English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For  June 19/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.june19.26.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
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.
Saint Matthew 18/15-20:”‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on 18-19 June/2026
Netanyahu the Leader, Trump the Businessman, and the Existential Struggle for the Future of Israel and Lebanon/Elias Bejjani/June 18/2026
All the Viagra in the world will not change the impotent status of a castrated man/Elias Bejjani/June 17/2026
A prayer for the freedom, safety, sovereignty, and independence of Lebanon/Elias Bejjani/June 16/2026
Israel military says will keep operating in south Lebanon
Israel to discuss south Lebanon with Lebanese envoys in Washington next week
Israeli strikes on south Lebanon kill three
Israeli officials refuse Lebanon concessions, say 'Israel is the loser' in US-Iran deal
Israel holds 'stubborn' talks with U.S. to keep troops in south Lebanon, report says
US-Iran deal cites Lebanon's 'territorial integrity' but sidesteps explicit 'withdrawal'
Residents return to war-ravaged south with hope and sorrow
'No one understands what's happening': Confusion in Israeli army over Lebanon
Israel seized more land from neighbors since 2023 than it has in decades
Israel military says will keep operating in south Lebanon
Netanyahu says Israel to keep buffer zone in Lebanon as long as needed
Netanyahu calls for preserving 'vital relationship' with US
US imposes sanctions on Suleiman Franjieh and Mahmoud Qmati
Hezbollah lawmaker says Israel’s war failed to crush group
Advice to Syria’s New Rulers: Stay Out of Lebanon!/Akl Awit/Face Book/June 18/2026
Reading Lebanon and the Iran Deal Through Rubio’s Face/Makram Rabah/Now Lebanon/June 18/2026
Lebanon must adopt a new political system/Khaled Abou Zahr/Arab News/June 18, 2026

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on 18-19 June/2026
Video Link/Free Press Middle East analyst Haviv Rettig Gur anylsis the USA-Iranian Agreement
White House sends text of interim US-Iran agreement to US Congress
US and Iran presidents sign ceasefire agreement, text of MoU released
Talks on implementing US-Iran deal still planned in Switzerland Friday
Iran president touts ‘historic’ deal with US ending war
Sharif’s visit to Switzerland postponed due to electronic signing of US-Iran deal
Vance castigates Israeli officials for Iran deal criticism: US is your only powerful ally
US military has lifted Iran blockade upon orders from Trump: CENTCOM
Iran’s supreme leader says approved US deal despite having ‘different view’
Senate Armed Services Committee chair slams Trump’s Iran MoU
Trump defends Iran deal from critics he calls ‘fools’
Saudi Arabia, others condemn Israeli settler violence in West Bank
Gaza ceasefire ‘failing’ as hunger, rats and rubble define daily life, UN humanitarian chief warns
Ukraine sets Moscow refinery ablaze in biggest attack in years

Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on 18-19 June/2026
Trump's Iran 'Deal' Has Already Emboldened Hamas/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/June 18, 2026
Iran’s $300 billion problem/Sam Butler/The Arab Weekly/June 18/2026
How Trump’s Iran deal made Hezbollah untouchable/Yassin K. Fawaz/The Arab Weekly/June 18/2026
From Versailles to Switzerland: Can diplomacy fix what Epic Fury couldn’t?/Faisal J. Abbas/Arab News/June 18, 2026
US-Iran deal must not become another Gaza peace plan/Rob Geist Pinfold/Arab News/June 18, 2026
Renewed political will needed to end Sudan war/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/June 18, 2026
Selected Face Book & X tweets on 18 June/2026

Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on 18-19 June/2026
Netanyahu the Leader, Trump the Businessman, and the Existential Struggle for the Future of Israel and Lebanon
Elias Bejjani/June 18/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155371/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVkR_3bMZsI
There are moments in history when leaders are judged not by the deals they negotiate, the headlines they generate, or the popularity they enjoy, but by their willingness to confront existential threats and defend their nations against overwhelming odds. Such moments separate statesmen from politicians and patriots from opportunists.
This is why history is likely to remember Benjamin Netanyahu far more favorably than many of his critics imagine today.
Whether one agrees with all his policies or not, Netanyahu has dedicated his political life to a singular mission: ensuring the survival and security of the Jewish state in one of the most hostile and volatile regions on earth. He has led Israel while facing threats that most Western leaders can scarcely comprehend—threats not merely to borders or interests, but to the very existence of his nation.
For decades, Israel has lived under the shadow of organizations and regimes openly committed to its destruction. Iran's rulers have repeatedly called for the elimination of the Jewish state. Hezbollah has built an enormous missile arsenal on Israel's northern border. Hamas transformed Gaza into a launching pad for terrorism. Radical Islamist movements, both Sunni and Shiite, continue to view Israel's existence as unacceptable.
Unlike most Western leaders, Netanyahu has never had the luxury of treating these threats as theoretical. They are real, immediate, and deadly.
Donald Trump, by contrast, has approached international affairs primarily as a businessman and dealmaker. His instinct is to negotiate, compromise, and pursue agreements that can be presented as victories. Such an approach may work in business. It may even work in certain diplomatic disputes. But the Middle East is not a corporate boardroom.
The region's conflicts are shaped by history, ideology, religion, and deeply rooted strategic ambitions. The forces confronting Israel are not simply seeking better terms at the negotiating table. Many are motivated by ideological visions that leave little room for compromise.
Trump's greatest weakness in dealing with the Middle East has been his tendency to view every challenge through the lens of personal diplomacy and transactional politics. His admiration for dramatic agreements often blinds him to the long-term realities faced by America's allies. In the case of Israel, this misunderstanding becomes particularly dangerous.
A leader who sleeps safely thousands of miles away from hostile borders cannot fully appreciate what it means to govern a nation whose enemies openly discuss its destruction. Netanyahu does not enjoy that luxury. Every major decision he makes is measured against one fundamental question: Will Israel survive and remain secure?
That burden has shaped his leadership and explains why he has devoted so much effort to confronting Iran and its regional network of proxies.
Among those proxies, Hezbollah stands as perhaps the most dangerous.
Contrary to the mythology promoted by its supporters, Hezbollah has never been a genuinely Lebanese national resistance movement. From its inception, it was created, financed, armed, trained, and directed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Its leaders have repeatedly proclaimed their allegiance to the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih and their loyalty to Iran's Supreme Leader. They have openly presented themselves as part of a transnational revolutionary project whose command center lies in Tehran rather than Beirut.
Hezbollah's weapons were not accumulated to strengthen Lebanese sovereignty. Its military infrastructure was built to advance Iran's strategic interests throughout the region. Its wars have repeatedly devastated Lebanon while expanding Tehran's influence. Its political power has weakened Lebanese institutions, obstructed the emergence of a strong sovereign state, and reduced Lebanon's ability to act independently in matters of war and peace.
Today, Hezbollah possesses military capabilities that exceed those of the Lebanese state itself. It maintains an independent armed force, controls strategic national decisions, and exercises enormous influence over Lebanon's political life. No country can claim full sovereignty while an armed organization loyal to a foreign power operates above the authority of the state.
This reality has created an extraordinary convergence of interests between Israel and millions of Lebanese citizens.
Both have suffered from Hezbollah's dominance.
Both have paid the price for Iran's regional ambitions.
Both seek a future in which Lebanon is governed by its constitutional institutions rather than by an armed organization serving foreign interests.
For decades, many Lebanese have dreamed of restoring their country's sovereignty, rebuilding its economy, reviving its democratic institutions, and ending the cycle of wars imposed upon it by forces beyond its control. Those aspirations are not incompatible with Israel's security interests. In many respects, they are complementary.
Yet too many policymakers in Washington and European capitals continue to misunderstand this reality. They speak of stability while tolerating the existence of a heavily armed Iranian proxy controlling much of Lebanon's national life. They urge restraint upon Israel while ignoring the source of the instability itself.
The struggle against Hezbollah is not merely another regional dispute. It is part of a broader contest between sovereignty and foreign domination, between legitimate state authority and militia rule, between national independence and ideological imperialism.
Policies that restrict Israel's ability to defend itself while allowing Hezbollah to remain entrenched and heavily armed ultimately prolong the problem rather than solve it.
History will judge Netanyahu not by temporary political controversies or fashionable diplomatic narratives, but by whether he succeeded in protecting Israel against forces openly committed to its destruction. Future generations may remember him as a strategist, a patriot, and one of the most consequential defenders of the Jewish state in modern history.
Trump will undoubtedly be remembered as an American president and a remarkable political phenomenon. Yet history may also ask whether he fully understood the existential nature of the threats facing Israel and the wider Middle East, and whether his preference for agreements and grand bargains sometimes obscured realities that cannot be negotiated away.
Conclusion
The ultimate irony of the Middle East today is that Israel and the majority of the Lebanese people increasingly share the same strategic objective: ending Hezbollah's domination of Lebanon and freeing the country from Iran's grip. While diplomats continue to repeat outdated slogans about "resistance," the reality is that Hezbollah's own leaders have repeatedly declared their allegiance to Iran's Supreme Leader and to the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih. They have never hidden their identity as participants in a broader Iranian revolutionary project.
Lebanon today is not fully sovereign. Its most important national decisions—war, peace, foreign policy, and security—remain heavily influenced by an armed organization that operates outside the authority of the Lebanese state. No nation can be truly independent while a foreign-backed militia possesses greater military power than its own government.
The world must finally recognize that the struggle against Hezbollah is not merely Israel's fight. It is also the struggle of millions of Lebanese who want to reclaim their country, restore state authority, rebuild their economy, and live free from the consequences of Iran's regional ambitions. The interests of those Lebanese and the interests of Israel converge on one essential point: Hezbollah's military dominance must end.
This is why attempts to restrict Israel's ability to confront Hezbollah are strategically misguided. Lasting peace cannot be built upon the continued existence of an armed Iranian proxy that holds an entire nation hostage. A free Lebanon, a secure Israel, and a more stable Middle East all require the same outcome: the restoration of full sovereignty to the Lebanese state and the end of Hezbollah's military supremacy.
History will remember Benjamin Netanyahu as a leader who understood that reality and acted upon it. Whether the international community chooses to acknowledge it today or not, the road to a sovereign Lebanon, a secure Israel, and a more peaceful Middle East begins with confronting the forces that have prevented all three for decades.

All the Viagra in the world will not change the impotent status of a castrated man.
Elias Bejjani/June 17/2026
The dhimmi¹ and the castrated—Aoun, Salam, the government, and all the so falsely called Christian parties' leaders, and on top of them the lost Patriarch Rai—are still willingly and happily kidnapped by Hezbollah and tied with its ropes of its humiliation."

A prayer for the freedom, safety, sovereignty, and independence of Lebanon
Elias Bejjani/June 16/2026
In these difficult and painful times through which Lebanon is passing, the homeland of saints, martyrs, holiness, freedom, and coexistence, prayer for its salvation acquires a special urgency and importance.
Today, Lebanon suffers from various forms of domination, political paralysis, economic collapse, and social hardship. Its sovereignty, national identity, and historic mission continue to face serious challenges, while its people endure poverty, emigration, uncertainty, and the loss of hope.
The prayers of the Lebanese people for the salvation, liberation, and renewal of their country are not merely a patriotic duty; they are also an act of faith, hope, and trust in God. If the Lord Jesus responded to the faith of those who carried the paralytic to Him, if He healed the centurion's servant in response to the centurion's request, and if He raised Lazarus from the dead in answer to the pleas of Martha and Mary, then surely the prayers of believers on behalf of their homeland, their families, and their people are heard and welcomed by God.
The Church throughout its history has witnessed the power of intercessory prayer and the countless blessings that flow from faithful supplication offered for others. Lebanon today is in great need of such prayer. Its salvation begins with the conversion of hearts, with a renewed commitment to faith, truth, freedom, and moral responsibility. It also begins with the conviction that God never abandons those who place their trust in Him and seek His help with sincerity and perseverance.
Therefore, praying for Lebanon—for its freedom, sovereignty, peace, stability, and liberation from corruption, injustice, fear, and every form of domination—is both a spiritual and national responsibility entrusted to every Lebanese who believes in God's love and justice.
Let us therefore raise our hearts together and pray: A Prayer for Lebanon
Lord God, Father of mercy, love, and peace, look with compassion upon Lebanon and its people.
Bless its land and preserve its heritage. Protect it from violence, division, oppression, and all who seek to diminish its freedom and dignity. Enlighten the minds and consciences of its leaders so that they may serve the common good with wisdom, integrity, and courage.
Strengthen the faith of its people, comfort those who suffer, give hope to the discouraged, and bring back those who have been forced to leave their homeland. Heal the wounds of the nation, unite its children in truth and reconciliation, and restore to Lebanon its historic mission as a beacon of freedom, faith, culture, and coexistence in the Middle East.
Free Lebanon from corruption, injustice, dependency, and fear. Grant its people perseverance, patience, and confidence in Your providence. Through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Lebanon, and all the saints of Lebanon, protect this beloved nation and grant it lasting peace, security, sovereignty, dignity, and prosperity.
For Yours is the glory, now and forever. Amen.

Israel military says will keep operating in south Lebanon
AFP/18 June ,2026
The Israeli military said on Thursday it will continue operating in southern Lebanon and “remove threats” beyond its so-called security zone, after the US and Iran signed an agreement to end the Middle East war, including in Lebanon. The military published a map of its declared “security zone” -- which runs some 10 kilometers (six miles) inside Lebanese territory. It said troops would continue to be deployed there “to remove threats and strengthen the defense of Israel’s northern residents.”In a later statement, an Israeli military official said the army “will continue to remove threats to IDF soldiers and the civilians of the State of Israel that are identified beyond the security zone.”The announcement came after the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on Wednesday meant to end the Middle East war, with fighting supposed to be halted on all fronts, including in Lebanon. Hours after the agreement was signed, Lebanese state media reported on Thursday that three people have been killed in an Israeli drone strike in southern Lebanon. Israel’s military meanwhile announced the death of one of its soldiers the night before during an incident in south Lebanon that also left seven other troops wounded. The military official on Thursday called on the Lebanese Armed Forces to operate in coordination with Israeli forces and urged Lebanese civilians to avoid entering the security zone.
Since Iran and the US announced they had reached an agreement on Monday, there has been a sharp decrease in the level of violence in Lebanon. Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militant group, drew Lebanon into the Middle East war in March by attacking Israel to avenge the killing of the Islamic Republic’s supreme leader at the start of the US-Israeli campaign. Israel retaliated with broad strikes across Lebanon and by launching a ground invasion into the south, which borders Israel and has long been under Hezbollah’s sway. Lebanon and Israel have been holding direct talks in Washington since April, seeking to end the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and separate their conflict from the wider regional war. “Further steps are still being discussed within the framework of direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon,” the Israeli military official said on Thursday, adding that “the representatives will reconvene next week.”

Israel to discuss south Lebanon with Lebanese envoys in Washington next week
Naharnet/June 18/2026
According to Israel's Channel 14, the next steps in south Lebanon will be discussed during next week's negotiations with Lebanese representatives in Washington.
Israeli security sources said the current agreement does not include an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and that Israel will retain "full freedom of action" to "strike against any threat" in Lebanon.

Israeli strikes on south Lebanon kill three
Naharnet/June 18/2026
Associated PressIsraeli strikes in south Lebanon killed three people on Thursday, according to Lebanese state media, hours after the United States and Iran signed an agreement to end the Middle East war. "An enemy drone targeted a car" in the Kfartebnit area, killing two people, the official National News Agency (NNA) reported, raising an earlier toll of one dead. In the neighboring village of Zebdine, another drone killed one more person, NNA said. Israel's military, meanwhile, announced the death of one of its soldiers the night before in an incident in south Lebanon that also left seven others wounded. Since Iran and the U.S. announced they had reached an agreement on Monday, there has been a sharp decrease in the level of violence in Lebanon. Since the agreement was announced, Hezbollah has not claimed responsibility for any new attacks against Israel. Still, there have been limited exchanges of fire, and on Tuesday, Israeli strikes killed four people in Lebanon. Israel has not officially commented on the U.S.-Iran agreement. The United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on Wednesday meant to end the Middle East war, with fighting halted on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

Israeli officials refuse Lebanon concessions, say 'Israel is the loser' in US-Iran deal
Naharnet/June 18/2026
Israeli officials have described the emerging Washington-Tehran deal as a deeply disappointing and problematic development that falls far short of Israel’s strategic goals. "This is not what we hoped for," defense officials told Israeli Ynetnews. According to these sources, the Israeli military is strongly recommending that the political leadership refuse any immediate concessions. The military insists on three non-negotiable priorities: preserving Israel's operational freedom to strike throughout Lebanon, maintaining the active buffer zone where forces are currently deployed, and ensuring the absolute demilitarization of southern Lebanon. A senior Israeli official said, following the publication of the agreement's clauses, that "Iran is the big winner" and "Israel is the loser". "Iran has emerged as a global power, while Israel has gone from a regional powerhouse to the world’s punching bag. In a situation like this, it will be incredibly difficult for Netanyahu to oppose a withdrawal from Lebanon. The pressure on him is only going to grow," the official said.

Israel holds 'stubborn' talks with U.S. to keep troops in south Lebanon, report says
Naharnet/June 18/2026
Israel is holding negotiations with the United States as it seeks to maintain its troop deployment in southern Lebanon, media reports said, as the U.S. and Iran signed a deal to end the war including in Lebanon, although Israel and Hezbollah aren't parties to the agreement.
Iran insists Israel must withdraw from the large swath of southern Lebanon it has occupied since March, but the interim deal doesn't explicitly require that and only affirms a commitment to ensuring Lebanon's "territorial integrity."A senior Israeli official close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly said that Israel is currently "conducting stubborn negotiations" with Washington to secure its military presence in the south and that it will not back down on keeping forces deployed there. Meanwhile, a second Israeli official noted that everything depends on U.S. President Donald Trump. The official reportedly said the final decision hinges on whether Trump decides to force Israel to follow the U.S.-Iran deal by threatening to penalize them if they refuse.
Local reports say Tehran has assured its allies that a phased, gradual Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon is a binding part of the U.S. deal and that it would not sign the final nuclear pact at the end of the 60-day window unless Israel is completely gone. This means the gradual withdrawal must begin and conclude within the 60-day negotiation window.According to Israeli Ynetnews, Israel opposes any withdrawal before an effective agreement with Lebanon is reached. But a senior Israeli official told the daily that it will be "incredibly difficult" for Netanyahu to oppose a withdrawal from Lebanon as the pressure on him grows. Lebanese and Israeli representatives will hold talks in Washington next week and Lebanese authorities have firmly insisted that the state alone is sovereign in its decision-making, emphasizing that no outside country —specifically referencing Iran— has the right to negotiate on Lebanon's behalf.

US-Iran deal cites Lebanon's 'territorial integrity' but sidesteps explicit 'withdrawal'
Associated Press/June 18/2026
The interim deal reached by the United States and Iran to end their war will reopen the Strait of Hormuz and bring the two adversaries back to the negotiating table over Tehran’s nuclear program. It will also give Iran an immediate benefit, allowing it to sell its oil freely again, according to details released by both countries. Besides the new oil revenue for Iran, the two sides are more or less back where they were 3½ months ago — before Israel and the U.S. on Feb. 28 launched their war on Iran, which has left thousands dead across the region, triggered a global energy crisis and shaken the American economy. Iran and the U.S. will enter a 60-day period of negotiations, and hanging over them will be the question of whether U.S. President Donald Trump can wrest a better deal than the 2015 nuclear accord he scuttled eight years ago. Trump and Vice President JD Vance signed the agreement digitally over the weekend and Trump signed a physical copy Wednesday while dining with French President Emmanuel Macron in the Palace of Versailles. In Tehran, a stone-faced President Masoud Pezeshkian signed the deal on behalf of Iran, according to the state-run IRNA news agency, which posted an image of him holding up the deal with his signature and Trump’s. The deal calls for an end to the war in Lebanon, where Israel has been fighting Hezbollah. However, Israel and Hezbollah aren't parties to the agreement. Iran insists Israel must withdraw from the large swath of southern Lebanon it has occupied since March, but the interim deal doesn't explicitly require that and only affirms a commitment to ensuring Lebanon's "territorial integrity." Israel has vowed to keep its troops in the zone, while Hezbollah says it is committed to resisting Israel "until full withdrawal is achieved." If fighting spirals, it could derail the U.S.-Iran deal unless the two countries can rein in their respective allies.
- US-Israeli ties have been strained -
Israel was squeezed out of the negotiations with Iran, and Israelis from across the political spectrum have called the deal a disaster, directing their fury at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump, meanwhile, has grown more scathing in his displeasure with Netanyahu, even describing him as "crazy." During the negotiations with Iran, Trump was furious over Israel’s strikes in Beirut, warning they could jeopardize an agreement. In France on Tuesday, Trump said at the annual G7 summit that "without the U.S., there would be no Israel," and added that Netanyahu "has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon." Netanyahu is left in a precarious situation ahead of national elections later this year. His relationship with Trump may require downscaling a military campaign in Lebanon that is widely popular in Israel. Meanwhile, Israel’s arch-nemesis, Iran, would emerge from the war seemingly bolder. The Islamic Republic survived the most serious attempt ever by Israel and the United States to topple it, despite their thundering opening volleys of the war that killed Iran’s supreme leader and other top officials. And Iran demonstrated its ability to retaliate economically by shutting down the strait and striking U.S. Arab allies in the Gulf, giving Tehran confidence that Trump won't seek a return to war.

Residents return to war-ravaged south with hope and sorrow
Associated Press/June 18/2026
Adnan Kaour returned on Thursday to check on his home in southern Lebanon's coastal city of Tyre — once known as an idyllic summer getaway spot — just a week after Israel issued warnings for all of its residents to evacuate. The warnings were followed by sweeping airstrikes on the city. What Kaour found back in Tyre, shattered his hopes — his dream family apartment overlooking the shimmering Mediterranean Sea was a heap of rubble and shattered glass. His return coincided with the announcement of an agreement between the United States and Iran to end the war in the Middle East. The deal also calls for an end to the war in Lebanon but it's unclear what that means in practice. Israel and Hezbollah are not parties to the agreement. Iran insists Israel must withdraw from the large swath of southern Lebanon it is occupying, but the wording of the interim deal doesn't explicitly require that and only ensures Lebanon's "territorial integrity." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has yet to comment following the signing of the deal though Israel has vowed to keep its troops in Lebanon while Hezbollah says it's committed to resisting Israel. Fighting between the two sides, which was still underway on Wednesday in villages and towns of southern Lebanon, could derail the deal.
Many hope the US-Iran deal signals better times
For residents in the south of crisis-battered Lebanon, hopes of better times are mixed with skepticism —there had been too many ceasefire announcements that had failed to halt the fighting. Kaour lives in Germany, but spends most of the summer in Tyre. Last month, when an Israeli strike hit their street without warning, he was abroad with his family. When he returned, he saw his building, with a popular sweets shop and an electronics store on the ground floor, was still standing, unlike surrounding structures — buildings that were all leveled to the ground.
But the walls and the windows of his apartment had been blasted out. He was relieved his family had not been there, he said. They all survived. "I'm hopeful for peace, and God willing this is the end of the war, and everyone can go back to their homes," he said. "We are living abroad, but our minds are here in our country."Outside, the street filled quickly with people trying to clear the rubble. Kaour's neighbor one floor above, Samih Haidar had also just returned and found his door bolted by wooden boards. He tried to kick them down, but failed, then anxiously waited as two men who had been clearing rubble on another floor came and unscrewed the bolts.
Through a gap, Haidar climbed in. He didn't know what to expect — he had rented the apartment out to a family displaced from another area in the south, people who were close to a trusted friend of his. Then his anxiety turned into shock: broken furniture, shattered glass, rubble and a burned out kitchen. Neighbors told him the kitchen caught fire after the strike. He slowly walked through each room, quietly filming with his phone. He doesn't know what became of the family — displaced from Tyre like scores of others, he presumed.
He wants to hope, he said. "We want things to work out and live in safety, so there can be stability for us and everyone else," Haidar said. Morning strikes pierce a tenuous ceasefire
Lebanon's state-run National News Agency reported several Israeli drone strikes on Thursday morning in the country's south, including one on a car in the town of Kfar Tebnit that killed two people. Israel did not comment on the strikes. To the north, some 80 kilometers away, displaced families huddled along the waterfront in Beirut, Lebanon's capital. Most of them have been sleeping in tents for months, living day-to-day in limbo. For others, it's a bench or a mattress on the ground. Many said they're not convinced that the U.S.-Iran deal will hold or that they will be able to return to their homes — if they still have homes to return to. In the border area close to Israel, many Lebanese villages have been almost completely demolished. "I haven't felt relieved at all," said Mohammad Ashmar, displaced from the border village of Deir Seryan, holding a cup of coffee and sitting near his tent on the waterfront. "Until I get back to my home ... I won't be convinced of anything." The Israel-Hezbollah war has displaced more than 1 million people in Lebanon, and killed nearly 3,900, according to Lebanese officials. About 30 Israeli soldiers and a defense contractor have been killed in or near southern Lebanon, and two civilians have been killed in northern Israel, according to Netanyahu's office. Speaking during a visit by foreign dignitaries on Thursday, Lebanon's Social Affairs Minister Haneen Sayed said the country faces urgent humanitarian needs but also the daunting task of planning for the return of displaced families and reconstruction of the destroyed areas."The Lebanese people deserve peace," she said. "They deserve to return safely to their homes, rebuild their communities, and look to the future with confidence and hope."

'No one understands what's happening': Confusion in Israeli army over Lebanon
Naharnet/June 18/2026
Israeli commanders and soldiers currently involved in the fighting in Lebanon say the Israeli army has changed its open-fire rules in recent days, reducing troops' ability to "prevent and respond to Hezbollah attacks" and leaving soldiers vulnerable. "The open-fire rules right now are only to remove threats," one source told the Israel Hayom newspaper. The accounts come against the backdrop of the publication of a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the U.S., which also mentions the Lebanese front, as well as criticism by President Donald Trump of Israel's strikes on buildings in Lebanon. "Every few minutes, a drone falls on a house where our soldiers are stationed. There is high-trajectory fire, they fire anti-tank missiles at vehicles, and we are limited in our ability to return fire. A week ago, in the same situation, if we had taken fire like this, we would have responded much more forcefully," the source said. In addition, he said, senior field commanders were unable to understand the Israeli army's current mission, given the uncertainty at the political level. "No one understands what is happening," the source said. "Even in situation assessments by senior commanders, they say, 'We don't know what will happen in two days.'"This description reflects the confusion and embarrassment that also exist at the top of Israel's political leadership regarding the continuation of the fighting in Lebanon.
In recent weeks, the Israeli army "has advanced, at a heavy cost in human life, deep into Lebanon and established positions, among other places, on the Ali Taher ridge, which overlooks Nabatiyeh, the second-largest city in southern Lebanon. But now, after the memorandum of understanding signed this week by President Trump and Iran, significant confusion is evident among IDF (Israeli army) forces operating in Lebanon," the source added. Sources who spoke with Israel Hayom also said that the army's advance has been almost completely halted, "except for local tactical needs," leaving frontline troops exposed. "The army is now deep inside Lebanon," one of them said. "We passed Beaufort (al-Shaqif Castle), we crossed the Litani. The forces are deployed and positioned there exposed, in full view." The instructions the soldiers received were to defend themselves as much as possible, and forces on the line have taken cover in fortified buildings and entrenched themselves to reduce the chances of being hit. "We chose the strongest locations in order to protect the soldiers," said a source familiar with developments in Lebanon. Over time, however, Hezbollah fighters "identify the buildings where IDF (army) soldiers are staying and target them from a distance almost nonstop. Only today, four soldiers were wounded in the sector as a result of a Hezbollah attack," the source said.

Israel seized more land from neighbors since 2023 than it has in decades
Associated Press/June 18/2026
Over the past two and a half years, Israel has taken control of swaths of Gaza, Lebanon and Syria that amount to its biggest expansion of militarily occupied lands in decades. It is an area larger than many major cities — roughly 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles) — and Israel has said it plans to stay indefinitely. The land seizures began in the aftermath of Hamas' 2023 cross-border attack, which ignited wars on multiple fronts. The Israeli military took over large portions of Gaza as part of a broad invasion, and later seized control of chunks of Lebanon and Syria. Israel calls these areas "buffer zones" and says they are needed to prevent future attacks by militant groups. In Gaza and Lebanon, Israeli land seizures and evacuation warnings have pushed out more than 3 million people, and troops have demolished towns and neighborhoods, creating large, depopulated zones. The "buffer zones" — equivalent to roughly 5% of Israel's area soon after its founding — are not new borders, which require an agreement between two countries. But many fear these changes could become long-lasting. Iran has made Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon a condition for ending its war with the U.S. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has never had clear borders. Its boundaries have shifted through wars, annexations, ceasefires and peace agreements.Here is a deeper look at the Israeli expansions:
Lebanon
Israel and Hezbollah have fought multiple wars since the Iran-backed Lebanese militant group was formed in 1982. Israel occupied much of southern Lebanon between 1982–2000, saying it was necessary to protect northern Israeli communities. After Israel's withdrawal in 2000, the U.N. drew up a boundary between the two countries. A year of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah ended with an October 2024 ceasefire. Israel violated that ceasefire for 15 months. The nominal truce collapsed in March, days into the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. Following missile and drone attacks by Hezbollah, Israel launched a ground invasion into Lebanon. When fighting was halted in April, Israel said the military would occupy an area up to 10 kilometers deep. Israel now holds 608 square kilometers in Lebanon, according to experts with the Carnegie Middle East Center.
Evacuation warnings have forced about 1.2 million Lebanese to flee, and Israel has warned civilians against returning. Hezbollah has condemned Israel's presence inside Lebanon, and the Lebanese government has called for Israel to withdraw.
Gaza
Israel seized the Gaza Strip from Egypt in the 1967 Mideast War. It unilaterally withdrew troops and settlers from the territory in 2005. Hamas militants overran the territory two years later, and their Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel launched the devastating war in Gaza. When the Gaza ceasefire went into effect in October 2025, Israel withdrew its troops to a zone demarcated by the so-called "yellow line," giving it control of just over half the strip. Almost the entire population of Gaza, more than 2 million people, has been squeezed into vast, squalid tent cities dependent on international aid. The military has bulldozed or demolished wide swaths of the zone, and the area, where most of Gaza's agricultural land lies, is inaccessible to Palestinians. Israeli forces are meant to complete a fuller withdrawal under the U.S.-brokered ceasefire. But the U.S.-backed diplomat overseeing the truce says progress is deadlocked over the central sticking point of disarming Hamas. With the ceasefire process stuck, Israel has since moved the line west and expanded its control to more than 60% of Gaza — 194 square kilometers, according to rights group Gisha. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israeli control of Gaza will increase to 70%.
Syria
Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Mideast war and later annexed it -- a move not widely recognized by the international community. After the 1973 Mideast war, the U.N. created a buffer zone in southern Syria next to the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, patrolled by a U.N. force of about 1,100 troops. In December 2024, after the surprise downfall of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Israel moved its troops into the U.N. buffer zone, saying it was concerned that Syrian rebels could attack Israel. It also wanted to disrupt Iran's ability to smuggle weapons through Syria to Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. The U.N. and other critics say the seizure of land violates a 1974 ceasefire agreement. Civilians in the area have not been instructed to evacuate but have faced checkpoints and tension, with occasional clashes between Israeli soldiers and villagers. Syria's interim president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, has called on Israel to withdraw from the area that the U.N. says is 235 square kilometers.
West Bank
Since capturing the West Bank in the 1967 Mideast war, Israel has built well over 100 settlements across the occupied territory. The government has approved 47 new settlements and formalized or expanded 55 existing settlements just since 2022, according to Peace Now. After the war in Gaza began, Israel expanded its military operations in the West Bank, displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. Some of the new settlements approved recently are retroactive legalizations of tiny outposts, while others are neighborhoods of existing settlements.
The precipitous growth of settlements stems from settler leaders and supporters holding key positions in Israel's government and a U.S. administration that is largely pro-settlement. The international community considers them illegal. The expanded settlements have put enormous restrictions on the daily lives of Palestinians, who view them as the main barrier to a lasting peace agreement because they are built on lands they seek for a future state.

Israel military says will keep operating in south Lebanon
Agence France Presse/June 18/2026
The Israeli military said on Thursday it will continue operating in southern Lebanon and "remove threats" beyond its so-called security zone, after the U.S. and Iran signed an agreement to end the Middle East war, including in Lebanon. The military published a map of its declared "security zone" -- which runs some 10 kilometers inside Lebanese territory. It said troops would continue to be deployed there "to remove threats and strengthen the defense of Israel's northern residents".In a later statement, an Israeli military official said the army "will continue to remove threats to IDF soldiers and the civilians of the State of Israel that are identified beyond the security zone". The announcement came after the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on Wednesday meant to end the Middle East war, with fighting supposed to be halted on all fronts, including in Lebanon. Hours after the agreement was signed, Lebanese state media reported one person killed in an Israeli drone strike in southern Lebanon. Israel's military meanwhile announced the death of one of its soldiers the night before during an incident in south Lebanon that also left seven other troops wounded. The military official on Thursday called on the Lebanese Armed Forces to operate in coordination with Israeli forces and urged Lebanese civilians to avoid entering the security zone. Since Iran and the U.S. announced they had reached an agreement on Monday, there has been a sharp decrease in the level of violence in Lebanon. Lebanon and Israel have been holding direct talks in Washington since April, seeking to end the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and separate their conflict from the wider regional war.
"Further steps are still being discussed within the framework of direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon," the Israeli military official said on Thursday, adding that "the representatives will reconvene next week".

Netanyahu says Israel to keep buffer zone in Lebanon as long as needed
Naharnet/June 18/2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Thursday that Israel's "struggle" is not over yet, and that more challenges lie ahead, after the U.S. and Iran signed an MoU to end the war between them, which also inlcudes a clause about stopping the conflict in Lebanon and respecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity. "We will continue to navigate our path with wisdom and judgment," he said. "Just as we restored security and prosperity to the Gaza envelope, so we will restore security and prosperity to the northern settlements. This requires maintaining the security zone in southern Lebanon. This requires that we do not leave there as long as Israel's security needs require it, because this zone separates Hezbollah from our citizens and our settlements," Netanyahu added. "In a broader view, we will continue to adhere to the supreme goal that has guided us, guided me, during most of my adult life: Iran will not have nuclear weapons. And as long as I am the Prime Minister of Israel, it will not happen," he went on to say.

Netanyahu calls for preserving 'vital relationship' with US
Agence France Presse/June 18/2026
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu underscored the importance of maintaining close ties with the United States on Thursday, saying Washington had stood by its ally during the Middle East war. "The struggle is not yet over, and further challenges lie ahead. They require calm judgement, steadfast defense of Israel's security interests, and at the same time the preservation of our vital relationship with our American friends, who stood shoulder to shoulder with us in this fight -- a partnership we deeply appreciate," Netanyahu said at a function, according to a statement issued by his office. Netanyahu has still not commented directly on the deal, though some of his coalition members dismissed it even before the text's details were released on Wednesday. His remarks on Thursday come amid fraying ties between the U.S. and Israel over the Iran agreement, which Israeli analysts have also sharply criticized, arguing that it effectively locks in Iranian gains while deferring the issue most sensitive to Israel: its security. The details released on Wednesday call for "an immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon." While the agreement addresses the dilution of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, it makes no mention of how to address Iran's missile program -- the dismantling of which had been a key Israeli objective during the war. Hours before the agreement was announced, U.S. President Donald Trump excoriated Netanyahu for launching attacks in Lebanon that threatened to derail it. "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." The U.S. news website Axios reported that Trump understood Hezbollah had been firing rockets and drones at Israel and that Israel needed to defend itself, but that he felt Netanyahu had, in recent days, been escalating disproportionately. Citing a U.S. official, Axios also reported that Trump was troubled by the scale of civilian casualties in Lebanon and objected to Israel levelling entire buildings to eliminate a single Hezbollah commander. Days before the deal was finalized, Netanyahu had warned that Israeli forces would strike Beirut's southern suburb of Dahieh, a Hezbollah stronghold, if the group fired rockets into Israeli territory. On Thursday, he reiterated that Israeli forces would remain in southern Lebanon. "We will restore security and prosperity to the communities of northern Israel," he said. "That requires maintaining the security zone in southern Lebanon, and it requires that we not withdraw from it for as long as Israel’s security needs demand it."

US imposes sanctions on Suleiman Franjieh and Mahmoud Qmati
Naharnet /June 18/2026
The U.S. Treasury on Thursday imposed sanctions on Marada Movement chief Suleiman Franjieh, Hezbollah political council deputy head Mahmoud Qmati and other individuals for using their influence to "obstruct Lebanon's peace process and delay the disarmament of Hezbollah."
“Hezbollah must disarm for Lebanon to achieve a secure and prosperous future,” said Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. “Treasury will continue to target Hezbollah’s financial networks and hold accountable those who enable the group to undermine the Lebanese state and threaten prospects for lasting peace,” he said. The Treasury said Hezbollah relies on a network of officials to "maintain power and exert influence through all levels of the Lebanese political and security establishment." It said Franjieh "has used his strategic alliance with Hezbollah to benefit his own political ambitions." Franjieh "accepted financial support from Hezbollah in exchange for supporting Hezbollah’s efforts to target the parliamentary seats of reformist and independent members of parliament in Lebanese parliamentary elections," it added.Qmati meanwhile "coordinates cash smuggling from Iran for Hezbollah and advocates for Hezbollah’s interests in Lebanon," the Treasury charged.

Hezbollah lawmaker says Israel’s war failed to crush group
Arab News/June 19, 2026
BEIRUT: The head of Hezbollah’s parliamentary bloc, Mohammad Raad, said on Thursday that Israel’s war in Lebanon had “failed” to eliminate the Iran-backed group. Raad said in a statement that “the enemy’s war aimed at crushing the resistance in Lebanon has failed and will not achieve its objectives.”He also called on Lebanese authorities to “adopt a framework for indirect negotiations with the enemy” to stop the fighting. He said the Israeli military must “fully comply with the cessation of hostilities on land, at sea and in the air, and prepare for and begin withdrawal within 60 days, without any need whatsoever for direct negotiations.”The United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on Wednesday meant to end the Middle East war on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

Advice to Syria’s New Rulers: Stay Out of Lebanon!
Akl Awit/Face Book/June 18/2026
I do not wish to describe U.S. President Donald Trump with any of the labels often attached to him. Yet he would be committing a grave mistake—indeed, an unforgivable one—if he believes that the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons in Lebanon can be resolved by enticing Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa to re-enter the Lebanese arena. Rather than helping to untangle Lebanon’s crisis, such a move would only expand it, increase the number of parties involved, and multiply its dangers. It would drag both Syria and Lebanon into unprecedented civil, sectarian, and communal conflicts.We all remember the tragedies that followed the entry of the Syrian army into Lebanon, and what the Assad regime did to Lebanese political, social, economic, and human life. It turned the country into a breeding ground for death, violence, fragmentation, corruption, terror, and catastrophe.
Whereas Syria at that time was entirely under the grip of an authoritarian and dictatorial Baathist regime, Syria’s new leadership today is undoubtedly aware of the profound structural challenges it faces within its own borders: on the Syrian coast, in Jabal al-Arab, with the remnants of the former regime, with the Kurds, and with Iraqi militias lying in wait. Is there, then, even a shred of wisdom in inviting the Syrian president to step into the Lebanese quagmire and sink into its stagnant, blood-soaked depths?
Lebanon today is burdened by two major problems: Hezbollah’s weapons on the one hand, and Israeli aggression and the occupation of parts of the South on the other.
That equation is already extraordinarily complex. Bringing Syria back into the picture would not produce a solution; it would move Lebanon into an even more dangerous phase, one in which the country would become trapped in a triangle of overlapping crises: Israel to the south, Syria to the east and north, and Hezbollah, its arsenal, and its Iranian connection within.
What kind of logic proposes to address one foreign intervention through another? What wisdom is there in inviting a new regional actor into a Lebanese arena already crowded with competing interventions and spheres of influence?
Lebanon has paid a heavy price to emerge from the era of tutelage. Syrians, too, have paid dearly in their history, their blood, and their destinies. How, then, can turning back become a solution? How can returning to the Lebanese quagmire be presented as a recipe for stability?
Calling on Syria to deal with Hezbollah’s weapons is not a solution to a problem; it is the addition of a new problem to existing ones. It is not a path to salvation but a way of reproducing the Lebanese deadlock under new names and new faces, while Lebanon itself continues to bear the cost. With every passing day, I become more convinced that there is no solution to Lebanon’s crisis except through the neutralization of Lebanon from all external actors—and through its neutralization from within. These two conditions can be achieved only through a unifying authority and with the unanimous agreement of the members of the Security Council, even if that were to require placing Lebanon temporarily under international trusteeship.
The principle that must guide any serious approach is the neutralization of Lebanon, not its deeper entanglement. Neutralization from Israel as well as Iran; from Syria as well as all regional axes. Neutralization from every external hand seeking to turn Lebanon into an arena, a bargaining chip, or a front line. At the same time, Lebanon must be freed from every weapon and every internal influence that makes its national decision hostage to non-Lebanese interests.
What Lebanon needs is a fully sovereign state exercising authority over its territory, its borders, and its decisions. No Israeli tutelage, no Syrian tutelage, no Iranian tutelage, and no tutelage of any kind.
My advice to Syria’s new rulers is clear: stay out of Lebanon. Entering Lebanon today is neither a path to influence nor a path to solutions. It is a path that may lead Syria itself into the same deadlock.
Stay out of Lebanon. Stay out.

Reading Lebanon and the Iran Deal Through Rubio’s Face
Makram Rabah/Now Lebanon/June 18/2026
https://nowlebanon.com/reading-lebanon-and-the-iran-deal-through-rubios-face/
The most revealing part of the American-Iranian memorandum of understanding was not only the text. It was the theater around it.
President Donald Trump spoke for almost an hour and a half, drifting between threats, boasts, market reactions, military details, real estate imagery, and the familiar claim that history bends around his ability to make a deal. Yet amid the performance, there was a moment more eloquent than any clause in the document: Marco Rubio’s face.
Rubio looked like a man forced to read a map whose borders had been redrawn by someone else. His expression captured the contradiction at the heart of this agreement. Washington wants to declare victory over Iran, reopen maritime routes, reassure markets, contain escalation, and claim that Tehran has been forced into a historic retreat. But at the same time, the agreement leaves untouched the regional machinery through which Iran has projected power for decades.
For Lebanon, this is where the danger begins.
The MOU places Lebanon inside the language of regional de-escalation, but not inside the logic of national restoration. It refers to the Lebanese arena as one of the fronts where military operations are meant to stop. That sounds significant until one asks the only question that matters: who controls the decision to resume fire?
The MOU places Lebanon inside the language of regional de-escalation, but not inside the logic of national restoration. It refers to the Lebanese arena as one of the fronts where military operations are meant to stop. That sounds significant until one asks the only question that matters: who controls the decision to resume fire?
The answer is not found in Beirut.
This is the fatal defect. The document speaks in the language of sovereign states, but Lebanon’s crisis is precisely that the constitutional order no longer controls the country’s strategic choices. The guns that dragged Lebanon into this war are not an accidental feature of Lebanese politics. They are the operating system of Iranian influence on the Mediterranean. Unless that system is dismantled, paused violence is merely another diplomatic interval between rounds of destruction.
This is the fatal defect. The document speaks in the language of sovereign states, but Lebanon’s crisis is precisely that the constitutional order no longer controls the country’s strategic choices. The guns that dragged Lebanon into this war are not an accidental feature of Lebanese politics. They are the operating system of Iranian influence on the Mediterranean. Unless that system is dismantled, paused violence is merely another diplomatic interval between rounds of destruction.
Trump’s speech made this painfully clear. Lebanon appeared not as a partner to be empowered, but as a troublesome corner of a larger bargain. He spoke sympathetically of Lebanon’s past, its culture, its professionals, and its suffering. He even suggested that Israel could perhaps use a lighter hand when dealing with Hezbollah. But sympathy is not policy. Nostalgia for Lebanon’s lost brilliance does not restore its institutions. And telling Israel to be somewhat less destructive is not the same as giving Lebanon the means to recover command over its own territory.
In Trump’s hierarchy, the main bargain is with Iran. Lebanon is an irritant within that bargain. It is a place where things can go wrong, where Israeli overreach can complicate the optics, and where Hezbollah’s actions can embarrass the diplomatic choreography. But it is not treated as the central test of whether Iran has truly changed its behavior.
That is why Rubio’s discomfort mattered. It reflected the unease of an American policy trying to reconcile incompatible claims: that Iran has been humbled, that Iran is now a potential negotiating partner, that the regional file can be managed later, and that Lebanon can somehow be stabilized without confronting the armed structure that made it unstable in the first place.
The text itself is full of deferred answers. The nuclear file is postponed to mechanisms and future understandings. Sanctions relief is tied to schedules still to be agreed. Maritime guarantees are temporary. Monitoring bodies are promised. A future Security Council resolution is imagined. Everything difficult is pushed into a process. But Lebanon does not have the luxury of process without power. Every delay benefits the actor that already holds the weapons.
This is why the Lebanese should be careful not to confuse a diplomatic pause with a strategic rescue. Iran may accept constraints on certain files if the price is right. It may trade language, sequencing, inspections, and economic access. But Hezbollah is different. Hezbollah is not merely a Lebanese ally of Iran. It is one of the principal assets that allows Iran to bargain from beyond its borders. To expect Tehran to loosen that card without a direct cost is to misunderstand the entire architecture of the Islamic Republic’s regional policy.
The greater danger is that Lebanon will be asked to celebrate its own marginalization, while quite ironically some Shiite supporters of Hezbollah will celebrate the destruction of their homes and villages . Officials in Beirut may welcome the MOU because it buys time. Party leaders may claim that the storm has passed. Diplomats may praise the spirit of de-escalation. But time, in Lebanon, is never neutral. When the state uses time to avoid decisions, armed factions use it to reorganize, rearm, and redefine the next crisis.
Worse still is the suggestion that Syria could play a role in solving the Hezbollah problem. This is not realism. It is amnesia. Lebanon has already paid the price of being placed under Syrian management in the name of stability. To invite Damascus back into the Lebanese equation, directly or indirectly, would not weaken Hezbollah. It would only add another layer of external custody over a country that has spent decades trying to breathe outside the grip of its neighbors.
The MOU may be useful for Washington. It may give Trump a victory narrative. It may give Iran oxygen. It may calm Gulf shipping and reassure investors watching oil prices. It may even reduce immediate pressure on Israel’s northern front. But none of this automatically produces a Lebanese outcome.
Lebanon’s future cannot be hidden inside an American-Iranian annex.
The country needs a policy that begins from Beirut, not from Tehran’s needs, Washington’s electoral theater, Israel’s security doctrine, or Syria’s appetite for relevance. It needs an official position that says plainly that the decision of war cannot belong to a faction, that the border cannot remain a private military zone, and that the south cannot be used as a negotiable card in someone else’s settlement.
Until that happens, every regional arrangement will leave Lebanon suspended between someone’s war and someone else’s deal.
The tragedy is not that Lebanon was ignored. It was mentioned. And that may be worse. It was acknowledged just enough to be managed, but not seriously enough to be saved.
This is why the real meaning of the MOU will not be measured in Washington signing ceremonies or Iranian compliance formulas. It will be measured in whether Lebanon remains a platform for Tehran’s leverage or becomes again a republic with one army, one border policy, and one decision over war.
Rubio’s face understood the problem before the document admitted it. The deal may calm the region for a moment. But in Lebanon, calm without authority is only the silence before the next explosion.
**Makram Rabah is the managing editor at Now Lebanon and an Assistant Professor at the American University of Beirut, Department of History. His book Conflict on Mount Lebanon: The Druze, the Maronites and Collective Memory (Edinburgh University Press) covers collective identities and the Lebanese Civil War. He tweets at @makramrabah

Lebanon must adopt a new political system
Khaled Abou Zahr/Arab News/June 18, 2026
The US-Iran deal that appears to be on the table might pause military confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah. But it is very clear that, while the agreement might hold between Iran and the rest of the neighborhood, Hezbollah will be able to keep dragging Lebanon into wars in which it has nothing to gain and plenty to lose. As we have seen, Hezbollah invited Israeli military action and a heavy price was paid by all the Lebanese. If Lebanon does not take prompt action, this will not be the end of the war but only a truce. The country is still at high risk of being dragged into meaningless conflicts for absolutely no reason. While President Joseph Aoun has courageously engaged in negotiations with Israel, Beirut needs to work on a stable and long-lasting peace with Tel Aviv. But this will never happen or bring any stability if the country does not regain its sovereignty. For this to happen, there are two important steps. The first is to execute the plan of disarming Hezbollah. The second is a new political system. Both files are equally important. For Hezbollah, we cannot ignore US President Donald Trump’s remarks. He considers the Israeli strikes on Lebanon and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions to be excessive. At the same time, he presented Syrian President Ahmad Al-Sharaa as being the most capable of fighting Hezbollah. This is not the first time this has been mentioned. For now, the new Damascus government has clearly stated its refusal to interfere in Lebanese affairs. However, if Iran were to choose a revengeful and aggressive policy following the war, while pushing Hezbollah in the same direction, this stance might not last. This scenario should not be welcomed by anyone. Not even the Sunni Lebanese.
The country is still at high risk of being dragged into meaningless conflicts for absolutely no reason. Nevertheless, we cannot accept that Hezbollah creates tensions with Lebanon’s neighbors both in the south and the north. This would lead to an even more precarious situation than has ever been experienced. This is why the government needs to take strong action to move ahead with the disarmament plan. The state must be the only military force and it must recover the decision of war and peace that Iran has usurped.
The current Lebanese government has been more vocal against Iranian interference. Unfortunately, because of Hezbollah, these are only words. But words matter and if, for now, that is all it can do, then there is a need to continue denouncing Iran’s interference in Lebanon’s affairs and its financing and support of nonstate terrorist organizations.
More importantly, there needs to be a new political system. We cannot keep playing political musical chairs. As a country of minorities, we cannot keep seeking support from outside powers, one after the other, to dominate or take a bigger share of the political pie. We have gone from Maronites to Sunnis and now Shiites. We cannot go round again. It has to stop here. To achieve this, we cannot keep the same political system. We cannot allow any minority to be underrepresented or overrepresented. This is the recipe that keeps bringing destruction to the country.
We cannot allow any minority to be underrepresented or overrepresented. This keeps bringing destruction to the country. Lebanon must adopt a new political system and there are many options to choose from. But one thing is for sure: in a country of minorities, we cannot let the absolute majority be the way. That is the fastest way to ostracize entire communities, which in turn will seek foreign support. This is exactly why the civil approach that some are pushing would be a mistake. It is the old formula repackaged and will not change anything.
Moreover, this centralized approach will not solve the problems that the Lebanese are facing: lack of security; weak infrastructure development, from electricity to logistics; poor healthcare; downgraded education; and the list goes on. Lebanon cannot function on a pyramidal system like France, for example.
I believe that we should consider federalism. This is in no way a call to divide the country. It is the opposite. We should let the communities decide for themselves at the lowest level possible, allowing them to feel safe and in control of their destiny. This does not mean that territories should be closed off to each other, but that when it comes to healthcare, education, policing, taxation (within federal limits) and other matters, the local population should decide. This would leave the federal government to handle national matters such as foreign policy, defense, monetary policy and overarching legislation.
This is the transformation that is needed. This solution should reassure every single community in the country. It would recognize the right of each community to feel represented and allow healthy collaboration and competition between each region.
Some will argue that Lebanon has other priorities and that any new political system cannot be implemented until Hezbollah is disarmed. I disagree. This is the time to start building something new and to start thinking of what is important instead of what is urgent. In this case, I believe it is both important and urgent to start designing a new political system for the country.
*Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on 18-19 June/2026
Video Link/Free Press Middle East analyst Haviv Rettig Gur anylsis the USA-Iranian Agreement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9ERgLUxdzc&t=3696s
Did Trump Surrender to Iran? | Haviv Rettig Gur
The Free Press and Ask Haviv Anything
Jun 18, 2026
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump and Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian signed a 14-point memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran. The agreement set up a 60-day period of negotiations and covers the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, frozen funds, sanctions relief, Iranian oil exports, Lebanon, and more. In the hours since, figures across the political spectrum have fiercely debated whether the deal is good for the U.S.—or if it represents a form of capitulation to the Iranian regime. So we went to Free Press Middle East analyst Haviv Rettig Gur to break it all down: how the strait will be opened, what the nuclear concessions are, and how much money Iran could be getting; the biggest concerns for the U.S. and Israel, and the state of their relationship; why Trump’s team wasn’t prepared for the war’s true costs; what’s next for the Gulf States; and who the real winner will be when the dust finally settles.

White House sends text of interim US-Iran agreement to US Congress
Reuters/June 18, 2026
WASHINGTON: The White House provided a copy of the interim ​US-Iran agreement to the US Congress on Thursday, according to a copy of the document seen by Reuters, a day after US President Donald Trump signed an interim deal with Tehran to end the ‌war.
The terms ‌listed in the ​document ‌to ⁠Congress ​matched the ⁠details of the interim US-Iran agreement read out by a US official on Wednesday. The document, titled “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States ⁠of America,” begins with a ‌declaration of ‌an immediate and permanent end ​to military operations ‌on all fronts, including Lebanon.The document ‌also confirmed that the US would fully end its naval blockade on Iranian ports within 30 days and Iran ‌would ensure safe passage of commercial vessels at no charge ⁠in ⁠the Strait of Hormuz for 60 days. Washington and Tehran commit to negotiating a final deal within 60 days, and they can extend the time frame by mutual agreement, the document showed.
The document bears signatures on behalf of Iran and the United States, with Pakistan signing ​as witness ​and mediator.
The following is the text of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding:
The United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly agreed in good faith on (a date yet to be determined, the official said), on the following:
1 - The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare an immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph.
2 - The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs.
3 - The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.
4 - Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.
5 - Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.
6 - The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.
7 - The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and express their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
8 - The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in Paragraph 7, with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned, and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiation in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
9 - Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions, and will not deploy additional forces in the region.
10 - The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
11 - The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.
12 - The United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.
13 - After signing this MOU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.
14 - The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.

US and Iran presidents sign ceasefire agreement, text of MoU released
The Arab Weekly/June 18/2026
Trump told reporters on Wednesday that the United States will discuss Iran’s ballistic missiles and regional proxies with Gulf nations. US President Donald Trump, flanked by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade
EVIAN-LES-BAINS, France/Tehran
The US and Iran released the text of the interim agreement their leaders have signed to end their war on Wednesday, while President Donald reiterated his threats to Tehran amid questions about what the war he initiated in conjunction with Israel has achieved. The 14-point agreement extends a ceasefire announced in April by another 60 days, including in Lebanon, to allow the two sides to negotiate a final truce. Both Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian have digitally signed the memorandum in English and Farsi, US and Iran officials said, with Iran’s foreign ministry pointing out the agreement was already in effect as of Wednesday. The memorandum includes an immediate end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, the full resumption of maritime traffic “with no charge” in the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of a US blockade of Iranian ports, the waiving of US sanctions on Iran, the unfreezing of its assets, and a $300 billion investment fund for the Islamic Republic’s post-war reconstruction. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan, which mediated the agreement, said on X that it “shall enter into force with immediate effect.”
“As a first step, Islamic Republic of Iran will instantly reopen the Strait of Hormuz and the United States of America will immediately lift the naval blockade,” Sharif wrote.
Under the text, Washington also commits to immediately waive oil sanctions crippling Iran’s economy. Iran also undertakes not to build nuclear weapons, reaffirming a vow it had made for decades. It also agreed to the on-site “down-blending” of its stockpile of enriched uranium under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, although Trump had wanted to take it out of the country, which Iran has rejected. Despite his combative rhetoric, Trump appears to have achieved little of what he said he wanted in going to war, while Iran appears much closer to sanctions relief worth billions of dollars than before it was attacked.
Iran’s theocratic government remains in place, its stockpile of highly enriched uranium has not been surrendered, its ballistic missile capabilities have not been destroyed and it has not ended its support for regional proxies, including Hezbollah, which now faces less pressure to disarm in Lebanon. Trump’s decision to pull the plug on the war has unsettled some of his own allies at home. US Senator Bill Cassidy from Trump’s own Republican Party was scathing.
“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works,” he said. “Sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”
Issues unaddressed
The text of the 14-point Memoradum of Understanding (MoU) has raised questions as it does not address Iran’s ballistic missile programme nor its support for a network of regional proxies.
Trump, who was attending the G7 summit meeting in France, told reporters on Wednesday that the United States, in a parallel effort to the US-Iran deal, will discuss Iran’s ballistic missiles and regional proxies with Gulf nations. Trump said it would be unfair for Iran not to have ballistic missiles if other countries have them. “I’m saying that if other countries have them, it’s a little bit unfair for them not to have some,” Trump told reporters in Paris.
“If Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and they all have some, I would say in relative proportion, I think it’s okay.”Trump hence withdrew at least one of his stated rationales for attacking Iran in the first place by finding justification for Iran to develop ballistic missiles after previously vowing to obliterate them. Trump also said the United States would leave its military in the Gulf “for a while” after Washington struck a deal with Tehran to end its nearly four-month conflict in the region.
He also threatened Tehran with renewed military action. “We’re going to bomb the hell out of them if they violate the agreement,” Trump said of Iran at a press conference. “I don’t want them to. I want them to honour the agreement.” He also called Iranians “smart people” as US and Iranian negotiators work on a permanent truce over the coming 60 days, which Trump said he hoped would usher in peace in the Middle East and lower oil prices.
Iran’s leaders did not address the new threats while celebrating what they described as a total victory over the US, releasing photographs of what is believed to be the first agreement signed by both a US and Iranian president since the Islamic Republic’s founding in 1979.
“Everything we sought to achieve through military action, we obtained several times over through negotiation; it was not even comparable,” Iran’s chief negotiator and parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf told state television about the agreement, which includes the unfreezing of billions of dollars in Iranian assets. The US and Israel launched the war on Iran on February 28, assassinating the 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and military leaders on the first day. The confrontation quickly spiralled into a regional conflict that has killed more than 7,000 people, mostly in Iran and Lebanon; driven up energy prices; renewed inflationary pressures and sparked concerns about a major food supply crisis in developing countries. The memorandum calls for a halt to hostilities between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah group that have killed thousands of people and displaced more than a million more.
Fighting there has abated but not ceased since the agreement was reached on Sunday, and Israel, which was not part of the negotiations and whose military is occupying southern Lebanon, says it retains the right to use force. The head of the pro-Tehran Lebanese Shia movement Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, on Wednesday described the deal as a “great victory” for Iran. He thanked Tehran for insisting that the truce cover Lebanon, which was drawn into the conflict when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel on March 2 in support of Iran.
Trump on Wednesday rebuked Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has distanced Israel from the US-Iran agreement, over his approach to Lebanon.
The US president told reporters, “We have a little dispute over Lebanon. I say you can do a little softer touch, Bibi,” he said, using Netanyahu’s nickname. “You don’t have to knock down a building every time somebody walks into it that’s from Hezbollah.”
The US has said a formal signing ceremony for the US-Iran agreement was due to be held across the Swiss border on Friday. But Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei cast doubt on this, telling IRIB’s News Network that, because the two presidents had already signed, “No signing ceremony will be held in Switzerland.” Pakistan’s Sharif said an official ceremony will nonetheless take place Friday in Switzerland and technical talks will commence.

Talks on implementing US-Iran deal still planned in Switzerland Friday
Agence France Presse/June 18/2026
The Swiss foreign ministry confirmed Thursday that "initial negotiations" on implementing a U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding on ending the Middle East war were planned to take place in Switzerland on Friday. "Currently, the plan remains for the United States and Iran, along with the mediators Pakistan and Qatar and other involved countries, to meet tomorrow at the Burgenstock for initial negotiations on the implementation of the agreement," the ministry said, lifting a degree of uncertainty that had hung over the meeting at the luxury mountainside resort near Lucerne.

Iran president touts ‘historic’ deal with US ending war
Al Arabiya English/18 June ,2026
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian welcomed on Thursday what he called a “historic” deal with the United States to end their war and pave the way for negotiations towards a final settlement. “This is a historic document and a message from a powerful Iran: peace will be achieved in the shadow of mutual respect,” Pezeshkian said, in a social media post showing an image of the document, which carried his signature as well as US President Donald Trump and their mediator, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. In a sudden development after uncertainty over when the deal agreed earlier this week would be formally signed, Trump put his name to it in thick black ink at a candlelit dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles outside Paris on Wednesday. A two-month negotiating period now begins with all eyes on the reopening of Hormuz and if progress can be made in talks over Iran’s nuclear program, which Washington has long suspected of concealing secret bomb-making ambitions. With AFP

Sharif’s visit to Switzerland postponed due to electronic signing of US-Iran deal
AFP/18 June ,2026
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has postponed a visit to Switzerland for a US-Iran ceremony because their agreement on ending the Middle East war had been signed remotely, his spokesman told AFP on Thursday.“The proposed visit has been postponed as the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has already been electronically signed, has entered into force, and is now under implementation,” spokesman Mosharraf Zaidi said, adding that Pakistan would support the next phase of several “technical-level” tracks.

Vance castigates Israeli officials for Iran deal criticism: US is your only powerful ally
Al Arabiya English/18 June ,2026
US Vice President JD Vance on Friday launched a diatribe against Israeli officials in Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, warning them to “wake up and smell the reality.” Speaking to reporters at the White House, Vance was defending the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on Wednesday. The agreement initiates a 60-day ceasefire and lifts the US blockade on Iran, allowing Tehran to rejoin the global economy if it fulfills its commitments made in the MoU. Israelis, Republican lawmakers, and conservative influences in Washington have slammed the deal and publicly castigated President Donald Trump for what they believe to be a mistake in signing the deal. Asked about this criticism, Vance singled out members of Netanyahu's cabinet, without naming them, for attacking the deal and personally attacking Trump. “Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time, and he happens to be the head of state of the world's superpower,” Vance said, visibly angered. “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.”Vance said two-thirds of the defensive weapons that protected “your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars.”He went on: “The problem for Israel is not Donald J. Trump, and anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the president of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation that country is in.”

US military has lifted Iran blockade upon orders from Trump: CENTCOM
Al Arabiya English/18 June ,2026
The US military has lifted the blockade on all maritime traffic in and out of Iranian ports and coastal areas, in compliance with orders from President Donald Trump. “American forces are not impeding the transit of vessels to or from Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman,” the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said. “Today, US forces lifted the blockade on all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports and coastal areas, in accordance with the President's direction,” CENTCOM said in a post on X. “All US military blockade enforcement efforts have ceased. Our great Naval Ships will remain in the general area to make sure that all aspects of the agreement are adhered to, obeyed and in full force and effect,” CENTCOM said.

Iran’s supreme leader says approved US deal despite having ‘different view’
AFP/18 June ,2026
Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said on Thursday that he had approved a deal with the United States to end the Middle East war despite having a “different view,” without elaborating. “In principle, I had a different view (about the memorandum of understanding), but I issued my permission due to the commitment that the honorable (Iranian) president, as the chairman of the Supreme National Security Council, gave me on behalf of himself and other members to protect the rights of the Iranian nation and the Resistance Front,” Khamenei said in message read on state television. Khamenei has not been seen in public since he took office in March following the killing of his father and predecessor Ali Khamenei in the US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28 that sparked the regional war. The message was his first reaction to the Iran-US deal to end the conflict that was signed by US Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Khamenei said Trump had “used all kinds of levers” to secure the deal “out of desperation.”In his message, Khamenei noted that he received assurances from Pezeshkian about the deal and that it would not be accepted “if the American side wants to make excessive demands.”“It is obvious that the face-to-face negotiations that will be held in the future will not mean accepting the enemy’s point of view,” he added.

Senate Armed Services Committee chair slams Trump’s Iran MoU
Al Arabiya English/18 June ,2026
Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a close ally of President Donald Trump, on Thursday voiced concerns about the memorandum of understanding signed with Iran, questioning whether it undermines the gains achieved through recent military operations. “Since day one, I have supported President Trump’s efforts to end Iran’s 47-year threat to the United States and our partners. I am concerned that the memorandum of understanding negotiates away the victories of Operation Epic Fury in ways that are completely out of step with the President’s goals,” Wicker said in a statement. Trump signed the MoU on Wednesday during a dinner at the Palace of Versailles in France. Senior US officials had earlier outlined and read the agreement in its entirety during a call with reporters. Wicker specifically questioned the proposed $300 billion economic development and reconstruction fund that Iran could access if it fulfills its commitments under the agreement. “Such an opportunity would make Iran’s payoff under President Obama’s 2015 deal look like a pittance by comparison,” Wicker said, referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement signed between Washington and Tehran under Obama. Trump withdrew the United States from that accord during his first term. Another provision drawing criticism from Wicker and other Republicans is the ceasefire framework involving Lebanon and Israel. Hezbollah has dragged Lebanon into conflict with Israel twice over the past three years, resulting in unrelenting nationwide Israeli bombardment. “I believe it would be an error to force Israel to stand down against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization that continues to attack Israel on its northern border,” Wicker said. Trump administration officials have rejected that characterization. Vice President JD Vance has repeatedly defended the agreement, saying it does not require Israel to relinquish its right to self-defense or withdraw from occupied parts in southern Lebanon. Trump has made similar remarks, while also urging Israel to exercise restraint. He said he told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that any military action should be more measured and calculated. Wicker also appeared to take aim at Vance and special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who have led negotiations with Iran on behalf of the administration. “President Trump has pursued peace through strength. I hope the intermediaries working on this deal are not undermining that objective,” Wicker said.

Trump defends Iran deal from critics he calls ‘fools’
Al Arabiya English/18 June ,2026
US President Donald Trump lashed out at critics of his agreement with Iran on Thursday, calling those who accused him of offering concessions to end the war “fools,” ahead of negotiations in Switzerland on implementing the deal. Oil prices tumbled after Trump and his Iranian counterpart separately signed their accord to end the Middle East war, with the Strait of Hormuz to reopen but two months of negotiations lying ahead. In a sudden development after uncertainty over when the deal agreed earlier this week would be formally signed, Trump put his name to it in thick black ink at a candlelit dinner with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Palace of Versailles outside Paris on Wednesday. Macron -- for whom the signing at the palace, which hosted the signing of the treaty that ended World War I, was an immense coup following his hosting of the G7 summit -- shouted “bravo” as Trump signed. “These fools, who think I haven’t been tough enough on Iran, when the Stock Market Just Hit A RECORD HIGH, and Oil prices are ‘tumbling’ down, are either jealous, bad people, or stupid,” Trump posted on social media hours after signing the deal. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also signed the agreement, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said, adding that “now it is time to test the implementation of the agreement.”Crude fell more than three percent Thursday, extending the losses sustained since news of the deal broke at the weekend.
‘Allows for peace’
The deal should bring an end to the current US-Israeli conflict with the Islamic Republic, which saw five weeks of all-out war until a ceasefire early April and led to shipping being greatly restricted in the Strait of Hormuz, causing a spike in energy prices. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan, which helped mediate the agreement, said it “shall enter into force with immediate effect” and Iran “will instantly reopen the Strait of Hormuz.” He also signed the accord. A two-month negotiating period now begins with all eyes on the reopening of Hormuz and if progress can be made in talks over Iran’s nuclear program, which Washington has long suspected of concealing secret bomb-making ambitions. Macron hailed the deal “which allows for peace, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz without tolls, and 60 days to conclude an agreement on nuclear, ballistic, and regional activities.” There remained confusion over the next steps, with the accord originally supposed to have been signed at an exclusive mountain-top resort in Switzerland on Friday by Iran’s chief negotiator and parliament speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and US Vice President JD Vance.
Baqaei said an in-person ceremony was no longer needed. But Sharif said an official ceremony will take place on Friday in Switzerland and technical talks will commence. Under the text, Washington commits to immediately waive oil sanctions crippling Iran’s economy. And, once a final agreement is reached on Iran’s nuclear program, the United States will also facilitate the release of a $300 billion reconstruction fund supported by regional nations, the deal says. UN atomic agency chief Rafael Grossi told reporters in Geneva it was ready to begin defining the “concrete steps” that will need to be taken to implement a US-Iran deal. US officials also said Iran will dilute its enriched uranium stocks, possibly by “down-blending on site” under the supervision of the UN watchdog. Iran’s ballistic missile program was not mentioned in the agreement, despite Israel’s longstanding push for its dismantling. “Iranian missiles are only for firing, not for negotiations. Iran’s defense capability will not be discussed in any way, in any process or with any party,” Baqaei said.
‘Foreign policy blunder’
There has been some criticism from hardliners within Iran.
But Ghalibaf insisted the deal represented a US “failure,” while Pezeshkian called it “historic.”And Trump’s decision to end the war, in which 13 US service members were killed and a vast proportion of US ammunition stockpiles was used, has unsettled some of his allies at home.
Apparently anticipating such criticism, Trump said at the G7 that he was prepared to “bomb the hell” out of Iran if they violated the agreement. But US Senator Bill Cassidy from Trump’s Republican Party described it as the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”
“Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works,” he said. Even Fox News, the usually Trump-friendly news channel, cited critics who said the agreement gave Iran “huge financial benefits” without requiring the dismantlement of its nuclear program. And while the deal specifies that Lebanon should be part of the equation, it is unclear whether the war on that front will be discussed in the next 60 days. Lebanon was drawn into the conflict when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel on March 2 in support of Iran. Israel responded by launching a massive campaign of strikes and a ground invasion. While violence has declined in Lebanon following the announcement of the deal, an Israeli drone strike in south Lebanon killed one person on Thursday, according to Lebanese state media. With AFP

Saudi Arabia, others condemn Israeli settler violence in West Bank
Al Arabiya English/18 June ,2026
Saudi Arabia and several other Arab and Muslim countries on Thursday denounced the latest acts of violence by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank. In a joint statement with Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey, the Saudi foreign ministry condemned the “continued and escalating” settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, explicitly naming the recent attacks on the Grand Mosque in the village of Jiljilya and the al-Farouq Mosque in the village of Mazar’a al-Nubani. “They stress that these attacks constitute a clear violation of the sanctity of places of worship and religious sites, international law, including international humanitarian law, and relevant United Nations’s resolutions,” the statement read. It called Israel’s measures in the West Bank “illegal,” saying they would fuel “instability, violence and extremism and undermine international efforts to establish peace,” stressing that the parties issuing the statement hold Israel fully responsible. In addition to condemning the acts, the statement called on the international community to uphold its “legal and moral responsibilities” and compel Israel to end its “dangerous escalation” in the West Bank, “end its illegal practices, halt settler violence,” hold perpetrators of these acts responsible and ensure that they would not “enjoy impunity.”Moreover, it reiterated the solidarity with the Palestinian people and support their right to a sovereign state within the line of 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital. The West Bank has recently seen an uprising of violence by Israeli settlers against the local Palestinian population, the expansion of existing settlements and construction of new outposts. It is inhabited by about 500 thousand Jewish settlers amid around three million Palestinians. The settlements were built following Israel’s victory over its neighbors in the Six-Day War and the occupation of the West Bank. They are internationally condemned as illegal and a direct violation of international law.

Gaza ceasefire ‘failing’ as hunger, rats and rubble define daily life, UN humanitarian chief warns
Ephrem Kossaify/Arab News/June 19, 2026
NEW YORK CITY: Seven months after the Security Council adopted Resolution 2803 in support of the US peace plan for Gaza, the ceasefire in the territory remains fragile and the humanitarian recovery is dangerously incomplete, the UN’s aid chief warned council members on Thursday. Palestinians are still being killed each day, nearly a million people lack adequate shelter, and children are awoken by rats biting their faces, said Tom Fletcher, the under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator.
He told the council that while Resolution 2803 — which endorsed US President Donald Trump’s 20-point “Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict” in November last year, a month after the Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit on the issue — had produced measurable gains, those gains simply represented “movement away from a catastrophic baseline, not the fulfillment of fundamental needs.”Fletcher added: “Gaza is being held together by humanitarian workarounds and Palestinian perseverance. This is unsustainable.”
By the time Resolution 2803 was passed by the Security Council, more than 67,000 Palestinians had been killed during the war between Israel and Hamas that began in October 2023, and more than three quarters of buildings and roads in Gaza were damaged or destroyed.
Since the ceasefire took effect, Fletcher said, nearly another 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to figures from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, including, UNICEF has reported, more than 250 children. “This is what happens when children are described as ‘collateral damage’ and ‘potential terrorists’ rather than humans and potential neighbors,” he told the council.
Fletcher acknowledged that significant humanitarian progress has been made since the ceasefire took hold. Denial rates for humanitarian missions have fallen from 31 per cent to 11 per cent. The proportion of households that report going to bed hungry has dropped from 92 per cent to 36 per cent. Gaza is no longer classified as being in “famine” (Phase 5 of the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification), though it remains in “severe crisis” at Phase 4. More than 21,000 truckloads of aid, an average of 108 per day, have been delivered by the UN and its partners, a 72 per cent increase from pre-ceasefire levels. More than 600,000 people have received shelter aid, and one hundred classrooms have been rehabilitated.
But Fletcher said that there is still no hospital in Gaza that is fully operational; for 1.1 million children, clean water remains a daily uncertainty; and sanitation conditions are deteriorating to the point where doctors report a stark increase in cases of rat bites.
“Let that sink in,” Fletcher said.
Seventy per cent of the population still requires proper shelter. Restrictions on so-called “dual-use” items that Israeli authorities say might be used for military purposes — which the World Health Organization reported has at times included prosthetic limbs — are blocking the delivery of critical supplies. Fuel shortages, lack of spare parts, and restrictions on armored vehicles for aid workers further compound an already dire picture. “It is not enough to silence the weapons — we must restore dignity,” Fletcher said. Gaza remains the most dangerous place on earth for aid workers, he added. Almost 600 humanitarians have been killed there in nearly three years, more than half of all those killed worldwide during that time. Fletcher warned that less than a quarter of the 2026 humanitarian appeal target for Gaza has been funded: “Behind these numbers are meals not cooked, water not delivered and nearly 1 million people left without adequate shelter.”
He also drew the council’s attention to deteriorating conditions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where he said a decades-long decline was accelerating. More than 1,000 incidents of settler violence have been recorded in 2026 alone, an average of six a day.
Calls by Israeli officials for “voluntary migration” by Palestinians, combined with forced displacements, home demolitions, land confiscations and restrictions on movement, were “hollowing out daily life,” Fletcher said, and appeared to be designed to alter the demographic composition of the occupied territory in violation of international law.
The council also heard from Bushra Khalidi, Oxfam’s global humanitarian policy lead, and a Palestinian mother from Jerusalem living in the West Bank, whose husband’s family remains trapped in Gaza. She told council members that the ceasefire “is failing,” that Gaza was “being carved up again,” and that highlighting only the number of aid trucks crossing the border masked a deeper failure to reach families with desperately needed assistance.
“A truck crossing a border is not the same as aid reaching a family,” she said.
She also relayed testimony from people on the ground in Gaza, including Eman, a mother of three living in a cloth tent, who described how mice and rats chew through the fabric and contaminate her family’s food.Tahrir, a grandmother who has to walk for hours to collect water, said “every cup has become precious.”Even when goods reach local markets, Khalidi said, high prices mean they are inaccessible to many people. Wheat is currently more than five times its prewar price, eggs are four or five times more expensive, and the cost of cooking gas has more than doubled. Israel has banned Oxfam and many other humanitarian groups from bringing any goods into Gaza at all since March 2025, she added. “Blocking principled humanitarians is part of a wider collective punishment,” Khalidi said.
She called on the council to hold parties accountable for their actions immediately — not after further political negotiations, not after disarmament, and not as a reward for compliance — and to use “all available political, diplomatic and legal tools to end atrocities, to end the occupation.” She added: “We cannot allow the summit of our ambition and our will to be a world where children have sufficient calories to survive and are spared constant bombing, yet remain hungry, bitten by rats, homeless and out of school.”

Ukraine sets Moscow refinery ablaze in biggest attack in years
AFP/18 June ,2026
Ukraine on Thursday launched its largest drone attack on Moscow in years, sparking fires, hitting a major oil refinery and forcing evacuations at the country’s largest airport. Russia vowed to retaliate for the attack as AFP reporters saw dramatic scenes of black smoke billowing over the capital’s southern skyline and drops of black rain mixed with soot falling from the sky. At least 17 people were wounded in the strikes, which also set a shopping center and apartment building ablaze, authorities said. The attack came as Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted Southeast Asian leaders at a summit in the central city of Kazan, about 700 kilometers (435 miles) east of Moscow. The Russian leader was yet to comment on the strikes, despite issuing delivering press statements through the day, though his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov vowed Moscow would retaliate with its own “massive” strikes on Ukraine. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the attack was an “absolutely justified response” to deadly strikes on Kyiv – including one earlier this week on a landmark cathedral and a UNESCO-protected 11th-century monastery. He said he wanted Russians to put pressure on Putin for the consequences of Europe’s worst conflict since World War II. “The main thing is that the people of Russia begin to feel that it is one man, Putin, who is waging this war, while ordinary people pay the price for everything,” Zelenskyy told reporters, including AFP. “If Ukraine is going to burn, your Moscow will burn too,” he added. Moscow has hit Ukraine with daily barrages of missiles and drones.
Airport closures
It was the second time this month that Kyiv launched a major attack during an international summit, after striking Saint Petersburg at the start of a landmark economic forum near the city. Moscow’s airports were shut for hours, leading to hundreds of flight delays.
The country’s busiest – Sheremetyevo – announced it had evacuated passengers to “safe locations” during the barrage, before it re-opened at around 11:00 am (0800 GMT). Konstantin, walking near the refinery in the southeastern Kapotnya district, told AFP he had “never seen anything like it.”Valentina, a 29-year-old manager said she was woken up by the noise.“It’s really scary,” she told AFP, walking in the park with her daughter, the huge column of smoke behind them. Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said that “several drones” had reached the Moscow oil refinery, without specifying damage to the facility. Authorities announced they had closed traffic on streets nearby. Another drone crashed into an apartment building, while drone debris sparked a fire at a shopping center near the capital’s suburbs. One social media video showed smoke pouring from the upper floors of an apartment block, while a woman behind the camera could be heard weeping in distress.
‘Long-range sanctions’
Russian air defenses shot down around 180 drones on approach to Moscow, Sobyanin said, while the defense ministry reported it had intercepted more than 500 Ukrainian drones across the entire country overnight. Kyiv has stepped up its drone strikes on Russia in recent months – calling them “long-range sanctions” and hitting oil refineries that fund Moscow’s war chest. It was the second Ukrainian strike on the Moscow refinery this week.Diplomatic talks on ending the more than four-year conflict remain stalled. “It is time the war ended, and Russia must take the necessary steps in diplomacy,” Zelenskyy said after the strike. Russia also launched more than 200 drones and multiple ballistic missiles at Ukraine between late Wednesday and early Thursday, according to the Ukrainian air force.
AFP reporters in Kyiv saw people rushing to shelters in the early hours after air defense blasts rocked over the Ukrainian capital.
Putin in Kazan
In the hours following the attack, Putin posed for a photo with leaders at a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Kazan and made no mention of the strike in his opening remarks to the forum. Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia and Singapore sent their prime ministers to Kazan, while the Philippines sent President Ferdinand Marcos. Putin has long sought to project stability in Russia, despite the economic and social effects of his four-year offensive on Ukraine. But a recent spate of attacks has forced the Kremlin to respond.
After Kyiv launched similar attacks on Saint Petersburg earlier this month, the Russian leader promised to bolster air defenses. US leader Donald Trump this week said Moscow should “make a deal” to end the Ukraine war.

The Latest LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on 18-19 June/2026
Trump's Iran 'Deal' Has Already Emboldened Hamas
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute/June 18, 2026
Hamas, the Iranian-backed group responsible for the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel, is openly calling to escalate attacks against Israel and signaling its intention to shift the center of its jihad (holy war) from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
To Hamas and the rest of Iran's "Axis of Resistance," the prospect of a "deal" between Washington and Tehran is not being interpreted as a sign of American strength. It is being viewed as a sign of America's weakness and a victory for the Iranian regime -- which the US defeated -- and proof that the US is eager to end conflicts at virtually any price.
The world had been expecting to hear the US announce that unless Iran accepted all of America's terms unconditionally, the ceasefire was over. Instead, the US has agreed in principle to Iran's terms. America has deliberately chosen to lose a war -- again.
Unlike the Gaza Strip, the mountainous terrain of the West Bank is high ground. It overlooks the low broad plain along the Mediterranean coast that is home to Israel's most densely populated areas. Major Israeli cities, Ben-Gurion International Airport, and critical infrastructure are within easy range of terrorists operating from the hills: one can comfortably look down over all of central Israel.
Unlike in the Gaza Strip, there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis who live in the West Bank -- easy targets for the terrorists.
The reported MOU... does not address Iran's terrorist proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shiite militias across the Middle East. This is not a minor detail. It is fundamental -- seen by these groups as a green light to step up their terrorism ever since Trump tried to stop Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from dismantling them.
The terrorists see the "daylight" that Iran's regime maneuvered Trump into creating between the US and Israel as a most welcome gift.
To Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, public friction between Washington and Jerusalem signals that at last, the US may be distancing itself from its closest ally in the Middle East.
International agreements and diplomatic arrangements do not persuade terrorist organizations in the Middle East to abandon their jihadist ideology or their objective of destroying Israel.
Trump promised a new reality for the Gaza Strip – a "Riviera of the Middle East." More than six months after his much-publicized "Board of Peace" initiative and ceasefire plan, however, Hamas remains in power there, more brutal than ever. It still controls large parts of the territory, continues to recruit and train terrorists, retains substantial military capabilities, and openly rejects disarmament.
So long as this Iranian regime and its proxies remain intact, there will be no genuine peace or stability in the Middle East.
Hamas, the Iranian-backed group responsible for the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel, is openly calling to escalate attacks against Israel and signaling its intention to shift the center of its jihad (holy war) from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
A first reaction to US President Donald J. Trump's "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) has already come from Tehran's terrorist proxy, Hamas. The Iranian-backed group responsible for the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel is openly calling to escalate attacks against Israel and signaling its intention to shift the center of its jihad (holy war) from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
The timing is not a coincidence.
To Hamas and the rest of Iran's "Axis of Resistance," the prospect of a "deal" between Washington and Tehran is not being interpreted as a sign of American strength. It is being viewed as a sign of America's weakness and a victory for the Iranian regime -- which the US defeated -- and proof that the US is eager to end conflicts at virtually any price.
The world had been expecting to hear the US announce that unless Iran accepted all of America's terms unconditionally, the ceasefire was over. Instead, the US has agreed in principle to Iran's terms. America has deliberately chosen to lose a war -- again.
Hamas officials and spokesmen have therefore been intensifying their calls for Palestinians to increase what they call "all forms of resistance," and confront Israelis throughout the West Bank. Hamas also praised recent shooting and car-ramming attacks against Israelis, and have been describing the perpetrators as "heroic resistance fighters."
After a shooting attack near the Israeli town of Kochav Yair, Hamas military spokesman Abu Obeida hailed the operation and called on Palestinians in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and inside Israel to intensify attacks and join what Hamas calls the battle of "Al-Aqsa Flood" -- the name Hamas uses for the October 7 massacre.
Likewise, after another shooting attack near the West Bank city of Hebron, Hamas praised what it called the "pure hands that fight the occupier" and urged Palestinians to carry out more attacks.
Hamas-affiliated organizations have begun publishing detailed statistics highlighting terror-related activities in the West Bank and Jerusalem. According to figures released by Palestinian media outlets affiliated with Hamas, 243 acts of "resistance" were recorded during May alone, including shootings, car-ramming attacks, armed clashes, demonstrations, and confrontations with Israeli security forces. Other reports proudly documented dozens of incidents over just a few days.
The message is clear: Hamas wants Palestinians to believe that the next phase of the war against Israel, with the help of the Iranian regime, should be fought soon and from within.
This should deeply concern not only Israel but also the US.
Unlike the Gaza Strip, the mountainous terrain of the West Bank is high ground. It overlooks the low broad plain along the Mediterranean coast that is home to Israel's most densely populated areas. Major Israeli cities, Ben-Gurion International Airport, and critical infrastructure are within easy range of terrorists operating from the hills: one can comfortably look down over all of central Israel.
Unlike in the Gaza Strip, there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis who live in the West Bank -- easy targets for the terrorists.
October 7 demonstrated what happens when a terrorist army is allowed to establish itself along a border. Hamas now appears more determined than ever to create similar conditions to Gaza in the West Bank.
All this appears to have been inspired by the Trump Administration's preparations to implement a deal with a regime in Iran that funds, arms, trains, and directs Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorists. With the many billions of dollars Iran expects to receive just in the early stages of this agreement, the opportunity to escalate its "resistance" must look too tempting to pass up.
One of the most astonishing aspects of the reported MOU is that it does not address Iran's terrorist proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shiite militias across the Middle East. This is not a minor detail. It is fundamental -- seen by these groups as a green light to step up their terrorism ever since Trump tried to stop Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from dismantling them.
The terrorists see the "daylight" that Iran's regime maneuvered Trump into creating between the US and Israel as a most welcome gift.
To Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, public friction between Washington and Jerusalem signals that at last, the US may be distancing itself from its closest ally in the Middle East.
Such perceptions greatly encourage radicals, undermine American and Israeli deterrence, and strengthen the belief among jihadist groups that time is on their side and no one will stop them.
Iran's regional strategy does not rely solely on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Its greatest weapon is its network of proxies, which Tehran uses to continue waging war while claiming plausible deniability.
Ignoring Iran's proxies while negotiating with their terror-master is tantamount to treating the symptoms while ignoring the disease.
Hamas, of course, is not the only jihadist group drawing conclusions from Washington's current approach. Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen are watching developments closely.
While Hamas feels emboldened today, Hezbollah and the Houthis are sure to escalate their own attacks tomorrow.
The Iranian regime and its proxies are experts at waiting – what the West calls "strategic patience." Unlike many Western policymakers who seek immediate solutions and quick diplomatic victories, Iran's regime and its allies think in terms of decades. They have no problem signing agreements, waiting for political circumstances to change, then resuming their campaigns against their enemies.
Israel reached several ceasefire agreements with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Hamas repeatedly violated them.
Israel reached understandings with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah violated them.
The US reached ceasefires with Iran. Iran violated them.
International agreements and diplomatic arrangements do not persuade terrorist organizations in the Middle East to abandon their jihadist ideology or their objective of destroying Israel.
Does anyone seriously believe that Iran and its proxies will behave differently now? Or that Iran will use the $300 billion it is promised in the MOU – or the other many billions from unfrozen assets or its neighbors -- to build shelters for abused women?
Trump promised a new reality for the Gaza Strip – a "Riviera of the Middle East." More than six months after his much-publicized "Board of Peace" initiative and ceasefire plan, however, Hamas remains in power there, more brutal than ever. It still controls large parts of the territory, continues to recruit and train terrorists, retains substantial military capabilities, and openly rejects disarmament.
If the US has so far been unable to compel Hamas to lay down its weapons, how can it guarantee that the Iranian regime will fully honor any new agreement?
So long as this Iranian regime and its proxies remain intact, there will be no genuine peace or stability in the Middle East.
Far from making the region safer, a deal that ignores Iran's proxy armies will only embolden them.
Hamas's latest calls for more attacks against Israel are just an early warning of what will likely come next.
Those celebrating an agreement with Iran, instead of dictating terms as a victor, should pay close attention to what Hamas is saying. Iran and the terrorists -- thanks to what appears to be Trump's capitulations -- clearly believe they are winning. That alone should set off alarm bells in Washington.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22629/iran-deal-emboldened-hamas
Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Iran’s $300 billion problem
Sam Butler/The Arab Weekly/June 18/2026
How the US-Iran framework deal faces a catastrophic banking logjam before a single dollar moves.
The United States and its allies may have found a path to peace with Iran. The harder challenge is finding a way to move $300 billion through a financial plumbing system specifically designed to keep Iran disconnected. The money exists. The mechanism does not. The 14-point framework agreement scheduled to be formally signed in Switzerland on Friday, June 19, 2026, has been hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough. After three months of intense war, US President Donald Trump and Tehran have agreed to an immediate cessation of hostilities on all fronts. The headline figures are staggering: an immediate lifting of the US naval blockade, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to toll-free shipping, the release of up to $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets, and a massive conditional $300 billion reconstruction programme.
Yet behind the political breakthrough, a select group of treasury officials, central bankers, and compliance lawyers are staring at a massive logistical wall. The framework establishes a strict 60-day window for intensive technical negotiations. However, the physical reality of rebuilding Iran’s war-torn ports, refineries, and electrical grids faces an invisible, structural obstacle: the global financial system itself.
Global finances’ frozen pipes
The core paradox of the Trump-authorised deal is that while the US has agreed to a “performance-based” model for financial relief, the underlying machinery to move that money is entirely missing. Iran remains blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and completely severed from the SWIFT international messaging system.
Under the agreed terms, final negotiations will not even begin until half of Iran’s frozen oil assets are freed and oil sanctions are suspended. But doing so requires navigating a legal minefield.
Because layers of anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) secondary sanctions remain codified in Western law, any traditional cross-border bank wire destined for Tehran would be automatically flagged and frozen by automated compliance algorithms.
Furthermore, international commercial banks utilising US dollar clearing houses are terrified of compliance violations. Without an explicit, legally airtight mechanism detailing exactly how these billions can transit safely, the promised financial life support will remain locked in offshore accounts, far out of reach from Iran’s crippled domestic economy.
IRGC procurement trap
The secondary crisis is domestic corporate ownership. In Iran, the state does not handle heavy industrial infrastructure; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) does.
Through its massive, opaque engineering conglomerate, Khatam al-Anbiya, and hundreds of shell companies, the Guard effectively monopolises the country’s construction and industrial sectors. They own the heavy machinery, control the port authorities, and operate the supply chains.
This creates an acute strategic dilemma for Washington and its Gulf Arab partners. If international reconstruction funds flow into traditional procurement channels, tenders will inevitably be won by front companies tied to the IRGC. Western and Gulf capital would effectively be laundering itself directly into the bank accounts of the military apparatus that just spent ninety days fighting US naval forces. Vetting every local subcontractor to satisfy Western compliance lawyers will slow physical reconstruction to a crawl, risking public anger inside Iran as the initial euphoria of the ceasefire fades.
The obstacles do not end with sanctions compliance and contractor vetting. Even if negotiators find a way to prevent reconstruction funds from flowing into IRGC-linked channels, the source of the money creates an even stranger paradox.
Much of the proposed reconstruction package is expected to come from wealthy Gulf Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar. These are not neutral donors. They are states that spent the last several months absorbing the economic shockwaves of the conflict and, in some cases, living under the threat of direct Iranian attack. Why, then, would they help pay to rebuild the very country that’s an adversary? The logic behind the funding is not rooted in generosity. It is rooted in cost-benefit analysis.
The proposed reconstruction package is frequently described as aid. In reality, Gulf policymakers are more likely to view it as insurance.
For Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and other regional actors, the cost of rebuilding portions of Iran may be significantly lower than the cost of another regional war. The recent conflict disrupted shipping lanes, threatened energy exports, rattled financial markets, and exposed the vulnerability of critical infrastructure across the Gulf.
From Riyadh’s perspective, a financially stabilised Iran may be easier to manage than a cornered and economically desperate one. The reconstruction package therefore serves a dual purpose: supporting the ceasefire while creating a financial stake in its survival. The Gulf states are not necessarily investing in Iran’s prosperity. They may be investing in regional predictability.
For all the optimism surrounding the framework agreement, its survival remains far from guaranteed.
The ceasefire rests on a series of assumptions that have yet to be tested. Washington believes economic incentives can produce sustained Iranian compliance. Tehran believes sanctions relief will arrive quickly enough to justify major concessions. Gulf states expect reconstruction funding to reinforce stability. Each side is effectively betting that the others will honor commitments that remain only partially defined.
That leaves the agreement vulnerable to disruption from almost any direction. A disputed inspection report, disagreement over sanctions relief, confrontation at sea, proxy activity elsewhere in the region, or political opposition inside either country could rapidly erode confidence in the process. The same mutual distrust that helped fuel the conflict has not disappeared simply because the fighting has stopped.
The challenge for negotiators is therefore not merely implementing the agreement. It is keeping the agreement alive long enough for its economic benefits to become visible. Until that happens, the framework remains less a permanent settlement than a temporary understanding between adversaries with a long history of disappointment.
Performance vs. patience
The Trump administration has repeatedly emphasised a policy of “no money until performance.” This means Tehran will only receive tranches of sanctions relief as it meets highly specific demands, such as verifying the freeze on uranium enrichment and addressing its 440kg stockpile of 60% highly enriched uranium.
Yet, this rigid requirement clashes directly with the timeline on the ground. Rebuilding a country cannot be done on a fluctuating, week-to-week political report card. International vendors—predominantly Chinese, Indian, and European engineering firms—will not sign major infrastructure contracts if their payments can be instantly frozen due to a sudden diplomatic dispute in the 60-day window.
The irony is difficult to miss. For more than two decades, Washington and its allies devoted enormous effort to building a financial architecture capable of keeping Iran out of the global economy. The success of the new peace framework may now depend on finding a way to partially reverse that achievement without dismantling it altogether.
If negotiators cannot establish a functioning financial bridge during the upcoming Switzerland talks, the economic cornerstone of the agreement could begin to unravel.
The challenge is no longer how to isolate Iran. It is how to reconnect it without losing control of the very system designed to keep it contained.
The US has proven it has the financial weaponry to isolate a nation; over the next 60 days, it must prove it has the technical capability to safely plug it back in.

How Trump’s Iran deal made Hezbollah untouchable
Yassin K. Fawaz/The Arab Weekly/June 18/2026
Rather than intensify pressure on Iran’s most powerful Arab proxy, the US Iran deal may have normalised its survival.
A deal designed to contain Iran may end up cementing the position of Iran’s most powerful Arab proxy. As Washington celebrates a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran and regional leaders reposition themselves around a new strategic reality, Lebanon finds itself confronting an uncomfortable possibility: Hezbollah may emerge from this moment not defeated, not disarmed, but more politically secure than at any point since the end of the 2006 war.
As displaced Lebanese families return to the south, they are not returning to a country liberated from its central dilemma. They are returning to a country where the same unresolved question still sits at the center of national life: who decides when Lebanon goes to war?
The answer remains painfully familiar.
The Lebanese state may hold the flag, the ministries, the army command, and the seat at the United Nations. But Hezbollah still holds the most consequential veto in the country: the power to drag Lebanon into war or keep it suspended under the threat of one.
That is what makes the current diplomatic moment so consequential. A US-Iran arrangement designed to contain Tehran may have produced the opposite effect in Lebanon. Rather than intensify pressure on Iran’s most powerful Arab proxy, it may have normalised its survival. Hezbollah may have been militarily bruised, politically challenged, and economically strained, but the diplomatic conversation around it has changed in a way that serves its most important objective.
The issue is no longer how Hezbollah will be disarmed.
Increasingly, the issue is how Lebanon, Israel, and the international community can live with Hezbollah remaining armed.
That is not a technical adjustment. It is a strategic victory.
For decades, the basic Western-Israeli approach to Iran’s regional network rested on a simple premise. Diplomacy could be attempted, sanctions could be applied, but military pressure remained the final instrument of leverage. Israel supplied much of the force. Washington supplied diplomatic cover, strategic backing, and the political architecture around it.
That alignment is now visibly strained.
On June 17, at the G7 summit in France, President Donald Trump publicly rebuked Binyamin Netanyahu’s conduct in Lebanon. “We have a little dispute over Lebanon,” Trump told reporters. “I say you can do a little softer touch, Bibi.” He then added the line that may define this entire diplomatic turn: “You don’t have to knock down a building every time somebody walks into it that’s from Hezbollah.” “Too many people are being killed, and you don’t have to knock down an apartment house every time you’re looking for somebody, because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they’re not all Hezbollah, that I can tell you.”
A day earlier, Trump had gone even further. He described Lebanon as “the minor war,” contrasted it with Iran as “a big one,” and called Hezbollah a “little pinprick” that constantly reappears. He also criticised Israeli tactics, saying too many civilians were being killed and that Israel had been fighting Hezbollah for too long. These were not stray comments. They revealed a hierarchy of priorities. For Trump, the central issue is no longer Hezbollah’s arsenal. It is Iran, regional de-escalation, energy stability, and the preservation of a broader diplomatic framework. Hezbollah has not vanished from Washington’s concerns, but it has clearly fallen down the list.
For Israel, that shift is alarming. Jerusalem still views Hezbollah as an immediate northern threat, an Iranian army on its border, and a force that cannot be allowed to rebuild freely. Netanyahu’s government argues that military pressure must continue until Hezbollah’s operational infrastructure is dismantled.
But Washington is now signalling something different.
It is not saying Hezbollah is acceptable. It is saying Hezbollah is not the biggest fish in the pond.
That distinction matters enormously.
Hezbollah’s greatest victory may not be that it preserved its arsenal. It may be that the international community is gradually reorganising its diplomacy around the assumption that the arsenal will remain.
For years, the stated objective of US policy, Lebanese state policy, and international resolutions was clear: Hezbollah should eventually be disarmed, and the Lebanese state should regain the monopoly over force. UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701 were built around that logic. Lebanese sovereignists repeated it. Western diplomats endorsed it. Gulf states linked reconstruction and reinvestment to it.
Yet the practical conversation has now shifted.
The next round of US-brokered Israeli-Lebanese talks, expected in Washington during the week of June 22, is not primarily about disarming Hezbollah. It is about ceasefire mechanics, border arrangements, monitoring systems, troop deployments, and Israel’s security demands in southern Lebanon.
That agenda tells the story.
A disarmament strategy seeks to resolve the problem. A stabilisation strategy seeks to manage it. One imagines an end state. The other assumes permanence.
For Hezbollah, that is the prize.
The organisation does not need to defeat Israel in a conventional war. It does not need to conquer territory. It does not even need to emerge unscathed. Its core political objective is survival with its weapons intact. If the world moves from asking how those weapons can be removed to asking how the region can remain calm while those weapons remain, Hezbollah has already won the most important battle.
The real battlefield was never only southern Lebanon.
It was the diplomatic conversation that followed.
And in that conversation, Hezbollah is gaining ground.
The Syria wild card
Trump’s Syria proposal makes the shift even clearer.
On June 17, Trump confirmed that he had spoken to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa about Hezbollah. He praised Sharaa as someone who had done “an amazing job” pulling Syria together, adding that the Syrian leader “is very good with Hezbollah” and “does not like them.” Trump then said: “I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because to be honest with you, I think they do a better job of doing it.”
The statement was extraordinary.
For decades, Lebanon struggled to escape Syrian tutelage. Damascus dominated Lebanese politics, manipulated its security system, and helped preserve Hezbollah’s exceptional status after the civil war. Now, in a twist worthy of the Levant’s most surreal history, Washington was floating the idea that Syria might help manage the very militia ecosystem that Syrian power once helped entrench. But Damascus immediately understood the danger. Sharaa rejected rumors of Syrian intervention in Lebanon, warning that such a move could inflame sectarian tensions and drag Syria into a conflict it cannot afford.
That rejection matters.
It shows that Trump’s new approach is not built around disarmament. It is built around outsourcing containment. If Israel is too blunt, perhaps Syria can help. If Lebanon is too weak, perhaps external actors can manage the file. If Hezbollah cannot be removed, perhaps it can be boxed in.
That is not Lebanese sovereignty.
It is regional management.
This is where the implications for President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam become severe.
For months, both men have spoken in the language of state authority. Aoun has emphasised the need for Lebanon to recover the sovereign right to decide questions of war and peace. Salam has framed the restoration of state institutions as essential to Lebanon’s recovery. Their government’s credibility is tied to the idea that the state can gradually reclaim control from armed actors.
In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on June 5, he delivered one of the sharpest public rebukes of Iran ever issued by a sitting Lebanese president. Accusing Tehran of using Lebanon as “a bargaining chip” in its negotiations with Washington, Aoun warned that the Lebanese people were paying the price for regional power politics. Rejecting any suggestion that Iran could speak on Lebanon’s behalf, he bluntly declared: “This is not your country, it’s ours.”
Days later, on June 13, Aoun framed Lebanon’s future as a stark choice between “a sovereign state, the sole holder of weapons” and a country that remained “a prisoner of the logic of militias.” It was perhaps the clearest articulation yet of the sovereignty project he has championed since taking office.
Yet by June 18, as Washington’s diplomatic opening toward Tehran gathered momentum, Aoun’s tone had become noticeably more pragmatic. While reaffirming that “the Lebanese state is conducting the negotiations and is sovereign in its decisions,” he declared that Lebanon would welcome assistance from “any country that helps us, including Iran.” He added that “any settlement will be reached through us, not at our expense.”
The evolution is revealing. Aoun appeared to be recognising a geopolitical reality that was becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. If a broader regional settlement is emerging, Iran is likely to be part of it. The challenge for Lebanon is no longer simply how to reduce Iranian influence. It is how to ensure that Lebanon itself remains an active participant in shaping the terms of whatever comes next.
That concern lies at the heart of the current moment. Even as Aoun insists that Lebanon’s future should be decided in Beirut, the country’s fate is increasingly being discussed in Washington, Tehran, Jerusalem, and elsewhere. The fear within the Lebanese state is not merely that Iran will have a role. It is that Lebanon will once again find itself the subject of negotiations rather than a principal actor within them.
That project now faces a brutal contradiction.
The Lebanese government was encouraged to prepare for a sovereignty project. It now finds itself participating in a stabilisation scheme.
Those are not the same thing.
A sovereignty project asks how the Lebanese state can become the sole authority over arms, borders, and war. A stabilisation scheme asks how another war can be avoided while Hezbollah remains armed, Israel remains suspicious, Iran remains invested, and the Lebanese Army remains under-resourced.
For Aoun and Salam, this creates political exposure.
If they push too hard on Hezbollah’s weapons without firm American backing, they risk internal confrontation. If they retreat, they look weak. If they wait, Hezbollah gains time. If they accept a framework that prioritises calm over disarmament, they may be accused of burying the very sovereignty agenda they were elected to revive.
The trap is sharpened by Israel’s position.
Israel argues that it cannot fully withdraw from southern security positions unless Hezbollah is prevented from rebuilding near the border. Hezbollah argues that it cannot disarm while Israeli forces remain on Lebanese soil. The Lebanese state argues that it cannot assert full authority while both of those realities persist. Each actor uses the position of the other as justification for its own.
Israel says Hezbollah’s weapons justify security zones.
Hezbollah says Israeli security zones justify its weapons.
Lebanon says both undermine its sovereignty.
The result is a perfect machine for preserving the status quo.
And the status quo benefits Hezbollah.
Shattering authority
None of this began with Trump, Netanyahu, or the latest round of Washington talks.
Lebanon’s crisis is the product of decades of compromises that repeatedly weakened the state and empowered armed actors operating beyond its control.
The roots go back to independence in 1943. The National Pact created a sectarian power-sharing formula designed to preserve coexistence among Lebanon’s communities. It helped keep the country together, but it also embedded sectarian identity into the machinery of the state. Political leaders became guardians of communities rather than builders of national authority.
The state was legitimate, but fragile.
That fragility deepened in 1969 with the Cairo Accord, which allowed the Palestine Liberation Organisation to operate armed enclaves from Lebanese territory. It was a fateful precedent. For the first time, a non-state armed force was effectively allowed to exercise military sovereignty inside Lebanon.
The principle that only the state could bear arms had been broken.
The civil war that erupted in 1975 shattered what remained of state authority. Lebanon became a battlefield for Palestinians, Syrians, Israelis, Iranians, Americans, and competing Lebanese factions. Then came Israel’s 1982 invasion, which pushed all the way to Beirut and created the conditions for Iran’s most successful regional investment.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps entered the Beqaa Valley, organised local Shia militants, and helped build Hezbollah into a disciplined, ideological, Iranian-backed force.
When the civil war ended, the 1989 Taif Agreement required militias to surrender their weapons. Most did. Hezbollah did not.Under Syrian domination, Hezbollah was reclassified not as a militia but as a “resistance” movement against Israeli occupation. That exception was presented as temporary. It became permanent. When Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah found new justifications: Shebaa Farms, deterrence, prisoners, Israeli threats. After the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005 and Syria’s military withdrawal, many Lebanese believed the state might finally reassert itself.
Instead, Hezbollah remained.
The 2006 war produced Resolution 1701, which called for southern Lebanon to be free of armed groups other than the Lebanese Armed Forces and UNIFIL. On paper, it was a roadmap for sovereignty. In practice, it was never fully enforced.
Hezbollah rebuilt, rearmed, and expanded.
By the time Lebanon reached the current crisis, Hezbollah was no longer merely an armed faction. It had become a state within a state, a regional force inside a broken republic, and Iran’s most powerful forward asset on the Mediterranean.
Death of disarmament
The current diplomatic shift may therefore mark a historic turning point.
For years, the debate was framed around whether Hezbollah would eventually disarm. The timing was disputed. The method was unclear. The risks were enormous. But the formal objective remained.
Now the objective itself appears to be changing.
The question is no longer whether Hezbollah’s arsenal violates Lebanese sovereignty. It does.
The question is whether anyone is prepared to make that violation the central issue.
Trump’s comments suggest the answer may be no.
Iran is the big war. Lebanon is the minor one. Hezbollah is the pinprick. Netanyahu should use a softer touch. Syria might handle it better. The ceasefire must hold. The regional deal must survive.
For Hezbollah, this is almost perfect.
Its arsenal becomes less a problem to be solved than a fact to be managed. Its existence becomes part of the operating system of regional diplomacy. Its weapons become not an emergency, but a condition.
That is how exceptions become permanent.
Not through formal recognition.
Through exhaustion.
Through ambiguity.
Through everyone deciding there are bigger problems to solve.
Lebanon’s tragedy is not that it lacks a government, constitution, army, or international recognition. It has all of them.
Its tragedy is that after decades of wars, occupations, resolutions, ceasefires, assassinations, withdrawals, and diplomatic initiatives, it still cannot answer the most basic question of sovereignty: who alone has the right to bear arms and decide war and peace?
The latest US-Iran arrangement may reduce regional tensions. It may lower energy prices. It may prevent a wider war. It may even give Trump the grand diplomatic bargain he wants.
But in Lebanon, it risks cementing an older reality
The state remains too weak to impose its authority. Israel remains unwilling to rely fully on Lebanese institutions. Iran remains invested in Hezbollah as a deterrent asset. Washington appears focused on larger priorities. And Hezbollah remains exactly where it has always sought to be: armed, embedded, indispensable, and too costly to confront directly.
That is why this moment matters.

From Versailles to Switzerland: Can diplomacy fix what Epic Fury couldn’t?
Faisal J. Abbas/Arab News/June 18, 2026
The historic halls of the Palace of Versailles have, throughout modern history, played host to the drafting of documents that have redrawn the geopolitical map of the world. The memorandum of understanding signed there by US President Donald Trump on Wednesday is no exception. Yet, as the ink dries on this latest framework, the global commentary machine has split into two fiercely polarized camps.
On social media and across international news networks, the divide is stark. The optimists, heavily populated by pro-Trump pundits and administration officials, are full of praise. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth boldly proclaimed that this new deal was “born out of strength,” asserting it is far superior to any previous accord. On the flip side, the pessimists are already labeling it a disaster, arguing it falls short of what the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action achieved.
Even former President Barack Obama, who was the force behind the JCPOA, weighed in, expressing deep skepticism that any new agreement could be a significant improvement on the original framework. In a moment of retrospective candor, Obama noted that the lesson learned from recent events is that, while “bombing our way to solutions” might seem appealing, exploring diplomacy from the outset remains the wiser option. Others raise an uncomfortable question now echoing through the diplomatic corridors of the Gulf: Had Oman been permitted to conclude its backchannel negotiations before the devastating 40 days of Operation Epic Fury commenced, would the outcome have been more positive for everyone? The US might have extracted greater concessions without firing a shot; the Strait of Hormuz would have remained open; the collateral economic and infrastructure damage to the Gulf economies would have been averted; and Iran would have spared itself catastrophic domestic costs and civilian casualties, allowing it to build on the regional goodwill generated by the Beijing Declaration as a working model.
But I am a realist. I am neither here to sing the praises of the US and Israel, nor will I join those engaged in crying over spilt milk.
As a realist, our first order of business must be to commend the monumental diplomatic efforts of Pakistan and Qatar. Getting the warring parties to agree a deal was an extraordinary feat of mediation. While both Islamabad and Doha undoubtedly wished for better, tighter terms, this memorandum of understanding represents the absolute best possible outcome given the volatile mix of actors involved.
That being said, the situation remains far from ideal. There is huge ambiguity over Iran’s nuclear capabilities. What does not help this time around is that the Trump administration had already announced it had obliterated the nuclear program last year during the 12-day war. But then it started this war in February, stating it is hitting more nuclear targets. So, what then, were the achievements of last year’s Operation Midnight Hammer if the nuclear program survived? And how do we ensure that the nuclear program has actually been obliterated this time? Iran would have to agree to inspections, and unconditional ones, and the question remains if they will do so by the end of the negotiations.
Then there is the fact that the text of the memorandum of understanding leaves several glaring, problematic questions unanswered — chief among them the future of the Strait of Hormuz. We cannot afford to sugarcoat the recent statements made by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, who bluntly stated that the Strait of Hormuz would “never return to the way it was before the war.”If this issue is ignored or kicked down the road, it is a guaranteed recipe for the next crisis. Left untreated by decisive negotiations, it essentially gives the Iranian regime a free hand to blacken the skies of global commerce and blackmail the region whenever its future demands are not met or whenever it has a bilateral grievance with its neighboring Gulf states.
While some countries have developed, or are developing, alternative pipeline routes to bypass the Strait of Hormuz for crude oil exports — such as Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline to the Red Sea and the UAE’s Habshan-Fujairah line — these measures offer only partial relief and cannot mitigate the broader crisis that would arise from any sustained disruption in the waterway. The Strait of Hormuz is far more than an oil and gas chokepoint; it serves as a critical artery for global maritime trade, carrying not just energy but a vast array of essential shipments including liquefied natural gas, petrochemical feedstocks, industrial chemicals and fertilizers.
Notably, about one-third of global seaborne fertilizer trade and nearly half of certain nitrogen fertilizer exports (like urea) transit through this narrow passage from major Gulf producers. In an interesting and reassuring development, at a press conference on Thursday, US Vice President J.D. Vance said that if the Strait of Hormuz was not unconditionally opened by the end of the negotiations, there would be no deal.
The negotiations are not ending; they are just beginning. The coming weeks in Switzerland will either defuse a ticking time bomb or leave us sitting on one.
Another equally concerning aspect of the memorandum of understanding is the total absence of any mention of Iran’s ballistic missile program. One of the primary stated goals of Operation Epic Fury was to decisively degrade Iran’s military capabilities. It takes a remarkable degree of cognitive dissonance to omit them from this agreement, especially after the world witnessed how Tehran deployed them during the conflict.
Trump recently sought to downplay this, claiming that 84 percent to 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missiles were destroyed during the campaign. Predictably, Tehran’s state-controlled media and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have aggressively pushed a counternarrative, insisting their strategic deterrent remains fully functional. So, again, there is no proof that the percentages quoted by the US President are confirmed.
Then comes the highly publicized chatter regarding a rumored $300 billion reconstruction fund. On this matter, I defer entirely to the comments of Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan. Speaking on the sidelines of a diplomatic summit in Vienna this week, Prince Faisal noted that he had no information regarding such a fund. Instead, he rightly emphasized that the immediate priority must be the painstakingly slow process of rebuilding trust. As the foreign minister pointed out, the Iranian strikes against the Gulf during the war severely undermined the regional trust that was just beginning to take root post-Beijing.
We must achieve through peaceful means what war failed to permanently secure. And make no mistake: despite the regime’s bravado, Iran is hurting deeply. Independent economic assessments reveal that Iran suffered about $144 billion in economic damage — a staggering 40 percent of its pre-war gross domestic product. For a country already reeling from years of protests over deteriorating living standards, this is an unsustainable burden.
Tehran is not a monolith; it does possess rational actors who understand that Iran’s economic survival hinges on normalized relations with its neighbors. On that note, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has been keen to stress ⁠the importance of dialogue with Gulf Arab states to address misunderstandings and ⁠strengthen regional ties — but the question remains, do his words echo the mood in Tehran or are such statements made for foreign consumption?
Will the Gulf states invest in Iran to help it recover? Prior to the war, when the Beijing Declaration was bearing fruit, such discussions were on the table. But returning to that point will require time, verifiable behavioral changes and ironclad reassurances.
As we consider the critical 60-day window of negotiations in Switzerland, there are zero guarantees of Iranian compliance. What is certain, however, is that Riyadh and its Gulf Cooperation Council partners will be engaging in intense regional consultations. Prince Faisal’s briefings in Vienna made it clear that Saudi Arabia will be heavily involved in shaping the upcoming permanent framework. This is vital. The most glaring flaw of the 2015 JCPOA was the fatal mistake of excluding regional states and ignoring Iran’s regional behavior, its proxy militias and its conventional threats. We cannot allow history to repeat itself.
If negotiations fail, we will be forced to rely on the dual-track strategy that Saudi Arabia has masterfully executed throughout this crisis: diplomacy backed by credible deterrence.
Saudi diplomacy during this war was nothing short of exemplary. By maintaining open lines of communication, keeping the Iranian ambassador in Riyadh and ensuring continuous contact between foreign ministers, Saudi Arabia prevented a geopolitical explosion from devolving into, or being perceived as, a catastrophic Sunni-Shiite sectarian war. At the same time, the Kingdom’s robust defensive response proved that Riyadh’s multibillion-dollar investments in its state-of-the-art defense capabilities were never the “vanity purchases” cynical Western analysts claimed they were. Without that military readiness, the map of the Middle East would look terrifyingly different today.
As Washington remains hyperfocused on the nuclear file, the Gulf states must take the lead in ensuring that regional security, militia containment and sanctions relief are leveraged correctly.
And for both optimists and pessimists, we should all remember that the negotiations are not ending; they are only just beginning. The coming weeks in Switzerland will either defuse a ticking time bomb or leave us sitting on one. To prevent the latter, a unified, unyielding regional position and high-level engagement is more critical than ever before.
*Faisal J. Abbas is the Editor-in-Chief of Arab News. X: @FaisalJAbbas

US-Iran deal must not become another Gaza peace plan
Rob Geist Pinfold/Arab News/June 18, 2026
The peace agreement to end the war was signed with much fanfare. It was welcomed across the Middle East and by the international community. US President Donald Trump declared that “a new and beautiful day is rising” — after so much uncertainty, chaos and conflict, the rebuilding could finally begin. Regional powers, who agreed on little else, collectively endorsed it as an imperfect but necessary end to the indefinitely spiraling cycle of violence.
All the above refers to the Gaza peace plan of late 2025, not the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran. But the parallels between this latest deal and the Gaza agreement are clear and concerning in equal measure. Both defer difficult issues to a later date. Instead, they rely on interim measures over conflict resolution. Gaza sets a dangerous precedent for the memorandum of understanding, where Iran and Israel may copy the same playbook as Israel and Hamas: affirming their support for the agreement while seeking to undermine it through facts on the ground. In short, the Middle East is not in the clear yet.
Though the agreement has not been released in full, the emerging details suggest that it kicks the region’s systemic problems into the long grass. It extends the shaky ceasefire for 60 days. It may well open the Strait of Hormuz but in return Iran will get its long-sought sanctions relief without having to make other concessions. Iran’s leaders could thus be forgiven for thinking that their recent strategy of attacking critical and civilian infrastructure throughout the Gulf worked, however morally indefensible it may be.
The second issue is Israel. Politicians within Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition and the centrist opposition alike have condemned the deal. Israel has failed to decisively defeat either Hezbollah or Iran. This sets the stage for Israel’s usual modus operandi of accepting the agreement in principle while working to scupper it in practice. That it launched strikes on Beirut the day the agreement was supposed to be signed — an action that Iran had warned would cross a red line — suggests that Israel sought to render the agreement dead on arrival.
The parallels between this latest deal and the Gaza agreement are clear and concerning in equal measure. Taken together, these present significant impediments to a real peace deal that the region so desperately needs. Iran will resist having to make the difficult choices that any comprehensive deal would demand. Israel will use any provocation as an excuse to escalate and imperil any agreement.
This dynamic is playing out in real time in Gaza. After the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, Israel sought “total victory” over Hamas. After much cajoling, Israel and Hamas accepted the Gaza peace plan, which was less a comprehensive deal and more an envisioned multistage set of partial accords that deferred difficult issues to a later date. Israel and Hamas agreed to stage one — a ceasefire and partial Israeli withdrawal. The idea was that this would be an interim stage, leading to Hamas’ disarmament, Israel’s exit from the entire Strip and a rehabilitated Gaza.
None of this has come to pass. Hamas refused to disarm, while consolidating its control over 90 percent of Gaza’s residents. Israel not only refused to withdraw, but it also expanded its occupation and now controls up to 60 percent of the territory. Violence has abated but not ended, with Israel killing nearly 1,000 Gazans since the ceasefire came into effect. January saw the US announce the beginning of the plan’s second phase, in which a new Palestinian-led committee would supposedly take over from Israel and Hamas, governing the territory and its people. Instead, both sides have imposed a stalemate.
Gaza’s experience suggests this is a fleeting opportunity for regional transformation; if not taken, it may be lost
This encapsulates the problematic asymmetry of incremental agreements. External actors, such as the US, may be relatively powerful but they often lack resolve. They create the momentum to sign an agreement before pivoting elsewhere. Once that momentum is lost, it is unlikely to return, absent a new crisis. This is evident in Gaza, where the recent regional war distracted everyone except for Israel and Hamas. Both sides continued to play the long game of creating facts on the ground that preclude conflict resolution while publicly continuing to affirm their support for the deal. They are, in short, silent spoilers. This is scuppering Gaza’s rehabilitation. If replicated by the memorandum of understanding, it could endanger the recovery of the entire Middle East. It is up to the Gulf states to keep the US engaged. They must set clear red lines for what a “day after” might look like. The US’ oft-repeated goal of preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is a noble one. Yet it is a tomorrow problem. The more pressing issue is Iran’s present-day policies, which it propagates through its proxies, drones and ballistic missiles, to coerce its neighbors and undermine their sovereignty. Similarly, the Gulf Cooperation Council states should pressure the US to rein in the other regional revisionist — Israel — by demonstrating that being a spoiler carries real political costs. Trump’s recent public frustrations with Netanyahu may give them an opening to do so. The US-Iranian deal is a welcome development. The recent war illustrates that military force will not bring about regime change in Tehran or end its regional revisionism. But the ceasefire was also under unprecedented strain. This is why some form of an accord was necessary to stop the region from slipping back into the cycle of conflict.Gaza’s experience, however, suggests this is a fleeting opportunity for regional transformation; if not taken, it may be lost. Deferring difficult negotiations empowers spoilers and allows the supposedly temporary to become permanent. Interim agreements might make a return to war less likely in the short term. But they are no alternative to a comprehensive deal. The “no war, no peace” paradigm was not a sustainable status quo. The challenge is not to freeze it in place but to get the region to somewhere better.
*Rob Geist Pinfold is a lecturer in Defense Studies (International Security) at King’s College London.

Renewed political will needed to end Sudan war
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Arab News/June 18, 2026
The protracted civil conflict in Sudan, which erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces militia, is one of the most devastating humanitarian catastrophes of this era. The power struggle has metastasized into a multifaceted crisis characterized by widespread violence against civilians, systemic sexual violence, famine-like conditions and mass displacement.
Unfortunately, the situation is worsening, with technological escalations such as the proliferation of drone warfare amplifying the lethality of hostilities and exacting an intolerable toll on noncombatant populations. Recent data from the UN underscores the gravity of this escalation. More than 1,000 civilians were killed in drone strikes in Sudan during the first five months of this year alone. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, addressing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Monday, said “the horrific conflict has expanded and escalated, marked by a sharp increase in the use of drone warfare.”
This surge has transformed drones into the predominant instrument of destruction, often targeting or indiscriminately affecting civilian areas, markets, residential neighborhoods and humanitarian infrastructure. More than 1,000 civilians were killed in drone strikes in Sudan during the first five months of this year alone. Compounding the direct fatalities from aerial assaults are “rampant” levels of sexual violence, including rape, as reported by the UN. Such atrocities are not incidental but appear instrumentalized within the broader dynamics of ethnic targeting and territorial control, particularly in regions like Darfur.
While the overall death toll from the conflict remains difficult to ascertain due to access constraints and underreporting, estimates range from tens of thousands to 150,000 to 400,000 when including indirect deaths from starvation, disease and lack of medical care. More than 150 humanitarian workers have been killed, making Sudan one of the deadliest environments for aid operations globally. The Sudanese crisis is not merely a political or a military confrontation but a profound humanitarian emergency that has displaced millions and pushed vast segments of the population to the brink of survival.
With at least 33 million people — more than half the country’s population — requiring lifesaving assistance, Sudan hosts the world’s largest internal displacement crisis and one of its most acute hunger emergencies. More than 21 million people face acute food insecurity, with famine conditions persisting in parts of Darfur and Kordofan. Disease outbreaks, collapsed healthcare systems, and disrupted water and sanitation infrastructure exacerbate mortality rates.
Women and children bear a disproportionately heavy burden. Estimates indicate that women and girls constitute the majority of the displaced, facing heightened vulnerabilities in overcrowded camps and during flight. UN Women reports that 12.7 million people — predominantly women and girls — now require support related to sexual and gender-based violence, a sharp rise from previous years.In addition, more than 17 million children are in need of assistance, suffering from acute malnutrition, disrupted education, recruitment into armed groups and grave violations including death, maiming and abduction. In early 2026, hundreds of child casualties were recorded amid intensified fighting.
Amid this dire landscape, we need a genuine political will among Sudanese actors and the international community. A cessation of hostilities cannot be imposed solely through external pressure, it also requires internal commitment to dialogue, accountability and inclusive governance.
A viable path forward necessitates robust collaboration between global powers and African-led institutions. A modestly encouraging development occurred on Monday, when Transitional Sovereign Council Chairman Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan received a delegation of EU ambassadors in Khartoum — their first such visit since the outbreak of war. This engagement signals a potential reopening of diplomatic channels in the capital and an opportunity for the EU to advocate for de-escalation and humanitarian access.
Prior initiatives provide instructive precedents and foundations for progress. The Jeddah Declaration of Commitment to Protect Civilians, facilitated by Saudi Arabia and the US in May 2023, emphasized civilian protection, humanitarian corridors and short-term ceasefires.
Complementary efforts, including the Quad initiative involving the US, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have sought to build on this by proposing structured pathways with two core pillars: an initial humanitarian truce transitioning to a permanent ceasefire and a time-bound political process aimed at civilian-led governance. These initiatives highlight the potential for coordinated regional and global diplomacy.
A viable path forward necessitates robust collaboration between global powers and African-led institutions, particularly the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development.
In the interim, immediate priorities must include negotiated ceasefires, even if localized or time-limited, to facilitate humanitarian corridors. Safe, rapid and unimpeded access for aid delivery should be nonnegotiable, as should the protection of civilians, humanitarian personnel and critical infrastructure. Civil society, women’s groups and displaced communities must be central to these processes.
In a nutshell, as the violence and death toll continue to mount in Sudan — with drone strikes and other escalations making 2026 particularly deadly — it is incumbent on the international community to act. The failure to do so will continue to have ripple effects across the Horn of Africa and beyond, including refugee flows, instability and humanitarian spillover. Political will is needed. Humanitarian corridors must be opened and secured, a ceasefire agreed and enforced, and an inclusive political process — under African Union coordination with global partners — pursued.
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. X: @Dr_Rafizadeh

Selected Face Book & X tweets on 18 June/2026
ראש ממשלת ישראל
@IsraeliPM_heb
https://x.com/IsraeliPM_heb/status/2067625587514954062/video/1
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the announcement event for Highway 60 - "The Bible Road": "We stand here today in Gush Etzion, on the main road between Jerusalem - the Eternal City, and Hebron - the City of the Patriarchs. Here, on this good mountain, between the ancient stone and the olive tree, between the spirit of the Bible and the spirit of heroism of our generation – the generation of victory – we return and say: the People of Israel has returned home, and we will remain here forever. Because this is our land. It is ours. We have returned to the place from which we came. To the path on which our forefathers walked. And therefore today the Government of Israel bestows upon Highway 60 the name it deserves - the Bible Road. This is not merely a road paved with asphalt. This is a road paved with memory, with faith, with promise.
Highway 60 leads from the Negev to the Galilee. But in truth it leads much, much farther. It leads from our father Abraham to the soldiers of the IDF. From the generations of the Bible - to the generations of the future. It passes through places where the great story of our people was written. Every such place, without exception, is not merely a point on the map. It is a chapter in our identity. It is testimony that we are an ancient people, renewing its national life in our historic homeland. Because the Bible Road is the root of our existence. Here today pioneers are building, as I just saw, here pioneers are building the chapter of redemption of the People of Israel in its land. We are here, ladies and gentlemen, friends, thanks to the truth. This is our land. This is our heritage. This is our way.
Through the generations our people knew, as this road knows, ups and downs. We confronted many challenges - and we overcame them. In the War of Independence we achieved monumental accomplishments against the axis of evil of Iran and its proxies. We averted from ourselves the danger of immediate annihilation, and had we not acted in the two grand operations - "Like a Lion" and "Roar of the Lion" - with determination, audacity, and supreme heroism of our fighters and pilots, Iran would have nuclear bombs today for our destruction. But we did not allow it.
We also broke that axis of evil at the time, the noose that Iran tried to build around us. We have Hamas in Gaza in a chokehold, where we hold over 60 percent of the Strip's territory; and in Lebanon we have removed the threat of ground invasion from our communities and shattered Hezbollah's missile force. There is still work to be done in both places, but we have done monumental work.
True, the struggle is not yet over, and additional challenges lie ahead of us. And these demand from us cool-headedness, resolute standing on our security interests, and at the same time - preserving the important connection with our American friends who fought alongside us shoulder to shoulder, and we appreciate that greatly. We will continue to navigate our path with wisdom and sound judgment, we will preserve the achievements of the government, we will preserve the achievements of the war - these are achievements of the entire People of Israel. Just as we restored security and prosperity to the Gaza Envelope, so we will restore security and prosperity to the northern communities. This requires maintaining the security zone in southern Lebanon, this requires that we not withdraw from there as long as Israel's security needs demand it. Because that zone separates Hezbollah terrorists from our citizens and communities.
And in a broader view, we will continue to adhere to the supreme goal that has guided us, and that has guided me through most of my adult life - Iran will not have nuclear weapons. And as long as I am Prime Minister of Israel - it will not.
In unity of purpose we will ensure our existence and our future, we will do so with heads held high, in firm stance, and with patience. Our way, the way of the People of Israel, began thousands of years ago. And with God's help, it will continue from the Bible to eternity - the eternity of Israel."
Video: Omer Miron / GPO
Sound: Yechzekel Kandil / GPO

Ted Cruz
The Obama Iran nuclear deal was designed to give Iran nuclear weapons, so to say that President Trump's efforts are just like Obama's is absurd. I do want to urge the president not to give up the victory; we have destroyed their military, and we should not fund the rebuild.
Don’t miss the latest episode of Verdict: Iran DEAL! What’s in it? Plus Shocking Georgia Election Results
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/iran-deal-whats-in-it-plus-shocking-georgia-election/id1495601614?i=1000773086815

Mike Pence
https://x.com/Mike_Pence/status/2067329451441164390/video/1
President Trump deserves great credit for making a decision for the first time in modern history to unleash the armed forces of the United States against Iran last year and this year…
But I do have very real concerns about the MOU now that we see what’s In it and also what’s Not In It. This MOU with Iran does smack of the kind of appeasement that our administration rejected in the Obama-Iran nuclear deal and also when Joe Biden attempted to return to the politics of appeasement during his administration. I would urge the President to take a step back, continue the blockade and pursue a negotiated settlement that commits Iran to dismantling their nuclear program, dismantling this missile program, ends support for terrorist proxies and opens the strait. Failing that, we should let our Armed Forces finish the job on our terms.

Masih Alinejad
https://x.com/TheStoryFNC/status/2067326698954129685/video/1
President Biden replaced the Taliban with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now President Trump is replacing the Islamic Republic with… the Islamic Republic.
Real peace doesn’t come from empowering tyrants.
My take on MOU. @marthamaccallum

Danny Danon 🇮🇱 דני דנון
https://x.com/dannydanon/status/2067588658035663297/video/1
Outrageous: So-called UN investigator Chris Sidoti suggested that every IDF soldier who served in Gaza should be investigated. This is not about the pursuit of justice. It is an attempt to stigmatize an entire military and to criminalize the very act of defending Israeli civilians from terrorism.
Such statements reflect a troubling double standard that undermines the credibility of international institutions. Israel stands firmly behind its soldiers and will continue to support them unequivocally, regardless of the allegations made by politically motivated UN “investigators.”

Mossad Commentary
U.S. Vice President JD Vance: “My message to the people in Bibi’s government who are attacking Trump is: Don’t attack the only leader in the world who supports you.”
“Your country was built with our money.”

Dan Burmawi
Iran doesn't push for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon because it cares for Lebanon. Iran literally assassinated the best of the best in Lebanon and destroyed the country through Hezbollah. What Iran wants is to save Hezbollah, so it can turn its de facto control of Lebanon into de jure reality.

Hiba Nasr
Vance concluded his press conference with what can only be described as unprecedented public criticism (and perhaps more than that), of some members of Netanyahu’s cabinet:

Susan Rice
This is a jaw-dropping, horrific surrender document complete with hundreds of billions in reparations. It is the predictable result of incompetent negotiation and the foolhardy strategic catastrophe of starting and pursuing this disastrous war. The U.S. will not soon recover from this, the biggest national security blunder in decades.

Nicholas Lissack
Netanyahu has bluntly told Trump that Israel will never accept a ceasefire in Lebanon or withdraw under any circumstances. Good. Screw the weakling Trump. Israel must crush Hezbollah and the Iranian regime at all costs. Let this deal collapse.God bless Bibi.
**Donald Trump destroyed his presidency tonight. This craven surrender to Iran will stand as history’s most pathetic capitulation.Well done, Mr President. You’ve sealed your legacy as a spineless loser.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ (@realDonaldTrump

Mark B. Daou
Fully agree.
The deal lost the USA a lot of friends.
Short-term interest goes against strategic alliances.
Ridiculous deal with Iran, Inviting Syria to enter Lebanon, releasing funds to a terror network in the region...
Quote
Amjad Taha أمجد طه
Greetings, President Trump,
You may have secured a temporary deal, but you've shaken the trust of almost everyone around you except perhaps JD Vance and Iran's Supreme Leader. Attacking friends who stood with you in wartime while defending an enemy that attacked both of you is

Hananya Naftali
Israel just cut ties with the European Union's top diplomat.
After reports that EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas compared Israel to apartheid South Africa, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar announced he is ending all contact with her.
Good job Israel! Words have consequences. Today, Israel acted accordingly.

Ruth Wasserman Lande רות וסרמן לנדה
Calling the only democracy in the Middle East an apartheid state (I grew up in South Africa by the way) where Atab Muslim citizens are judges, members of parliament, chairpersons of major banks etc is NOT respectful and constructive dialogue.
@kajakallas

Mossad Commentary
This is the face of a man with integrity. He may look defeated, and understandably so. The deal that was reached and signed is 1,000% something Marco Rubio would never support if he were the one in charge. But he is also a patriot. He respects the administration. He understands the chain of command. Hang in there, Marco. In a couple of years, you may get your chance.

Hiba Nasr
Vance: Israel has the right to defend itself, but fundamentally, the Israelis, just like everybody else, have to respect this peace process that is fundamentally good for them and good for the entire region. But the President gets growing frustrated sometimes is that we seem to be right on the cusp of a major breakthrough in the agreement, and that all of a sudden there's a major explosion that goes off in a civilian population center in Beirut, and a lot of people who have nothing to do with Hezbollah lose their lives. That's not acceptable.

Under the Cedar Tree, a Foundation for Peace
Face Book/June 18/2026
What regard does Hezbollah have for Lebanese civilians when they turn homes into military launch sites and use neighborhoods as shields? Israel didn't choose to bring the war into those homes—Hezbollah did. No nation would sit back while rockets are fired at its people. Israel has a duty to defend its citizens. The Lebanese people deserve better than a terrorist army that puts their lives at risk.If you care about Lebanese civilians, hold Hezbollah accountable for endangering them in the first place. Israel must defend its people and eliminate threats made against them. Criticizing Israel for destroying a home that Hezbollah turned into a military base only emboldens Hezbollah to continue to use innocent civilians as human shields. Disarming and destroying terrorist is the only way to ensure peace and freedom for innocent civilians