. “But if there is, two things will be true at the same time: a) It’s
essentially surrender to Iran. b) We should be glad about it, because every day
this insane, illegal war continues, we get weaker,” he said.
‘Not the final word’
Senior Trump administration officials have sought to defend the deal, which
Washington ostensibly launched with the aim of preventing Iran from eventually
acquiring a nuclear weapon. US Vice President JD Vance said Monday on ABC’s
“Good Morning America” that once the text is released, “everybody will see...
that Iran doesn’t get a dime of money unless they perform their
obligations.”Larry Sabato, a political scientist and University of Virginia
professor, said that “this is not the final word, they have loads of details to
argue over, maybe even for years.” “This was a completely unnecessary war that
has accomplished very little and cost a lot,” Sabato told AFP. He pointed out
that Trump -- whose approval ratings are at an all-time low -- has lost
political capital, including within the Republican-controlled Congress and among
supporters. As for whether a new deal would effectively amount to a return to
the original 2015 agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated and Trump
tore up during his first term, that question remains unanswered. Obama, a
Democrat, said on ABC’s “This Week” that “it is doubtful that any agreement that
arises is going to be significantly different or a significant improvement from
the deal that we had in the first place.” The agreement “worked for a long
stretch of time before” Trump pulled out, he said. For Wendy Sherman, one of the
main negotiators of the 2015 deal, “this probably will turn out somewhat
similar.”But “we’re in a very different place, however, because we did not have
virtually 1,000 pounds of 60-percent highly enriched uranium, which is quite
concerning, nor all of the other problems,” she told ABC’s Martha Raddatz. “I
can assure you, they will not get all of this done in 60 days,” Sherman added.
Trump Arrives with Iran Deal to Meet Wary World Leaders at G7 Summit
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
US President Donald Trump joined global leaders on Monday at the Group of Seven
summit at a French lakeside resort, where relief over a deal to end the Iran war
was tempered by unease over new US tariff threats aimed at France. Trump was met
at the G7 summit in Evian-les-Bains by Emmanuel Macron's chief of protocol ahead
of a bilateral meeting with the French president. According to a prior planning
document, Macron had been due to welcome Trump himself. "Everything is very
nice, thank you," Trump told reporters as he arrived, just hours after securing
a preliminary deal with Iran that is one of several issues G7 leaders will
wrestle with during the June 15 to 17 summit.They will also seek common ground
on the war in Ukraine, tackling global economic imbalances and sourcing critical
minerals outside of the dominant supplier China.
LEADERS WARY OF TRUMP
Global leaders are increasingly wary of the United States and, underscoring the
tensions, Trump told the New York Post before leaving for France he would
"have no choice" but to apply 100% tariffs on French wine unless Paris
eliminates its digital tax on US tech giants.
Then, in a social media post just before arriving at the summit, he turned to a
subject that has been a regular source of tension with centrist European allies:
immigration. "Sadly, if you import people from Third World Countries, you
quickly become a Third World Country — And there's not a thing you can do about
it," he wrote. Trump's tariff threats come ahead of a summit that serves as the
diplomatic culmination of Macron's second and final term and represent a blow
for the unpopular French president. Macron, who steps down next year, is
increasingly seen as a lame duck at home but still has pull on a global stage.
He was able to get Trump to agree to a glitzy dinner at the Palace of
Versailles on Wednesday to mark 250 years of US independence. Macron told TF1
that France would not yield to Trump's threats, adding, "tariffs don't do anyone
any good, especially tariffs between G7 countries."
TRUMP REMAINS UNPREDICTABLE
Trump's comments on tariffs and immigration underline why he is viewed as a
volatile partner by other G7 leaders. Many of them have been directly impacted
by unilateral Trump decisions that have upended the Middle East, global trade
and diplomacy, and prompted deeper soul-searching over the US commitment to the
post-war global order it helped establish. During the summit, Trump is due to
meet Middle Eastern leaders and attend a working session with Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The Tuesday meeting comes as Russian advances in
Ukraine have slowed and Ukraine seeks more military funding from its allies,
amid a barrage of attacks on Kyiv."This attack only strengthens our
determination to do everything, with our allies and partners, to work towards a
ceasefire that Russia stubbornly refuses, then to peace. We will work on it at
the G7," Macron said in a post on X. Zelenskiy said on Monday he had offered to
meet Russia's President Vladimir Putin at the G7 summit for talks to end their
more than four-year-old war, but Putin was not ready to speak.
Zelenskiy's hand has improved since Trump famously told him in the Oval Office
last year: "You don't have the cards." But he may find greater US support
elusive as Trump prioritizes drawing a line under the Iran conflict, which has
dented his support domestically.
DETAILS OF IRAN DEAL
G7 leaders will be keen to learn the details of the US-Iran deal. A memorandum
of understanding is scheduled to be signed on Friday in Switzerland but precise
terms are unclear. Trump said the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping route for
global oil and gas supplies that Iran has effectively shut down, would open on
Friday, and that he had ordered the end of the US blockade of Iranian ports.
France and Britain have been working on a military plan to send a mission to the
region that would help open the Strait, although that would depend on Tehran's
green light. The leaders are not expected to have detailed discussions of what
should be done, assuming the deal is signed, with Iran's highly enriched
uranium, its ballistic program or frozen Iranian assets. These issues will
entail complex, technical negotiations. At the summit, Macron also wants to push
for action on global macroeconomic imbalances. But Trump's warning on tariffs
may cause some friction, particularly as French officials had said the digital
tax would not be an issue for the G7.
Trump Says Iran Deal Has Been Signed, Text to Come Soon
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
US President Donald Trump on Monday said an agreement with Iran has been signed
and that the text of the deal would be released sometime after a formal signing
on Friday, adding that the Strait of Hormuz would also be fully open. Speaking
alongside French President Emmanuel Macron ahead of this week's G7 meeting,
Trump said he did not know if he would attend the Friday ceremony expected in
Geneva, but that US Vice President JD Vance would be there. "The deal's all
signed. And the strait is already partially opened, as you know," Trump told
reporters shortly after arriving in Evian, France. "On Friday, it'll be
completely open."Vance earlier on Monday said the agreement had been signed
digitally on Sunday and that no funds were released. Asked when the text of the
memorandum of understanding would be made public, Trump said: "Probably pretty
soon. I would say after sometime after Friday... I think sometime in the very
near future."Trump said any sanctions relief for Tehran was "really a behavioral
thing. If they do what they're supposed to do, that starts taking effect."There
was no immediate response from Tehran to the report that the agreement, which
both sides announced overnight, had already been signed. Previous reports from
both sides had suggested it would be signed officially at a ceremony in Geneva
on Friday. In an early reminder of the agreement's fragility, Israel - which
launched the war alongside the United States in February and was not consulted
on the talks to end it - struck a car with a drone in southern Lebanon, where it
has been battling the Iran-aligned Hezbollah movement. Iran has said the deal
must bring a full cessation of hostilities there. The terms of the memorandum of
understanding, reached after more than two months of negotiations, have yet to
be published. A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he
expected the terms would be made public in the next 24-48 hours. Oil prices
tumbled on the prospect of an end to disruption to global energy supplies, and
share prices soared, some hitting new records. Trump, who had earlier said the
blockaded Strait of Hormuz would be open on Friday, said on Monday that ships
had already begun transiting it. However, the US military told shippers it had
not yet lifted its blockade of Iranian ports.
60-DAY NEGOTIATION PERIOD
According to accounts from both sides, the agreement would reopen the blockaded
strait and extend a ceasefire for a 60-day negotiation period, when contentious
issues such as the future of Iran's nuclear program are due to be decided.
Meanwhile, the immediate fate of the pact could hinge on Lebanon, where Israel
has been battling the Iran-aligned Hezbollah armed group in parallel with the
wider war that it launched alongside the United States against Iran in
February. Iran has said the preliminary agreement requires a cessation of
hostilities on all fronts, including in Lebanon. Israel, which was not
consulted on the preliminary deal, has said it reserves the right to act in
Lebanon against Hezbollah threats. Security sources said fighting in southern
Lebanon had tamped down on Monday after the agreement was announced but had not
ceased entirely. In the first strike of its kind since the announcement, an
Israeli drone struck a car in the southern Lebanese town of Kfar Tebnit, killing
the driver, Lebanese state media reported. There was no immediate comment from
the Israeli military on the strike.
LEBANON HAS BEEN A STICKING POINT
While the US and Iran had largely ceased hostilities in early April, fighting
has not ceased in Lebanon, where Hezbollah opened fire on Israel in support of
Tehran on March 2 and Israel responded with an air campaign and ground invasion
that has uprooted some 1.2 million people. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi
said there must be a complete halt to Israeli attacks against Lebanon and wrote
on Telegram that the US bears responsibility for implementing the framework
deal. Hezbollah welcomed the deal and said the inclusion of Lebanon reflected
Iran's commitment to securing a halt to the war and preserving Lebanon's rights.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to respond publicly to the
US-Iran agreement. But Defense Minister Israel Katz said that Israel would
remain "indefinitely" in areas it is occupying in southern Lebanon to eliminate
what it perceives as militant threats. Privately, Israeli officials' views of
the deal have been negative. One senior Israeli official told Reuters on
condition of anonymity that the agreement was "terrible for Israel," and that
this assessment was shared throughout the government from Netanyahu on down.
The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz would help solve a global energy crisis
precipitated by the war, which has hurt Trump's political fortunes by forcing up
gasoline prices in the United States. "Ships of the World, start your engines.
Let the oil flow!" he wrote on Sunday.
On Monday he announced: "Ships are starting to move, many loaded up with Oil,
out of the Strait of Hormuz."
Vance Says Funds Won’t Be Transferred to Iran in Exchange for Signing Deal to
Halt War
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
US Vice President JD Vance said on Monday that no funds would be released to
Iran in exchange for signing an agreement to halt the war and open the Strait of
Hormuz and that text of the framework deal would be shared this week. In an
interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" program, Vance said signing the
memorandum of understanding with Iran, expected to take place in Switzerland on
Friday, would not trigger the release of frozen assets. Vance said the agreement
was already signed digitally on Sunday and no funds were released.
"There's been no money released, and that won't change," he said. Vance said
Iran would receive money only if it took verified steps to eliminate its
stockpile of highly enriched uranium. "If we see the Iranians making, for
example, taking action to eliminate their stockpile of enriched material, then
yes, sanctions relief will follow. If we see the Iranians taking action to allow
the kind of verification regime that we need to see to know that they're not
going to build a nuclear weapon, yes, sanctions relief will follow," he said.
"If they don't do the right things, if they don't allow the verification
regime, they're never going to have the money to rebuild their nuclear program
to begin with."In an interview on CNBC on Monday, Vance also said the United
States expects the economically vital waterway would be open without tolls.
"Our expectation is that the Strait is going to be opened in a toll-free way for
the long-term," he said. "That's the sort of thing that we're going to figure
out in these technical negotiations. You know that there are a lot of very
important details to figure out that we're actually going to sit at the table
and discuss together and figure out a path forward."The US and Iran said they
had agreed terms to end their war and reopen the strait, news that brought
relief to markets, although the pact may hinge on an end to hostilities in
Lebanon and defers talks on Tehran's nuclear program. While still a framework,
the deal marked the biggest breakthrough toward resolving the conflict that has
killed thousands and upended energy markets since it began with joint US-Israeli
strikes on Iran in February. Vance told CNBC that Iran's foreign minister and
House speaker will represent Iran at the signing in Switzerland on Friday and
many details of the deal are still to be sorted out. He did not say who would
represent the US at the signing.
Iran's Fars News Agency Says Hormuz Maritime Fees Added to
US Deal Last Minute
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Iran's Fars news agency said on Monday, quoting what it said was an informed
source, that Tehran added a clause on imposing maritime service fees to the
framework deal with the United States shortly before its announcement. "In the
final moments of the negotiations, the text of the memorandum of understanding
was amended to clearly and explicitly emphasize the issue of the Iranian-Omani
sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz," said Fars, citing the unidentified
source. "The use of the term 'maritime services' means that the United States
has accepted that fees will be paid to Iran," it added.
The Iranian Leaders Killed in Israeli-US War
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Over the course of the US-Israeli war on Iran, waves of airstrikes killed an
entire echelon of the Iranian republic's political and military elite, starting
with supreme leader Ali Khamenei. President Donald Trump had claimed in March
that the campaign had achieved "regime change", but Iran showed resilience in
rapidly replacing killed leaders and keeping up the war against the US and
Israel. With Washington and Tehran agreeing on a deal announced Monday to halt
the conflict, here is a recap of some of the key figures killed in the war:
- Supreme leader Ali Khamenei -
Khamenei, Iran's number one since 1989, was killed in the first hour of the war
on February 28 in a strike on a meeting of senior officials in Tehran that also
left his daughter-in-law, daughter and at least one grandchild dead, according
to reports.
His low-profile son Mojtaba survived -- although reportedly with injuries -- and
took over as supreme leader. He has yet to make a public appearance. Ali
Khamenei has yet to be buried, with state media reporting on Saturday that his
funeral will take place on July 9 in his hometown, the northeastern city of
Mashhad, following three days of funeral ceremonies in Tehran and another in the
holy city of Qom.
- Security chief Ali Larijani -
The killing of Larijani, who despite not being a cleric was a pillar of the
system for decades, was likely the biggest loss to the Iranian republic after
the death of Ali Khamenei. Larijani was killed on March 17 in an Israeli strike,
reportedly in the Tehran region and which also killed family members.The
previous week, he had defiantly walked in public in Tehran at a pro-government
rally.
- Revolutionary Guards chief Mohammad Pakpour -
Pakpour, previously head of the Guards' ground forces, took over as
commander-in-chief in June 2025 after his predecessor Hossein Salami was killed
in Israel's 12-day war against Iran. He was killed on the first day of the war
and has been replaced by former interior and defense minister Ahmad Vahidi.
- Guards naval chief Alireza Tangsiri -
A veteran of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Tangsiri was one of the
longest-serving senior figures in the Revolutionary Guards as the head of its
navy since 2018 and one of its highest-profile faces within the Iranian
republic. Israel's defense minister described him as the "man who was directly
responsible for the terrorist operation of mining and blocking the Strait of
Hormuz".
- Adviser Ali Shamkhani -
Shamkhani, a mainstay of the Iranian republic's armed forces since the 1980s,
was killed in an airstrike on the first day of the war. He was given a public
funeral in Tehran's Tajrish Square.
He had been severely wounded, and initially reported dead, in a strike during
Israel's June war against Iran but later re-emerged.
- Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib -
A cleric, Khatib was killed by an Israeli strike in Tehran early on March 18.
As Iran's intelligence minister since 2021, he was accused by rights groups of
playing a key role in the suppression of protests.
- Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh -
A veteran of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Nasirzadeh had served as defense
minister since 2024.
He was also killed in a strike on the first day of the war.
- Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani -
Soleimani headed the Basij, a volunteer paramilitary group that is a branch of
the Revolutionary Guards and notorious among rights groups for suppressing
protests.
He was killed in an airstrike on March 17.
- Guards spokesman Ali Mohammad Naini -
Naini was killed in March in what the Guards described as a "cowardly" attack by
the United States and Israel.
Just before his death was confirmed, the Fars news agency issued a statement
quoting Naini as saying Iran's missile production deserved a "perfect score" and
was continuing despite the war.
- Head of military office Mohammad Shirazi -
Killed on the opening day of the war, Shirazi had the crucial job of
coordinating between the various branches of the Iranian security forces at the
office of supreme leader.
- Armed forces chief Abdolrahim Mousavi -
Mousavi, killed on the first day of the war, had only taken up his post -- a
senior position that coordinates between the Guards and the regular army -- in
June 2025 following the death of his predecessor Mohammad Bagheri in the 12-day
war.
Obama Doubts Trump-Iran Deal Will Make Improvement Over His
2015 Pact
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Former US President Barack Obama said it was unrealistic to expect that any deal
between US President Donald Trump and Tehran would mark a “significant
improvement” over his own nuclear pact 11 years ago. In interview excerpts
released Sunday on ABC News talk show “This Week,” the former President also
suggested it was better to negotiate a deal that falls short of all of
Washington's requirements in order to avoid an outright war. “It is doubtful
that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different or a
significant improvement from the deal that we had in the first place,” Obama
said, referring to 2015's landmark pact that Trump abandoned, according to AFP.
Obama added that his own deal “had worked for a long stretch of time before...
the United States pulled out of it.”
US and Israeli forces sparked the Middle East war in late February when they
launched strikes against Iran. For months, Trump has bandied about a potential
peace deal with the Iranian republic.The US President has stressed the deal
would forever block Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon and would lead to
the immediate opening of the blockaded Strait of Hormuz. According to Obama, the
troubled progress of a new US-Iran deal is a reminder that Washington can not
“just bully our way or bomb our way to solutions” instead of engaging in
comprehensive diplomacy. “You'd think we would have learned that lesson by now,”
Obama said. On Monday, US and Iranian officials said they had agreed on a
framework to end their war, halt the US blockade of Iran and reopen the Strait
of Hormuz, a preliminary pact that sent oil prices falling but leaves the fate
of Iran's nuclear program to further negotiations. “The Deal with the Islamic
Republic of Iran is now complete,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform
around 5:30 pm ET local time in Washington (2130 GMT) on Sunday. His post came
shortly after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose country has served
as a mediator, announced a deal had been struck early on Monday local time,
according to Reuters. The memorandum of understanding is scheduled to be
officially signed on Friday in Switzerland. Before the deal was announced, a
senior Iranian official told Reuters that, under the terms of the draft, the US
would agree to release $25 billion of frozen Iranian assets. The Trump
administration has previously said any release of Iranian money would only take
place once Iran has fulfilled certain conditions under a peace deal. A US
official, also speaking before the announcement, said the agreement would
ultimately lead to the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program, with its stockpile
of highly enriched uranium to be destroyed and removed. The senior Iranian
official said the draft deal would allow Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear
bomb, to dilute its enriched uranium inside the country.
Netanyahu says war with Iran saved Israel from threat of ‘nuclear annihilation’
Al Arabiya English/15 June ,2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that the joint US-Israeli
military campaign against Iran had spared his country from what he described as
Tehran’s threat of “nuclear annihilation.”“The most important thing is that we
saved the State of Israel from the threat of nuclear annihilation,” Netanyahu
said, in what were his first comments after Washington and Tehran agreed to a
deal to end the Middle East war. “And what would that mean? It would mean that
millions of Israeli citizens – you who are hearing me now – all of you would
have been in terrible danger of mass death... And we have pushed away from us,
for years, this danger of the annihilation of Israel’s population,” Netanyahu
said in a televised press conference. Netanyahu said Israeli forces would remain
in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria “for as long as necessary,” hours after a deal was
announced between Iran and the US to end the Middle East war. “We established
deep security zones around the State of Israel. We did this in Gaza, in Lebanon,
and in Syria,” Netanyahu said. “And I want to make it clear: we will remain in
these security zones for as long as necessary to protect our country.”He added
that he intended to run in elections scheduled for later this year, as he faced
domestic criticism over his handling of the Middle East war and its aftermath.
“I am going to run in the elections and intend to win,” Netanyahu said. With AFP
Israel Concerned about US-Iran Deal but Does Not Want to Anger Trump
Tel Aviv: Nazir Magally/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been forced to praise the
US-Iran deal and to choose words that appease US President Donald Trump, Israeli
military and political officials expressed deep concern over the emerging
agreement, likely to be officially signed next Friday. Israeli officials fear
the deal may fail to eliminate the threats posed by Iran's nuclear and ballistic
missile programs and could also restrict Israel's freedom of action against
Hezbollah in Lebanon. Officials said Israel cannot return to the reality before
the October 7, 2023, attack, when it says its hands were tied while threats
built up along its borders. Current Israeli government officials have said
little about the Trump-Iran understanding, apparently for fear of upsetting the
US leader. Instead, the Israeli military leaked statements on behalf of a
“senior military source” expressing concern about the cessation of operations in
Lebanon. Israeli officials said the text of the agreement remains “an enigma,”
not explicitly speaking about the dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program,
the obliteration of Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and production capacity,
and Iran’s ability to connect itself to its proxies. They listed Israel’s five
main problems with the proposal: First, there are no clear answers regarding the
treatment of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium, and not enough curbs on
Iran’s nuclear program. Second, the text of the deal does not clearly mention
Iran’s intention to stop the production of ballistic missiles.Third, the key
unresolved question is how much funds Iran will receive. A compromise has been
reached: Iran will not receive cash, but will be able to purchase medicine and
food using frozen funds. The Americans insist that frozen assets will not be
released before the uranium stockpiles are addressed, but that issue will be
negotiated later. Fourth, the deal lays out no clear mechanism for forcing Iran
to halt its support for its proxy forces, including Hezbollah, the Houthis and
Hamas. Fifth, Israel had not been a party to the Trump administration’s
negotiations with Iran and is being left out of the potential peace. Yedioth
Ahronoth quoted a senior Israeli official saying on Saturday evening that the
agreement expected to be signed between the United States and Iran is “not a
good deal,” warning that Israel has little ability to influence the process
despite the direct impact it could have on its security.The official said the
deal would be followed by negotiations expected to last 60 days. The resources
Iran would receive during the roughly two months of negotiations and afterward
could, at least in theory, allow the regime to rebuild its nuclear project and
its ballistic missile program. The newspaper said the American president is
acting according to his own political and US interests. “The frequent calls
between Netanyahu and Trump appear to have only marginal influence. Israel is
not only failing to shape the talks, it also does not really know what is
happening inside them,” it wrote. Trump and Netanyahu spoke by phone about the
emerging deal with Iran, according to the Prime Minister’s Office. In a
statement that intended to downplay the significance of the potential agreement,
Netanyahu’s office said the two spoke about “the emerging memorandum of
understanding with Iran regarding entry into negotiations.”In the conversation,
Netanyahu expressed a rather optimistic take on an agreement, according to his
office. “Although Israel is not a party to the memorandum of understanding,” his
office said, “the prime minister expressed his appreciation for President
Trump’s commitment that the final agreement reached at the conclusion of the
negotiations will include the removal of enriched material, the dismantling of
enrichment infrastructure, limitations on missile production, and the cessation
of Iran’s support for its terrorist proxies in the region.”
Saudi Arabia Welcomes US-Iran Deal to End Military Operations
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Saudi Arabia welcomed on Monday the agreement reached between the United States
and Iran to end their military operations and kick off 60-day negotiations to
reach a lasting deal. A Foreign Ministry statement said the Kingdom hailed the
mediation led by Pakistan and Qatar, praising at the same time the US and Iran’s
receptiveness to those efforts that helped lead to the agreement. It stressed
the importance of restoring security and freedom of navigation in the Strait of
Hormuz to the way they were before February 28 when the war erupted, saying they
were essential for regional security and ensuring the movement of global trade
and energy. Saudi Arabia hoped the upcoming negotiations would achieve lasting
peace that would consolidate regional and global security through understandings
that take into account the region’s security interests and consolidate respect
for the sovereignty of nations and non-interference in their internal affairs.
Arab Parliament Speaker Welcomes US-Iran Agreement
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Arab Parliament Speaker Mohammed Al-Yamahi welcomed the preliminary agreement
reached between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, describing
it as a positive step toward de-escalating tensions in the region and enhancing
security and stability at the regional and international levels, SPA reported.
In a statement today, Al-Yamahi praised the efforts of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan and all regional and international parties that contributed to bridging
viewpoints and supporting the diplomatic endeavors that led to this agreement,
emphasizing the importance of dialogue and diplomacy in promoting regional
security and stability. He stressed that any final and permanent agreement must
take into account the security interests of Arab states, foremost among them the
Arab Gulf states, and be based on respect for sovereignty and non-interference
in internal affairs.Al-Yamahi reaffirmed the Arab Parliament's support for all
peaceful initiatives aimed at resolving disputes through dialogue and
negotiation in accordance with international law and the UN Charter.
No EU Consensus on Sanctioning Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir, Says Kallas
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
The EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, said Monday there is no unanimity in the
bloc to impose sanctions on far-right Israeli national security minister Itamar
Ben-Gvir, despite pressure from several countries."Many member states have also
proposed to sanction Minister Ben-Gvir, but no consensus on that was reached
today," Kallas said after a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg. Calls
to blacklist Ben-Gvir grew after he published video last month of himself
mocking bound activists seized by Israeli soldiers on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla.
France in response banned Ben-Gvir from entering the country and called for the
EU to impose bloc-wide sanctions. EU sanctions have to be signed off by all the
27 member states and staunch supporters of Israel had refused to go along with
the push.
Meanwhile, Kallas said that the EU would also look to lay out options for
restricting trade with Israeli settlements after calls from some countries. "On
the issue of trade with illegal settlements, many member states called for
proposals from the European Commission," she said. She said she would ask the
EU's executive to prepare "a list of options for possible trade measures" ahead
of a next meeting of EU foreign ministers in July. Israel has occupied the West
Bank since 1967 and since then settlement expansion has been a policy under
successive Israeli governments. But it has accelerated significantly under the
current coalition government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Excluding east
Jerusalem, more than 500,000 Israelis now live in the West Bank in settlements
that are illegal under international law, among some three million Palestinians.
One Syrian Security Member Killed in ISIS Attack in Raqqa
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Syria's Interior Ministry said on Monday that one of its security personnel had
been killed as its forces thwarted an attack by two ISIS militants on a command
headquarters of the country's internal security forces in the city of Raqqa.
According to a ministry statement, two suicide attackers attempted to storm the
facility. Security personnel engaged the pair, neutralizing one of them,
while the second detonated an explosive vest after being surrounded. Three
security personnel were also wounded in the attack, the statement added.
Earlier, the Syrian state news agency had cited the Interior Ministry's
spokesperson as saying that preliminary information indicated at least two
ministry personnel were killed in a suicide attack on a ministry camp in Raqqa.
In February, ISIS declared a new phase of operations against the government of
President Ahmed al-Sharaa and has since carried out a spate of attacks,
including one that killed four Syrian security personnel near Raqqa. Last year,
Sharaa's government joined the US-led coalition fighting ISIS. At the peak of
its power during the Syrian civil war a decade ago, ISIS controlled around a
quarter or more of Syria, before being driven out of the territory by a US-led
coalition and other foes.
Egypt Says US-Iran Deal Could Be ‘Turning Point’ for Middle East Peace
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Egypt welcomed Monday an agreement announced by the United States and Iran to
end the Middle East war, saying it could be a "turning point" for peace in the
region. The US and Iran said they reached a deal to end the war on all fronts
including Lebanon, and to reopen the vital Strait of Hormuz, though they offered
little indication on the thorny question of Tehran's nuclear program. "Egypt
welcomes the agreement reached between the United States and the Islamic
Republic of Iran, considering it a highly significant development that will
restore security and stability at both the regional and international levels,"
Cairo's foreign ministry said. Egypt, it said, "hopes that this agreement will
constitute a major turning point toward strengthening mutual trust, laying new
foundations for cooperation, creating a supportive environment for peace and
advancing diplomatic efforts aimed at addressing remaining regional issues".
Dutch Court Jails ‘Assad Torturer’ for 26 Years for
Torture, Rape
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
A Dutch court Monday sentenced a Syrian man to 26 years in jail for the torture
and rape of opponents of former president Bashar al-Assad during the country's
civil war. The 58-year-old man, identified as Rafik A., was head of the
interrogation unit of the National Defense Force (NDF) in the western Syrian
city of Salamiyah in 2013 and 2014. The paramilitary NDF violently suppressed
dissent against the Assad regime and imprisoned and tortured opponents.The court
said victims were "handcuffed and blindfolded, beaten with various objects and
kicked for prolonged periods, folded up inside a car tire, hung upside down, or
electrocuted, often being forced to be naked."A. was also found guilty of
sexually abusing multiple victims and raping one of them, the court said. "Time
and again, the suspect created conditions of mortal terror, threat, pain,
hopelessness and powerlessness," said the court in The Hague. He was convicted
of 19 counts of crimes against humanity against eight victims.The court said the
sentence was justified by "the exceptional gravity of the offences and the
suffering of the victims". It was the first time anyone had been tried in the
Netherlands for sexual violence as a crime against humanity. A. arrived in the
Netherlands in 2021 and won temporary asylum, settling in the central town of
Druten with his family. Police arrested him shortly afterwards following a
tip.During his trial, A. denied the charges against him which he dismissed as a
"conspiracy". His lawyers said A. himself was tortured by militias and is
suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.Several European countries are
trying suspects from the Syrian civil war under the legal tool of universal
jurisdiction, allowing judges to rule on alleged serious crimes committed
abroad. Similar cases have been heard in France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium and
Austria.
Somaliland Opens Embassy in Jerusalem
Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Somaliland opened its embassy in Jerusalem on Monday, Israel's foreign ministry
announced, months after Israel became the first country to recognize the
breakaway African state's independence. "Honored to host my dear friend
President @Abdirahmanirro at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, during his
historic State Visit to open Somaliland's embassy in Jerusalem," Israeli Foreign
Minister Gideon Saar posted on X, during the first-ever state visit of President
Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi. "I'm proud of the privilege I had to write the
first pages in the story of the Israel-Somaliland relationship," Saar added.
Somaliland is the eighth country to open its embassy in Jerusalem, following the
United States, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Fiji.
Most foreign diplomatic missions to Israel are located in Tel Aviv, as the
status of Jerusalem is one of the thorniest issues in the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict. In December, Israel became the first country to recognize the
independence of Somaliland since it declared its autonomy from Somalia in 1991
following a civil war.
Israeli fire kills four in Gaza, mediators hold more ceasefire talks
Reuters/15 June ,2026
Israeli strikes and gunfire killed at least four Palestinians in Gaza on Monday,
health officials said, as mediators prepared for further ceasefire talks in
Cairo to safeguard a U.S.-brokered peace plan for the tiny war-ravaged
Palestinian enclave. Medics said an Israeli airstrike killed a woman in the town
of Zawayda in the central Gaza Strip, while another strike killed one person in
the nearby Nuseirat refugee camp. Later on Monday, an Israeli airstrike targeted
the rooftop of a building in Gaza City, killing two people, a medic and his son,
health officials said. The Israeli military said it killed two Hamas militants
in separate strikes in the Gaza Strip. It said the militants were planning to
carry out attacks against Israeli troops, without providing further details. The
violence comes as Nikolay Mladenov, U.S. President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace
envoy for Gaza, was expected to arrive in Cairo later on Monday, sources close
to the mediation effort said, a day after Hamas delivered its response to a
15-point blueprint he had presented to them in recent weeks. The sources said
Hamas and other factions had agreed on all the points except Hamas disarmament,
which the group links to Israeli withdrawal and a political track to negotiate
Palestinian statehood. An October 2025 truce brokered by Trump has failed to
halt Israeli attacks in Gaza or to secure the disarmament of Hamas militants.
Deadlock
Israel and Hamas remain deadlocked over how to proceed with the next stage of
Trump’s Gaza plan, which involves Hamas laying down its arms and Israeli
withdrawals.
Hamas said on Monday that leaders of Palestinian factions who held discussions
with mediators — Egypt, Qatar and Turkey — over the past week in Cairo had
stressed the need for Israel to “fully and unconditionally comply with the terms
of the ceasefire agreement, in its entirety and without fragmentation”. Hamas
blames the absence of a full agreement to end the Gaza conflict on Israel’s
refusal to fulfil first-phase obligations agreed in October, which halted major
fighting but did not end Israeli attacks. Israel says its strikes are intended
to thwart imminent attacks by Hamas and other militants. Israeli strikes in Gaza
have killed more than 990 people since the truce, health officials say, while
Israel says four soldiers have been killed by militants in that period. Israel
insists Hamas must disarm, cede power in Gaza and play no role in the future of
the enclave. Israel still occupies more than half of Gaza, where it has ordered
residents out and demolished remaining structures. Nearly the entire population
of more than 2 million Palestinians now lives in a narrow strip along the coast,
mainly in tents and damaged buildings, under Hamas’ de facto control.
on
15-16 June/2026
The Two-State Fantasy: Europe on Board
for Israel’s Destruction
Bassam Tawil/Gatestone
Institute/June 15/2026
Why would any country — especially one smaller than Maricopa County, Arizona —
allow anywhere near it, let alone on its border, a barbaric, homicidal state,
committed to its destruction? Would Luxembourg, or even France, welcome Al-Qaeda
or Islamic State on its border?
Such a hostile state, dedicated to Israel’s destruction, would pose an
existential threat to its neighbor and massively destabilize the region. Perhaps
that is why the Europeans are advocating it?
Is the actual wish to help the Palestinians “finish the job” Hitler started
while they, the Europeans, sipping their claret, can pretend to appear as
righteous and just?
If the Gaza Strip, after Israel’s withdrawal, became a launching pad for
terrorism, why should anyone believe that a Palestinian state in the West Bank
would be any different?
As US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee noted last year: “If France is really
so determined to see a Palestinian state, I have a suggestion for them–carve out
a piece of the French Riviera.”
Even now, a year after Abbas promised French President Emmanuel Macron that he
would hold presidential and parliamentary elections, no elections have taken
place…. Macron publicly welcomed it as evidence that the Palestinian Authority
was committed to reform and democratic renewal.
One year later, there are no elections, no timetable, and no meaningful reforms.
As Palestinians would no doubt have elected the terrorist organization Hamas,
perhaps it is for the best that elections have not taken place. Abbas can
plainly see that he would be have been committing himself and his Palestinian
Authority to a sumptuous, permanent retirement.
Palestinian leaders fear being branded traitors by their own people if they
accept compromise with Israel. They have preferred to reject the Israeli
proposals rather than explain to their people that peace requires difficult
concessions – chiefly, giving up their dream of obliterating Israel.
At the same time, Palestinian leaders have failed — deliberately, one assumes —
to prepare Palestinians for peaceful coexistence with Israel. Instead of
promoting reconciliation, many Palestinian leaders continue to pay and glorify
terrorists, incite hatred and teach generations of Palestinians that Israel has
no right to exist.
Hamas, for its part, squarely rejects any disarmament plan or peace process.
Hamas does not seek a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. Hamas seeks a
Palestinian state replacing Israel.
That goal appears to be what the Paris conference was really about.
The conflict is not fundamentally about the absence of a Palestinian state. It
is about the refusal of many Palestinians, as well as Iran and its terror
proxies, to accept the existence of Israel within any borders. The Europeans,
pressing for an openly warmongering Palestinian state, apparently agree.
The entire goal of these supposed “friends” of Trump in “helping” him has been
to make sure that Iran’s regime survives to try to eliminate Israel after Trump
leaves office.
Sadly, the Paris conference could have made a meaningful, constructive
contribution. It could have called on Palestinians to renounce terrorism, end
incitement, and recognize Israel’s right to exist. It could have insisted on
genuine reform and elections inside the Palestinian political system.
France and other Western countries are free to continue promoting the two-state
solution. Before doing so, however, they should answer a few basic questions:
Who will govern the Palestinian state? How will Hamas be prevented from taking
over and attacking Israel “time and again until it is annihilated,” as it has
vowed to do? How will Iran be prevented from again turning the Gaza Strip into a
forward operating base against Israel? What guarantees will be provided that
October 7 will not be repeated from the West Bank hills overlooking Israel’s
major population centers?
As US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee noted last year: “If France is really
so determined to see a Palestinian state, I have a suggestion for them–carve out
a piece of the French Riviera.”
Nearly three years after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel, many
Western governments and diplomats remain trapped in a dangerous fantasy: the
belief that creating a Palestinian state will bring peace to the Middle East.
The latest example is France’s international conference in Paris, where foreign
ministers, activists, and self-appointed peace advocates gathered this month to
revive the two-state solution and promote the establishment of a Palestinian
state.
The conference is detached from reality. Why would any country — especially one
smaller than Maricopa County, Arizona — allow anywhere near it, let alone on its
border, a barbaric, homicidal state, committed to its destruction? Would
Luxembourg, or even France, welcome Al-Qaeda or Islamic State on its border?
It is astonishing that after October 7, anyone can still argue that a
Palestinian state under current circumstances would enhance peace and security.
The opposite is true. Such a hostile state, dedicated to Israel’s destruction,
would pose an existential threat to its neighbor and massively destabilize the
region. Perhaps that is why the Europeans are advocating it?
Is it possible that the organizers of the Paris conference appear to have
learned from October 7 that possibly Israel might be able to be destroyed — and
are now, over wine and frisée, hoping to call into existence a 21st century
Wehrmacht (Nazi Germany’s armed forces)?
Is the actual wish to help the Palestinians “finish the job” Hitler started
while they, the Europeans, sipping their claret, can pretend to appear as
righteous and just?
The Gaza Strip, home to two million Palestinians, already served as a test case
for Palestinian self-rule. After Israel removed every soldier and Jewish
civilian from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Palestinians received an opportunity to
build foundations of a future state. Instead of focusing on economic
development, institution-building, and peaceful coexistence, the Iran-backed
Hamas seized control of the territory in 2007 and transformed it into a base for
jihad (holy war) against Israel.
Billions of dollars in international aid flowed into the Gaza Strip. Much of the
money, however, was diverted to digging tunnels, manufacturing rockets, and
creating a military infrastructure designed for one purpose: the destruction of
Israel.
The result was October 7, when thousands of Hamas terrorists crossed the border
from the Gaza Strip and carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the
Holocaust. They murdered, raped, kidnapped, and tortured hundreds of Israeli
civilians and foreign nationals. Their objective was not to improve living
conditions or advance Palestinian statehood. Their objective was to eliminate
Israel.
If the Gaza Strip, after Israel’s withdrawal, became a launching pad for
terrorism, why should anyone believe that a Palestinian state in the West Bank
would be any different?
As US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee noted last year: “If France is really
so determined to see a Palestinian state, I have a suggestion for them–carve out
a piece of the French Riviera.”
The reality is that Hamas would almost certainly emerge as the dominant force in
any future Palestinian state.
The Palestinian Authority (PA), which currently controls parts of the West Bank,
is weak, corrupt, and deeply unpopular among its own people. Countless public
opinion polls have shown that a majority of Palestinians want PA President
Mahmoud Abbas to resign.
The PA has lost much of its legitimacy because of financial and administrative
corruption, mismanagement, and its inability to improve the lives of ordinary
Palestinians.
Even now, a year after Abbas promised French President Emmanuel Macron that he
would hold presidential and parliamentary elections, no elections have taken
place. Abbas made the promise in June 2025. Macron publicly welcomed it as
evidence that the Palestinian Authority was committed to reform and democratic
renewal.
One year later, there are no elections, no timetable, and no meaningful reforms.
As Palestinians would no doubt have elected the terrorist organization Hamas,
perhaps it is for the best that elections have not taken place. Abbas can
plainly see that he would be have been committing himself and his Palestinian
Authority to a sumptuous, permanent retirement.
Instead of democratic renewal, Palestinians have witnessed further stagnation
and growing concerns about succession politics inside Abbas’s ruling Fatah
faction.
The failure to implement even the most basic democratic commitments raises an
unavoidable question: How can Western governments speak about Palestinian
statehood when the Palestinian leadership has failed to fulfill promises it
voluntarily made just a year earlier.
The truth — which Macron and the other Europeans would have had to work hard not
to know — is that Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected opportunities to
establish a state. Over the past quarter century, Israel presented far-reaching
proposals that would have resulted in the creation of an independent Palestinian
state.
Yasser Arafat did not accept the offer made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak
at Camp David in 2000.
Abbas did not accept the proposal presented by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert in 2008.
Both proposals offered the Palestinians more than 90% of the West Bank, all of
the Gaza Strip, and Palestinian control over large parts of east Jerusalem.
Palestinian leaders fear being branded traitors by their own people if they
accept compromise with Israel. They have preferred to reject the Israeli
proposals rather than explain to their people that peace requires difficult
concessions – chiefly, giving up their dream of obliterating Israel.
At the same time, Palestinian leaders have failed — deliberately, one assumes —
to prepare Palestinians for peaceful coexistence with Israel. Instead of
promoting reconciliation, many Palestinian leaders continue to pay and glorify
terrorists, incite hatred (such as here, here and here), and teach generations
of Palestinians that Israel has no right to exist.
Hamas, for its part, squarely rejects any disarmament plan or peace process.
Hamas does not seek a Palestinian state living alongside Israel. Hamas seeks a
Palestinian state replacing Israel.
That goal appears to be what the Paris conference was really about.
The participants spoke as if the conflict revolves around borders and
settlements. October 7 proved otherwise. The conflict is not fundamentally about
the absence of a Palestinian state. It is about the refusal of many
Palestinians, as well as Iran and its terror proxies, to accept the existence of
Israel within any borders. The Europeans, pressing for an openly warmongering
Palestinian state, apparently agree.
Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Iranian regime are not
fighting for a two-state solution. They are fighting for a one-state solution —
without any Israel. Even after a “peace deal” is signed, they will not stop
planning for that result.
By continuing to promote Palestinian statehood without addressing this reality,
Westerners are rewarding extremism and terrorism.
US President Donald J. Trump’s “helpful” mediators — Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan and Turkey — all loathe Israel, despite Egypt’s icy peace treaty. For
signing it, Egypt’s then President Anwar Sadat was murdered by his countrymen.
Turkey sounds as if it is already gearing up for a war with Israel. The entire
goal of these supposed “friends” of Trump in “helping” him has been to make sure
that Iran’s regime survives to try to eliminate Israel after Trump leaves
office.
Trump appears to have an understandably hard time seeing who his real friends
are. If world leaders are charming to him — that is their job; how else can they
get their way? — he seems to believe that they are actually his friends and have
his and America’s best interests at heart, not just their own, possibly
extremely different, long-term agendas. This difficulty also includes “my
friend,” the KGB wonder boy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the president
of China’s Communist Party, Xi Jinping.
The message the Europeans are, in fact, sending to Hamas and other Palestinian
terrorist groups is: massacre Israelis, launch wars, reject compromise, and
eventually the international community will pressure Israel to agree to its own
destruction.
Sadly, the Paris conference could have made a meaningful, constructive
contribution. It could have called on Palestinians to renounce terrorism, end
incitement, and recognize Israel’s right to exist. It could have insisted on
genuine reform and elections inside the Palestinian political system.
Instead, the participants chose to recycle slogans and formulas that — to no
one’s surprise — have repeatedly failed.
An additional revealing aspect of the conference is the question: Who exactly do
the attendees represent? Certainly not Hamas. Certainly not the Palestinian
Authority leadership. It is a group of Europeans trying to tell Israelis, in
their far-away sovereign state, how to live. Have the Europeans pressed Turkey
for a Kurdish state or to abandon occupied northern Cyprus?
The conference largely relies on civil society activists, NGOs, and members of
what has become known as an international “peace industry” that often speaks in
the name of Palestinians and Israelis without enjoying broad public support from
either society, and without having to suffer the potential consequences of their
soft-headed, unworkable ideas.
It would seem as if Europe has enough troubles of its own that they appear
committed to not solving. Chief among these are a self-inflicted energy crisis,
increasing repression of free speech and a ballooning hijrah – a migration in
the cause of Allah to anchor Islam across Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.
Conferences produce photographs, declarations, and communiqués. They do not
produce peace.
France and other Western countries are free to continue promoting the two-state
solution. Before doing so, however, they should answer a few basic questions:
Who will govern the Palestinian state? How will Hamas be prevented from taking
over and attacking Israel “time and again until it is annihilated,” as it has
vowed to do? How will Iran be prevented from again turning the Gaza Strip into a
forward operating base against Israel? What guarantees will be provided that
October 7 will not be repeated from the West Bank hills overlooking Israel’s
major population centers?
Until these questions are answered, conferences such as the one in Paris do not
advance peace. Instead, they promote, as their sponsors undoubtedly know, merely
a destabilizing illusion.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22612/the-two-state-fantasy
**Bassam Tawil is a Muslim Arab based in the Middle East. His work is made
possible through the generous donation of a couple who wish to remain anonymous.
atestone is most grateful.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Iran Wants To Punish Jordan for Hosting U.S. Forces
Ahmad Sharawi and Behnam Ben Taleblu/FDD-Policy
Brief/June 15/2026
The Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) announced on June 11 that they had intercepted
20 missiles launched from Iran toward Al-Azraq, a town about 50 miles east of
Amman that is also home to a major air base used by U.S. forces. Though the
announcement came from the JAF, Jordan does not have advanced missile defenses.
American forces, who are co-located on the base, likely intercepted the strikes
with their own systems. Open-source analysis and Iranian semi-official media
have shared imagery and video of missile impact and warheads making it past air
defenses. This imagery highlights Jordan’s vulnerabilities to future Iranian
missile launches. The latest attack marked the second direct Iranian strike on
Jordan since the April ceasefire between Iran, the United States, and Israel,
following strikes on June 10. Previously, Jordan was struck by 166 ballistic
missiles and 125 drones launched by Iran and its proxy militias in Iraq in
response to the combined U.S.-Israeli strikes on the Tehran regime between
February 28 and April 8.
The attack reflects Iran’s strategy of punishing regional states that host
American military forces, with the goal of driving the United States out of the
region.
Iran’s Strategy Toward U.S. Regional Partners Intersects With Anti-Americanism
The Islamic Republic has long sought to military and diplomatically evict the
United States from the Middle East. Traditionally, this was done through support
for terrorist proxies that Tehran created or co-opted as part of a larger
strategy of exporting its Islamic Revolution. These nonstate actors would apply
asymmetric military pressure against states perceived to be part of the
pro-American regional order. This approach has allowed Iran to prosecute its
revisionist agenda below the threshold for outright war while increasing the
costs of alignment between each state and the United States. But increasing
Iranian risk tolerance, along with a significant improvement in the regime’s
long-range strike capabilities, is providing Iran with a pathway to use more
overt force to target regional rivals and impose costs on them for their
pro-Western orientation. Tehran’s preferred method has been to frame attacks on
these states as attacks limited to military facilities that the United States
used to strike Iran.
Jordan’s Evolving Response to Iran
Jordan has traditionally adopted a cautious approach toward the Islamic
Republic, seeking to avoid the sort of direct confrontation or entanglement with
Iran that Iraq and Gulf Cooperation Council countries have been subjected to
over the past four decades. Amman is also wary of provoking Iranian retaliation
in the event of a U.S.-Iran conflict and sensitive to perceptions of cooperation
with Jerusalem and Washington against Tehran given the potential domestic
backlash. A few weeks before the war, Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman al-Safadi
told his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, that “Jordan will not be a
battlefield for any party in any regional conflict.” Yet after becoming a direct
target of Iranian missiles and drones, Jordan’s public posture shifted.
Throughout the war, Jordanian officials emphasized that the kingdom was being
directly targeted by Iran. Military officials argued that despite Jordan
informing all “concerned parties” that it would not serve as “a battleground for
anyone,” the country was not spared from Iranian assault. Jordan has also
avoided framing the strikes as attacks on the U.S. presence in the country,
instead portraying them as violations of Jordanian sovereignty. Amman then
embraced diplomatic pressure on Tehran, with Safadi revealing that Jordan
refused to extend the residency of one Iranian diplomat and denied accreditation
to another.However, some parliamentarians diverged from the official line. One
member of parliament, Ismail Mashagbeh, argued that Jordan should not intercept
missiles over its airspace.
Washington Should Help Jordan Hold the Line Against Iran
In 2022, Washington and Amman signed a seven-year, nonbinding memorandum of
understanding under which the United States committed to requesting at least
$1.45 billion annually in assistance for Jordan. Using this agreement as a
basis, Washington should strengthen Amman’s partnership with Jerusalem in
efforts to counter Tehran, expand intelligence sharing, and facilitate Jordan’s
deeper integration into the U.S.-led regional air and missile defense
architecture to help Amman detect and destroy Iranian projectiles.
**Ahmad Sharawi is a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies (FDD), focusing on Iranian intervention in Arab affairs and the
Levant. Behnam Ben Taleblu is the Iran Program senior director and a senior
fellow. For more analysis from the authors, please subscribe HERE. Follow FDD on
X @FDD. Follow Ahmad on X @AhmadA_Sharawi and Behnam @therealBehnamBT. FDD is a
Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on foreign policy
and national security.
Trump's Iran Deal: A Strategic Opening
Ahmed Charai/Gatestone Institute/June 15, 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155300/
The real obstacle to peace has never been the Iranian nation. It is the regime
that governs Iran against the will and aspirations of its own people—a regime
that behaves less like a normal state than like a revolutionary-security cartel.
Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon—not under this framework, not
after sixty days, not in five years, not through ambiguity, delay, concealment,
or the gradual normalization of violations.
The nuclear file cannot be postponed into irrelevance while sanctions relief,
oil access, and frozen assets are granted upfront. Any serious diplomatic
process must begin with verifiable commitments, intrusive inspections, a full
accounting of enriched uranium stocks, and consequences that are automatic
rather than rhetorical.
An agreement with Tehran is not a contract with a normal government. It is an
arrangement with a divided, opaque, militarized system in which diplomats may
sign while commanders sabotage; presidents may speak while the Revolutionary
Guard decides; moderates may promise while hard-liners prepare the next
escalation.
Iran's recent posture follows a familiar pattern: negotiate under pressure,
demand relief, preserve leverage, and use regional proxies to complicate the
battlefield. The Revolutionary Guard is the backbone of the regime's coercive
power at home and its projection of force abroad. Figures such as Ahmad Vahidi
symbolize the problem.
That is why the framework must not be limited to the Strait of Hormuz and the
nuclear file. It must also address the machinery of regional destabilization.
If Tehran is allowed to trade temporary calm in the Gulf for continued proxy
pressure in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, or Yemen, then the agreement will not
bring peace. It will simply move the war from one front to another.
The third principle must be regional consultation. Israel has direct security
concerns that cannot be dismissed as political inconvenience.
Washington need not make regime change the declared objective of this diplomacy.
But America should not grant the regime legitimacy without conditions. Human
rights must remain part of the architecture: internet freedom, political
prisoners, women's rights, the right to protest, and accountability for
repression.
This is where President Trump should consider a bold political and economic
complement to the security negotiations: entrust Jared Kushner with a parallel
track focused on the future of the Iranian economy, but designed for the benefit
of the Iranian people—not the enrichment of the regime.
Kushner's achievement with the Abraham Accords was not merely that he helped
negotiate documents; it was that he understood the strategic power of economic
imagination in a region exhausted by ideology. The same logic should now be
applied to Iran. Any sanctions relief, investment mechanism, infrastructure
plan, or economic opening must be tied to transparency, private-sector
development, young entrepreneurs, women, students, technology, and civil
society—not to the Revolutionary Guard, not to the clerical establishment, and
not to the regime's networks of coercion.
The purpose of diplomacy should not be to rescue the regime from the
consequences of its own failures. It should be to ensure that the Iranian
people, and not their jailers, become the ultimate beneficiaries of peace.
Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon—not under this framework, not
after sixty days, not in five years, not through ambiguity, delay, concealment,
or the gradual normalization of violations.
On his eightieth birthday, President Donald Trump announced what many in
Washington, Jerusalem, Abu Dhabi, Manama, and beyond had been waiting to hear:
the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran had reached a framework aimed
at ending a dangerous war, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and beginning a new
round of negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.
This is good news. It should be welcomed. But it should not be romanticized.
No serious person in the Middle East is hungry for war. The people of the
region—Israelis, Emiratis, Bahrainis, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Yemenis, and above all
the Iranian people themselves—have lived too long under the shadow of missiles,
militias, intimidation, and ideological blackmail. They want security, dignity,
prosperity, and a future for their children. They do not want another generation
sacrificed to revolutionary fantasies or strategic miscalculations.
The real obstacle to peace has never been the Iranian nation. It is the regime
that governs Iran against the will and aspirations of its own people—a regime
that behaves less like a normal state than like a revolutionary-security cartel.
Its power rests on repression at home and destabilization abroad. Its proxies
have terrorized Israel, threatened Gulf stability, paralyzed Lebanon, devastated
Yemen, and turned the Palestinian cause into an instrument of regional leverage
rather than a path toward dignity and prosperity.
That is why this framework, if implemented seriously, represents an opportunity.
President Trump deserves credit for understanding something many traditional
diplomats often miss: in the Middle East, diplomacy without leverage is rarely
diplomacy; it is theater. His method has often been described by critics as
transactional. Perhaps it is. But transactions can be useful when they produce
results, and there is no virtue in elegant failure. If this framework stops the
guns, reopens a vital artery of the global economy, reduces immediate risks to
Israel and the Gulf, and creates a diplomatic window to address Iran's nuclear
program, then it is a meaningful achievement.
Now the central question is unavoidable: what happens next?
The answer will determine whether this becomes a strategic turning point or
merely another pause before the next crisis.
The first principle must be clarity. Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear
weapon—not under this framework, not after sixty days, not in five years, not
through ambiguity, delay, concealment, or the gradual normalization of
violations. The nuclear file cannot be postponed into irrelevance while
sanctions relief, oil access, and frozen assets are granted upfront. Any serious
diplomatic process must begin with verifiable commitments, intrusive
inspections, a full accounting of enriched uranium stocks, and consequences that
are automatic rather than rhetorical.
The second principle must be enforcement. An agreement with Tehran is not a
contract with a normal government. It is an arrangement with a divided, opaque,
militarized system in which diplomats may sign while commanders sabotage;
presidents may speak while the Revolutionary Guard decides; moderates may
promise while hard-liners prepare the next escalation.
This is not an abstract concern. Iran's recent posture follows a familiar
pattern: negotiate under pressure, demand relief, preserve leverage, and use
regional proxies to complicate the battlefield. The Revolutionary Guard is the
backbone of the regime's coercive power at home and its projection of force
abroad. Figures such as Ahmad Vahidi symbolize the problem. The West is not
negotiating merely with foreign ministers and polished diplomats. It is
negotiating with a security apparatus shaped by hostage-taking, proxy warfare,
repression, missile programs, and ideological militancy.
That is why the framework must not be limited to the Strait of Hormuz and the
nuclear file. It must also address the machinery of regional destabilization.
Iran's ballistic missile and drone capabilities must be constrained. Its support
for Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other armed groups must be
cut, monitored, and penalized. Its financial networks, front companies, weapons
transfers, training channels, and intelligence support to proxies must be
exposed and dismantled.
If Tehran is allowed to trade temporary calm in the Gulf for continued proxy
pressure in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Iraq, or Yemen, then the agreement will not
bring peace. It will simply move the war from one front to another.
The third principle must be regional consultation. Israel has direct security
concerns that cannot be dismissed as political inconvenience. The United Arab
Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait live within missile range of Iranian power and
within economic range of Iranian coercion. Lebanon and Yemen know the human cost
of Iran's imperial ambitions. Any serious American strategy must integrate the
concerns of these states rather than ask them to trust a process designed
elsewhere.
There is also a moral dimension Washington must not forget: the Iranian people.
The people of Iran are the first victims of the regime and the natural allies of
any future peace. They have been beaten, imprisoned, censored, tortured, and
killed for demanding the most basic rights: dignity, freedom, women's rights,
economic opportunity, and a normal life.
Washington need not make regime change the declared objective of this diplomacy.
But America should not grant the regime legitimacy without conditions. Human
rights must remain part of the architecture: internet freedom, political
prisoners, women's rights, the right to protest, and accountability for
repression.
This is where President Trump should consider a bold political and economic
complement to the security negotiations: entrust Jared Kushner with a parallel
track focused on the future of the Iranian economy, but designed for the benefit
of the Iranian people—not the enrichment of the regime.
Kushner's achievement with the Abraham Accords was not merely that he helped
negotiate documents; it was that he understood the strategic power of economic
imagination in a region exhausted by ideology. The same logic should now be
applied to Iran. Any sanctions relief, investment mechanism, infrastructure
plan, or economic opening must be tied to transparency, private-sector
development, young entrepreneurs, women, students, technology, and civil
society—not to the Revolutionary Guard, not to the clerical establishment, and
not to the regime's networks of coercion.
Iran is a great civilization with a young, educated, creative population. It
should be a bridge between Asia, the Gulf, the Caucasus, Europe, and the
Mediterranean. It should be exporting talent, technology, culture, energy, and
ideas—not fear, drones, militias, and repression. The purpose of diplomacy
should not be to rescue the regime from the consequences of its own failures. It
should be to ensure that the Iranian people, and not their jailers, become the
ultimate beneficiaries of peace.
If this framework stops a war, it deserves support. If it prevents a nuclear
Iran, it will deserve history's praise. But if it allows the regime to recover,
rearm, finance proxies, hide nuclear material, and repress its people with
renewed confidence, then it will be remembered not as peace but as an
intermission.
The Middle East does not need another illusion. It needs a disciplined
peace—generous to the Iranian people, firm with the regime, and informed by the
pragmatic regional logic that produced the Abraham Accords.
That is the test. And it begins now.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22613/trump-iran-deal-a-strategic-opening
**Ahmed Charai is the Chairman and CEO of World Herald Tribune, Inc., and the
publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, TV Abraham, and Radio Abraham. He
serves on the boards of several prominent institutions, including the Atlantic
Council, the Center for the National Interest, the Foreign Policy Research
Institute, and the International Crisis Group. He is also an International
Councilor and a member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
**This article was originally published in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune. It
is reprinted here by the kind permission of the author.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
G7 summit: US-Iran deal, Mideast stability and global priorities
take center stage
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al ASrabiya English/June 15/2026
The picturesque town of Evian-les-Bains in France is hosting the opening of the
52nd G7 Leaders’ Summit. Leaders from the United States, Canada, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom, alongside the European Union, are
gathering for three days of intensive discussions. This year’s summit, under the
French presidency, arrives at a moment of promising diplomatic progress,
highlighted by the recent US-Iran agreement, which opens pathways to lasting
regional stability, secure energy routes, and strengthened global economic
confidence.
The atmosphere is filled with anticipation and optimism. With the world watching
closely, expectations are high for tangible outcomes that build on this
momentum, ranging from consolidating Middle East stability and partnerships to
advancing technological governance. US President Donald Trump is expected to
play a central role, including bilateral meetings with Middle Eastern partners
and a working session with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The G7
gathering is set to celebrate a significant breakthrough in Middle East
diplomacy, with the recent US-Iran agreement marking a key milestone. This deal
paves the way for fully resolving remaining differences between the United
States and Iran. Leaders will focus on consolidating these gains to ensure
long-term regional stability.
G7 leaders are expected to welcome the agreement’s provisions for resolving the
nuclear issue, supporting the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to secure
uninterrupted global energy flows, and building mechanisms to prevent any future
disruptions. US officials have expressed strong optimism that this framework
will lead to effective safeguards against renewed hostilities, and sustained
open access through critical maritime routes. Invitations to Middle East
partners, including leaders from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Qatar,
highlight the summit’s emphasis on turning this momentum into enduring peace and
cooperation.
For Europe and the United States, this progress on the Iran file extends far
beyond immediate geopolitics. It promises to stabilize energy prices, ease
inflationary pressures, and strengthen broader economic security worldwide. With
the Strait of Hormuz now on a clear path to full operational reopening,
discussions will center on diplomatic follow-through to lock in these
achievements, deter any backsliding, and foster conditions that make future
instability impossible.
Ukraine support and transatlantic unity in focus
Parallel to the Middle East crisis, the war in Ukraine remains a cornerstone
agenda item. European leaders, still grappling with the humanitarian and
security fallout from Russia’s invasion, will seek renewed commitments from the
G7. President Trump is slated to join a dedicated working session with Zelenskyy
and other leaders, signaling continued US engagement despite shifting domestic
priorities. Expect conversations around sustained military and financial aid,
reconstruction efforts, and strategies to counter Russian advances. The G7 has
previously coordinated measures like using frozen Russian assets for Ukraine
support, and similar concrete steps could emerge. This topic bridges Europe and
the US, reinforcing alliances at a time when unity is crucial for global peace.
The linkage between Ukraine and Middle East stability will likely be highlighted
– both conflicts strain resources, influence energy markets, and test the
rules-based international order. A stable Middle East could free up focus and
aid for Eastern Europe.
Economic priorities: AI, trade, and deregulation
Beyond security crises, economic resilience will feature prominently. With
global growth facing headwinds from conflicts and supply disruptions, leaders
are poised to discuss fostering innovation while promoting less regulation and
reduced tariffs to spur recovery.
Artificial Intelligence stands out as a major forward-looking topic. The G7 is
expected to advance frameworks for responsible AI development, governance, and
competition, balancing technological leadership with ethical considerations and
economic security. Supply chain resilience, critical minerals, and countering
imbalances – potentially touching on China – will also arise. France and other
European hosts aim to project unity, accommodating US perspectives under
President Trump while pushing collaborative solutions on trade and investment.
Lower tariffs and streamlined regulations could be framed as pathways to shared
prosperity amid uncertainty.
Middle East partnerships: Key to broader stability
Middle East engagement extends beyond the Iran file. Invitations to regional
leaders reflect recognition that peace in the region is vital for Europe, the
US, and global partners alike. Discussions may cover broader de-escalation,
support for affected nations, and long-term frameworks for security and economic
cooperation. This focus aligns with G7 goals of preventing wider conflicts and
spillover. Energy security, migration pressures, and humanitarian needs will
intersect with these talks, emphasizing integrated approaches rather than siloed
responses.
As the summit unfolds, the G7 is well-positioned to deliver actionable results
through strengthened cooperation. The gathering provides an important platform
for traditional allies and partners to coordinate effectively on shared
priorities, building on recent diplomatic successes.
Success will depend on advancing follow-through on the US-Iran agreement,
continued support for Ukraine, and strategic investments in AI, economic
openness with reduced regulation and tariffs, and multilateral partnerships. For
the United States and its Middle East allies, progress on the Strait of Hormuz
reopening and broader regional cooperation could mark a significant step toward
enduring stability and prosperity. In the coming days, Evian will serve as more
than a scenic backdrop; it could shape the trajectory for lasting peace,
economic growth, and technological progress. The world awaits the concrete steps
leaders will take to build on today’s positive momentum and forge a more stable
future.
Which Iran, Which Iraq, and Which Israel?
Ghassan Charbel/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
I feel the weight of geography every time I visit Amman. Jordan’s fate is to
adapt to it. This is difficult when your neighbor’s name is Menachem Begin,
Ariel Sharon, or Benjamin Netanyahu, when your other neighbors happen to be
Saddam Hussein, with his wars and recklessness, and then the factions, or Hafez
al-Assad, with his quiet intrigues, followed by his son Bashar, with his
arrogance and total intransigence. It is difficult, too, when the weight of
geography floods your country with refugees and threatens you with more. When it
leaks al-Qaeda cells and ISIS militants into your land. For the winds and
poisons of Captagon to blow from your neighbor to your territory. For missiles
and drones arriving from territory that is supposed to be friendly to take you
by surprise.
By virtue of its location, belonging, and memory, Jordan cannot resign itself
from the Palestinian wound, which has been increasingly inflamed since “Sinwar’s
Flood.” There is anxiety over the practices of the occupation in the West Bank
in the offices of Jordanian officials and in their conversations. Jordan cannot
ignore its relations with Iraq and the extent to which the “factions” comply
with the principles of good neighborliness. During the American-Israeli war on
Iran, some Iraqi factions did not withhold “gifts” to Jordan. One day, they
struck a radar at a Jordanian army post that does not host American forces. The
military submitted the report to the supreme commander, King Abdullah II, noting
options for retaliation. The king instructed the government to contact the Iraqi
authorities and avoid slipping into an exchange of blows that would complicate
relations between the two brotherly countries.
The idea of the weight of geography haunted me even more this time because I was
returning from a dinner during which sirens blared: missiles were preparing to
cross the airspace and that Jordanian missiles were preparing to intercept them.
The truth is that, for many years, Jordan has stood on the line of contact with
Iran, which has failed to consolidate itself in Jordan as it did in Syria and
Lebanon. Jordan rejected Iran’s “tourism” offers, which began with the
restoration of religious shrines. Its security services diligently foiled
attempts at infiltration through third parties. Jordan held to its sovereignty
even when, for years, it lived between “Soleimani’s armies” in Iraq and Syria. I
noticed that the restaurant’s patrons were not alarmed by the sirens; in recent
months, Jordan has been targeted by more than three hundred missiles and drones.
Amman has been waiting, like other capitals, for the implications of
American-Iranian negotiations to become clear, amid the accompanying leaks,
camouflage, and disinformation. It waited to learn whether the memorandum of
understanding would provide a basis for seeking to restore stability to this
region, exhausted by conflicts, interventions, and breaches. The people of the
region have every right to maintain caution or patience; Iran is not about to
give up on its project or its lexicon, and the Trump administration is rushing
to complete the dish and time it to the mood and schedule of Mr. President.
Observers, too, have the right to wait for implementation to determine whether
this is merely a memorandum of misunderstanding that will lie in wait, only to
reappear under other circumstances.
In Amman’s offices and political salons, stability is a word one hears more than
any other. Most are inclined to believe that stability hinges on several
factors.
The first factor is which Iran will emerge from the expected agreement with
America. There is no doubt that Iranian officials will speak of victory over the
“Great Satan.” Such rhetoric is needed to push through any agreement with
America, the same America that the IRGC once dreamed of expelling from the
region after sinking its ships in Gulf waters. Will Iran be satisfied with the
security guarantees, financial gains, and the few regional privileges the
agreement provides, or will it behave like a wounded tiger, accepting the
agreement to dress its wounds of war and prepare to go back to old ways? Will
the new Supreme Leader, who needs to consolidate legitimacy, agree to purge the
“death to America” rhetoric from the discourse and to enter into an open-ended
truce with the “cancerous tumor” that his predecessors had demanded be
eradicated? And do the leaders of the IRGC fear that lowering the temperature
could fuel domestic demands, including the desire to live in a normal state
preoccupied with development, progress, and adapting to the age?
The conduct of some pro-Iran factions has led some Iraqis to focus their
attention on what their country will become in the coming stage. It is clear
that the Jordanian side is ready to engage positively with Ali al-Zaidi’s
government, which is finding its footing as it dreams of “confining weapons” and
repairing investment relations with the “Great Satan.” Jordan has taken a
positive approach with the governments of Mohammed Shia al-Sudani and Mustafa
al-Kadhimi, but attacks by factions left disappointment. If the question of
which Iraq will emerge preoccupies Jordan, it is only natural that it should
also preoccupy the Arab Gulf states, which have likewise received the factions’
gifts.
If Jordan is waiting to see which Iran will emerge after the Iranian-American
agreement, and which Iraq will take shape, it is also asking: which Israel will
emerge after the general elections in the coming months? It is clear that Jordan
is deeply concerned by Netanyahu’s policy in the West Bank, especially the
policies of ministers under the cloak of his government, foremost among them
Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. Netanyahu’s insistence on continuing this aggressive
pursuit of domination was entrenched after the Sinwar Flood in Gaza, the West
Bank, Lebanon, and Syria- this is a source of immense anxiety in Amman. However,
the elections also raise a difficult question: would any alternative to
Netanyahu be much more than a cosmetic adjustment to policies that do not differ
in essence, given Israeli society’s continued shift toward the right and
extremism.
Which Iran? Which Iraq? Which Israel? These are difficult questions that also
concern Lebanon, suspended on the ropes of the region. They also concern Syria,
which will long be occupied with dressing the wounds of its economy and all the
other wounds left behind by the “Assad era.” It is difficult to speak of
stability without knowing Israel’s borders. And it is difficult, too, without
knowing Iran’s borders.
Is Defensive Neutrality a Strategy?
Mamoun Fandy/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
How can we read the Saudi position? Without resorting to the common formulas of
American international relations literature, especially the concept of
“hedging,” promoted by magazines, such as Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy,
and now almost every analysis, what is its historical context? Hedging is a
concept associated with small states, and Saudi Arabia is not one of them. Here,
I propose another concept: “defensive neutrality,” to explain the Kingdom’s
approach during the recent US-Israel war on Iran. International relations
scholarship usually focuses its attention on states that won wars or were
defeated in them, not placing the same focus on states that had succeeded in
avoiding war in the first place. Historians go over the battles of military
decisions, but they often overlook a state’s success in preventing its territory
from becoming a conflict arena. In my view, that success is a strategic
achievement in its own right. Defensive neutrality is not moral neutrality
between the warring parties, nor does it mean that a country has withdrawn into
oneself or gone into strategic dormancy, as some see it. Rather, it is a policy
founded on a simple principle: avoiding engagement in the war while retaining
the full capacity to defend the homeland if the flames do reach it.
Türkiye and Sweden might offer two insightful examples of this.
On September 1, 1939, World War II broke out and Türkiye found itself in an
extremely complex geopolitical position. Nazi Germany was expanding in Europe,
the Soviet Union’s forces stood at the border, and Britain was exerting great
pressure to push Ankara into joining the war. In January 1943, Winston Churchill
himself traveled to Türkiye to persuade its leadership to enter on the side of
the Allies. But Türkiye refused. This was not out of sympathy for Germany, but
out of an understanding that Türkiye's national priority was to avoid the
destruction that swept across Europe. Ankara continued its policy of balancing
between the warring parties and maneuvered diplomatically between Berlin,
London, and Moscow. In April 1944, it halted chromium exports to Germany, then
severed diplomatic relations with Germany in August of the same year, when it
had become clear that the war was close to ending. In February 1945, it formally
declared war on Germany without its army actually taking part in the fighting.
The result was clear: Türkiye emerged from the war with its infrastructure
intact, its institutions standing, and its economy in viable shape, while large
swaths of Europe lay in ruins. Sweden’s experience, meanwhile, was more
complicated.
In April 1940, Germany invaded Norway and Denmark, and Sweden was all but
surrounded by German forces. It had two choices: direct confrontation with an
overwhelmingly superior military power or the pursuit of a flexible policy of
defensive neutrality. It chose the second option. In June 1940, it allowed the
passage of some German troops and goods through its territory, then in 1941
approved the transit of German forces heading to Finland. The ethics of these
concessions later became a major controversy, but they were part of a strategy
aimed at avoiding the invasion of the country. As the balance of power shifted
and its defensive capabilities improved, Stockholm - as it was receiving
thousands of refugees from Denmark and Norway - began to retreat from those
arrangements. In 1943, it halted the passage of German troops and gradually
moved toward supporting the Allies’ humanitarian and intelligence efforts. Most
importantly, it succeeded in sparing its territory from the war for six years.
The lesson from Türkiye and Sweden is not that neutrality is easy or free of
moral contradictions, but that a state situated among conflicting powers may
make the protection of society and the state its top priority. The Saudi
position today can be understood from this angle. The Kingdom lies at the heart
of a region where regional and international conflicts intersect. At the same
time, Saudi Arabia is implementing a major historical project to rebuild its
economy and society through Vision 2030. In such circumstances, safeguarding
domestic stability and cities, ports, airports, and energy networks becomes a
pillar of national security. Accordingly, the concept of “hedging” does not seem
sufficient to explain Saudi behavior. Hedging refers to an effort to balance
risk among multiple partners in an uncertain environment. What we have
witnessed, on the other hand, is more an integrated strategy whose aim is to
avoid involvement in the war while retaining the capacity for deterrence and
defense.
This is the essence of defensive neutrality. It does not mean abandoning allies
or ignoring risks; it means refusing to turn national territory into a platform
for other people’s wars. Türkiye proved between 1939 and 1945 that a state can
survive the greatest war in history if it manages its geographic position well.
Sweden proved that staying away from war can become a strategic achievement in
itself. Perhaps Saudi Arabia is adding a new example to this historical
experience: that the greatest victories are sometimes not achieved on the
battlefield but through the efforts to prevent war from reaching the homeland in
the first place.
Iran and Us: The Alternative and Al-Badli
Mishary Dhayidi/Asharq Al-Awsat/June 15/2026
Understanding comes first, determination second, then decision and action. These
are the steps a mature person ascends to reach the threshold of sound judgment
in both deed and word. Iran is not an easy country to understand, whether in its
time, its people, or its land. This has not only been true since the Khomeinist
era, but for centuries before it. Today, however, it is even more difficult and
complex after nearly half a century of rule by a movement whose ideas are marked
by excess and radicalism: a blend of fundamentalist revolutionary thought in the
broad sense, revolutionary fundamentalism, Guevarist-style leftist revolutionary
ideology, and a nationalist revolutionary outlook rooted in the Ferdowsian
tradition of the Persian Shahnameh. Veteran Iranian writer Amir Taheri wrote
recently in this newspaper: “the wars involving Iran will not end without regime
change in Tehran, which can only be realized by the Iranian people and the
internal political dynamics of a complex society that has passed through half a
century of crises.”
How well do we understand this complex society and this intricate Iranian
reality? Do we in the Gulf, let alone the Arab world, possess a scholarly
community dedicated to studying Iran from every angle, rather than focusing
solely on immediate political and security affairs? Yes, there are a handful of
centers in some Arab countries, but they have not produced a lasting impact, a
sustained intellectual tradition, or a rich cumulative legacy.
Speaking of cumulative legacy, it is important to mention a distinguished and
pioneering Saudi scholar in this field: Professor Ahmed Al-Badli. He studied
Persian literature at the University of Tehran, earned his doctorate there in
1966, then returned to King Saud University in Riyadh, where he taught Persian
literature.
This man, who translated several literary works from Persian into Arabic,
including The Travels of Nasir Khusraw, never became the nucleus of a lasting
Saudi, or even Arab, project for Persian and Iranian studies. I do not know why,
nor who bears responsibility for that failure.
His friend, the Saudi writer and journalist Abdulrahman bin Muammar, wrote about
him in Al-Majallah Al-Arabiyah, recalling the period when Bin Muammar headed Al-Jazirah
newspaper in the 1960s: “He introduced readers to translations of high-caliber
Persian literature unlike anything they had known before. Some even sought to
distort the purpose behind publishing them, plotting against him and working to
undermine him.” He also highlighted one of Al-Badli’s valuable contributions:
his serialized translations in Al-Manhal magazine on the history of the Qajar
dynasty, which, as the late Bin Muammar wished, deserve to be collected and
published in book form. In a profile written by Dr. Abdullah Al Madani for Okaz,
he noted that the young man from Makkah became fascinated by the Persian
language while working during the Hajj season. Al-Badli later said that, if it
were up to him, Persian would be the first foreign language Saudi students
should learn. Al-Badli recounted that Iranians often refused to believe he was
Saudi when he spoke to them. If we are to understand Iran’s “complex” society,
we need an Al-Badli, indeed a whole tribe of them.
on 15
June/2026
Mario Nawfal
Netanyahu just told Trump
Israeli forces will NOT withdraw from Lebanon, and Israel does NOT consider
itself bound by the Lebanon clause in the US-Iran MoU. Directly rejecting of a
core pillar of the deal.
This could blow up the entire Memorandum before the ink is even dry.
Source: Maariv/Writer: Oliver
Misgav Institute for National Security
The deal gives the Iranian regime a lifeline after it had reached its lowest
point. It provides Tehran with resources to rebuild its capabilities.
Instead of forcing Tehran to sever its ties with Lebanon, it strengthens Iran's
hold over the country. With an outcome like this, the Trump administration is
making itself a laughingstock in the region. Misgav Institute Chair, Meir Ben
Shabbat in Israel Hayom.
Stephan Zeev Goldin
Translated from French
Tough morning for Israel: a US-Iran deal concluded without it.
-Billions for Tehran
-Nuclear program intact
-Ballistic threat preserved
-Nothing on the proxies
-A lifeline for the regime
-A slap in the face for the Iranian people, Israel more isolated than ever
All that for this.
יוסף חדאד - Yoseph Haddad
If we can sum up the agreement between the US and Iran in Middle
Eastern language: Iran comes out of this a massive winner and cements its status
as a powerful state vis-à-vis the Arab world. In the Arab world, they look at
Iran, which succeeded in standing up to the great US, to the West, and also to
the "Zionists" without falling—on the contrary, it came out on top. All the
demands from the US side weren't realized, and they were forced to fold and
compromise according to the Iranians' terms.
The Iranians' standing in the Middle East has been strengthened; in contrast,
Israel's standing has been damaged, and the chances of additional Arab countries
joining the Abraham Accords have dropped significantly.
Go through the Arab media and you'll see a very clear narrative of a crushing
Iranian victory. In Lebanon, when you open the newspaper Al-Akhbar this morning,
you see on the front page the headline: "Iran Imposes End of War in Lebanon."
This is a huge victory for them, one that gives Hezbollah a lifeline and also
kills any chance of peace between Israel and Lebanon, leaving the northern
border under threat.
The siege on Iran is lifted, and in an instant, the Iranian regime doesn't just
get oxygen but also billions of dollars in frozen funds, and it starts to
strengthen. With this money, it won't worry about its citizens, of course, but
about the ballistic missile program and arming the proxies—which, according to
reports, are both not included in the agreement and face no restrictions. So the
threat to Israel remains, the Shiite axis of evil is preserved, and of course
everyone knows what the Iranian regime's goal is—the destruction of Israel. And
the sense of revenge will only strengthen that further.
And the most dangerous part—the nuclear program. President Trump has already
said himself that it will be allowed for the Iranians to enrich uranium at a low
level. This is a retreat from all the promises he made throughout the war. A
magnificent capitulation. The moment Iran can legally enrich uranium, there's
really nothing to stop them from enriching at any level they want and developing
nuclear weapons. No oversight will help; they're masters at lying and hiding
from the world, and just remember that in another two and a half years, Trump
won't be president in the US anymore, and the global agenda will be focused on
other things, and public attention will shift elsewhere...
Over nearly three years of war, the State of Israel rose from the ruins of
October 7th and became a Middle Eastern power on all fronts, with military might
and the heroism of our fighters. If this is the picture at the end of the war,
we've lost all the achievements vis-à-vis the Arab world and the consciousness
in the Middle East, and the one left on top as the regional power controlling
the area is the head of the snake—the Iranian regime.
Therefore, we must not cooperate with this agreement, must not accept the terms,
must not withdraw from Lebanon, must not contain any attack from any front.
Yair Golan - יאיר גולן
@YairGolan1
A tough morning for Israel.
This morning, Israeli citizens are waking up to an agreement between the United
States and Iran made over Israel's head.
In one signature stroke, immense military achievements secured with the courage
of our pilots and the blood of our fighters have been erased, while Netanyahu
stood on the sidelines—weak, ill, isolated, and powerless.
Trump signs an agreement that funnels billions to the Ayatollahs' regime, leaves
the nuclear infrastructure intact, preserves the ballistic threat as is, and
throws a lifeline to the murderous regime in Tehran.
This is the culmination of long years of failure. Netanyahu is the man who, for
years, sold the public a false image of "Mr. Security," and in reality became
the father of Israel's greatest strategic failure in its history. The man who
built the notion of "Hamas is an asset," who enabled the flow of Qatari money,
who abandoned the diplomatic arena, who dismantled Israel's alliances, and left
it isolated at the moment of truth.
Netanyahu is good for Hamas.
Netanyahu is good for Iran.
Netanyahu is good for Hezbollah.
Netanyahu is not good for Israel.
The one who promised "total victory" ends his tenure with Israel's enemies
stronger, Israel weaker, and the deterrence built with the blood of our fighters
eroding before our very eyes.
Replacing him is not just a political necessity—it is an existential security
imperative.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
The list of Iranian and Hezbollah leaders who, instead of celebrating “victory,”
will be swimming with the fish:
Iranian Leadership, IRGC, Quds Force, Intelligence, and Nuclear Establishment
since 2024
Supreme Leadership & National Security
* Ali Khamenei
* Ali Shamkhani
* Ali Larijani
Armed Forces & IRGC Top Command
* Hossein Salami
* Mohammad Bagheri
* Gholamali Rashid
* Amir Ali Hajizadeh
* Gholamreza Soleimani
* Mohammad Kazemi (reported by Israel among senior losses)
Quds Force & Regional Operations
* Mohammad Reza Zahedi
* Mohammad Hadi Haji Rahimi
* Sayyed Razi Mousavi
* Abbas Nilforoushan
* Hossein Amanollahi
* Mehdi Jalalati
* Mohsen Sedaghat
* Ali Agha-Babaei
* Ali Salehi Rouzbahani
Intelligence
* Esmail Khatib
Nuclear Scientists
* Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani
* Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi
* Abdolhamid Manouchehr
* Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari
* Amirhossein Feghi
* Motalibizadeh
Hezbollah Leadership
Secretary General & Successor
* Hassan Nasrallah
* Hashem Safieddine
Executive Council & Political Leadership
* Nabil Qaouk
* Mohammad Afif
* Salim Ayyash
Jihad Council / Senior Military Command
* Fuad Shukr
* Ibrahim Aqil
* Ali Karaki
* Haytham Ali Tabtabai
Missile, Rocket, Intelligence & Logistics Command
* Ibrahim Qubaisi
* Hussein Hani Az al-Hayn
* Mohammed Jaafar Qassir
* Hussein Ali al-Hazimeh
* Mohammad Skafi
* Suheil al-Husseini
Radwan Force Leadership
* Wissam al-Tawil
* Ahmad Wehbe
* Ali Ahmad Hassin
* Ismail al-Zin
* Ismail Yusef Baz
* Muhammad Hossein Matzafa Shouri
* Qassem Saqlawi
* Ali Abed Akhsan Naim
* Hussein Ibrahim Kasab
* Ali Jamal al-Din Jawad
* Muhammad Qassem al-Shaer
* Basil Shukr
Southern Front / Regional Commanders
* Taleb Abdallah (Abu Taleb)
* Mohammad Naameh Nasser
* Hussein Makki
* Abbas Ibrahim Hamza Hamada
* Hassan Fares Jeshe
* Ahmad Jafar Maatouk
* Abu Ali Rida
Other Hezbollah Commanders Publicly Listed by Hezbollah
Hezbollah itself later published a memorial list of 35 commanders. Additional
names on that list include: Abbas Salameh, Ali Ayyoub, Ali Bahsoun, Ibrahim
Jezzini, Hassan Ezzeddine, Mohammad Mahmoud, Hassan Reda, Samir Deeb, Mohammad
Srour, Ali Gharib, Mostafa Shehadeh, Khodor Atwi, Mahmoud Shahine, Fouad
Khanafer, Mohammad Nabulsi, Mohammad Ismail, Abbas Sharafeddine, Eid Nashar, and
Mohammad Khaireddine.
גיא עזריאל Guy Azriel
@GuyAz
National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir:
“Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is committed to defending its
citizens and soldiers. Israel is not subordinate to the United States — we are
an independent and sovereign nation. My position is clear: we are not partners
to this agreement, which does not safeguard our security, and it does not
obligate us in any way. We must not settle for anything less than Hezbollah’s
dismantlement. We must not withdraw from any territory our soldiers have
captured and cleared of terrorist infrastructure. We must not return to a
reality in which thousands of terrorists sit along the fences of northern
Israeli communities. And we certainly must not remain silent for a single moment
in the face of attacks against the State of Israel.”
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Speaking to the Caucus for Regional Security at the Israeli Knesset
@knessetisraelز According to polls in May 2026, Lebanese public opinion in
support of peace with Israel has doubled to 50 percent from August 2025.
Excluding the Shia, whose support is as low as 8 percent, 65 percent of Lebanese
support disarming Hezbollah and peace with Israel. The Lebanese government has
been saying the right things, engaging in historic direct talks and a joint
agreement with Israel. Unfortunately, the Lebanese government is too weak and is
further weakened by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar opposing and
obstructing bilateral Lebanese-Israeli peace, and now apparently Washington
talking to Tehran to decide Lebanon’s fate. Washington should have kept Lebanon
out of the Iran deal and should press these countries to let Lebanon pursue its
interests and seek bilateral peace with the Jewish state. Side note: I sit for
dozens of TV interviews and webinars every week. In this session, the connection
cut twice throwing me off because I couldn’t tell what went through and what did
not.
TalRimmer
Today, the Prime Minister reveals his greatness in the face of President Trump's
pettiness.
One cannot take away from Trump the help he provided to Israel, the transfer of
the embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the West
Bank, the recognition of the Golan Heights, leading the Abraham Accords, and the
joint war at present.
But Trump does not live the Middle East; he does not know what revival means, or
the ability to deceive and lie to your enemy as a way of life—the main thing is
to buy time until your hand is on top.
He, like the entire rest of the West, lives a modern life with a desire for
economic prosperity, peace, and a naive belief that agreements between parties
must be kept.
Trump did not turn against Israel; he turned against the entire Western
world—what will all his allies say, what will Russia/China/Turkey/Iran and all
the other Muslim countries understand?
What will Taiwan say now, and Ukraine?
Therefore, Netanyahu's greatness surpasses that of the U.S. President by
hundreds of times, because Trump could not hold out against the pressure from
the New York Times, from fuel prices and economic pressure, and from the
progressives after just 40 days!
Benjamin Netanyahu has stood against this pressure for three decades and has not
yielded!!
Israel relies only on itself, and will remain a steadfast rock in the sea of
nomadic desert tribes in our region.
We remain in over 50% of the Strip
We remain in Lebanon
We remain at the Hermon peak in Syria
Iran will not be nuclear, and if it tries again, Israel will strike alone and
will strike again if necessary.
We need to develop military and armament independence, and Netanyahu is leading
us there in giant steps.
The greatness of leaders is measured in times of crisis, and thank God we have a
leader who knows how to stand like a steadfast rock and not like a wandering
reed.
Benjamin Netanyahu - Steadfast Pillar