English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News &
Editorials
For June 25/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news
The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.june25.26.htm
News Bulletin Achieves Since 2006
Click Here to enter the LCCC Arabic/English news bulletins Achieves since 2006
Click On The Below Link To Join Elias Bejjaninews whatsapp group
https://chat.whatsapp.com/FPF0N7lE5S484LNaSm0MjW
اضغط على الرابط في أعلى للإنضمام لكروب Eliasbejjaninews whatsapp group
Elias Bejjani/Click on the below link to subscribe to my youtube channel
الياس بجاني/اضغط على الرابط في أسفل للإشتراك في موقعي ع اليوتيوب
https://www.youtube.com/@eliasbejjani8036
Bible Quotations For today
Who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge
before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will
deny before my Father in heaven
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Matthew 10/27-33: “What I say to
you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from
the housetops. Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul;
rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows
sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground unperceived by
your Father. And even the hairs of your head are all counted. So do not be
afraid; you are of more value than many sparrows. ‘Everyone therefore who
acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in
heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father
in heaven.”
Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials
published on 24-25 June/2026
The Summoning of Journalist Sawsan Mhanna for Investigation Over a Social
Media Post Is Another Chapter in the Ongoing Campaign of Intellectual
Intimidation and Attacks on Freedom/Elias Bejjani/June 24/2026
The Sin, Ignorance, and Subservience of Equating the Jihadi Iranian Occupier &
The Terrorist Hezbollah with the Saving-Liberating Israeli Army/Elias Bejjani/June
22/2026
The Path to Salvation/Abu Arz
Video Link and Transcript of a Highly Important Interview with Brigadier General
Khaled Hamade
Cautious Optimism in the Fifth Round of Lebanese-Israeli Negotiations
Israeli Officials: We Will Hand Over Land in Southern Lebanon to the Lebanese
Army
Lebanese-Israeli Negotiations Discuss “Experimental Zones” and Clash with Army
and Hezbollah Conditions
Rubio from Kuwait: We will help the Lebanese government extend its control over
all its territory without any foreign interference
Ambassador Issa: There was a stumbling block yesterday between the Lebanese and
Israeli delegations, but we hope it will be resolved today.
Netanyahu: We are establishing a security zone in southern Lebanon… and we still
have much to do.
Katz: Israel Will Not Withdraw from Southern Lebanon… and Washington Has Not
Requested It
Katz: We Will Not Withdraw from Lebanon Even if America Asks for It
Israel kills two Hezbollah members near Ali al-Taher Heights
Qalibaf: Ending the War in Lebanon is No Less Important Than Ending It Against
Iran… and the Islamabad Memorandum is a Fruit of Resistance
Will the Radwan Forces launch a kidnapping operation in southern Lebanon? And
what about the besieged fighters?
Shooting near the US Embassy in Awkar... Here are the details
Israeli Warning to Evacuate Ain Arab… and Threats to Demolish Homes After
Residents Return
Hezbollah’s Ongoing Effort to Build Up Its Drone Force: Training Drone Operators
and Establishing Logistical Infrastructure.
Ali al-Taher Ridge Sector: Is Hezbollah Attempting to Undermine the Ceasefire?
President Aoun: Negotiations in Washington Continue, Independent of Recent
US-Iranian Meetings
Salam: The Washington Track Differs from the Swiss Cell… We Will Not Accept Any
Israeli Presence in the South
Salam to the Press Syndicate, headed by Kaaki: I ask nothing of Hezbollah except
that it fulfill its commitments. We are not restricting weapons to appease
Israel; this is an independent Lebanese matter, agreed upon, and we have been
long overdue in its implementation since the Taif Agreement.
Lebanese Army Faces New Field Test: US Training and Gradual Handover of Southern
Areas
Lebanon hands over 128 Syrian prisoners to Damascus... and the number has risen
to 260 since the start of implementation of the agreement
Lebanon “Iranian”: An End, Not a Beginning/Rafiq Khoury/Nidaa Al Watan/June 24,
2026
Israel Withdraws for Lebanon’s Sake, Otherwise for Iran’s/Abdul Wahab Badrakhan/Al-Nahar/June
24, 2026
Tom Barrack and the Diplomacy of Orientalist Illusions/Makram Rabah/Now
Lebanon/June 24/2026
Israel’s Offer to Lebanon: Land for Hezbollah’s Disarmament...The interests of
Lebanon and Israel align on the core issue of disarming Hezbollah./Hussain
Abdul-Hussain/This Is Beirut/June 24/2026
Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on 24-25 June/2026
Trump: Negotiations with Iran are
progressing well... NATO countries let us down
Trump Asks Congress for Additional Funding to Cover Costs of Iran War
Trump Attacks Senate After Iran Vote: You Gave Tehran a Message of Weakness
Rubio: We Want Full and Free Navigation in the Strait of Hormuz
UN Estimates: Evacuation of Stranded Sailors in the Strait of Hormuz Will Take
Weeks
Pakistan: Technical Talks Between US and Iran to Resume Next Week
Grossi settles the matter: The memorandum of understanding stipulates
inspections of Iranian facilities
Trump's Posts Confuse Iranian Negotiators… “Psychologists Seek Help”
AFP, citing a diplomatic source: Gulf-Iran reconciliation talks expected in
Saudi Arabia
Qatari Foreign Ministry: Technical preparations for US-Iran agreement have begun
Saudi-Iranian talks addressed negotiations with Washington... Saudi Arabia
welcomes reaching an agreement between the US and Iran
Qatari-Pakistani Call Discusses US-Iranian Understanding and Ras Laffan
Explosion
Secret Documents Earthquake Shakes Tehran: Prosecution of MPs and Dismissals at
State TV After Leak of the Supreme Leader's Letters
US military announces killing of senior ISIS leader Ali Hussein al-Alawi in
airstrike in Syria
Qatar affirms: A hotline between the U.S. and Iran is necessary to reopen the
Strait of Hormuz.
Al Arabiya correspondent Mohammed Ayda killed in car bombing in Mukalla
Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous
sources published
on 24-25 June/2026
Trump Administration Provides Billions in
Unrestricted Oil Sanctions Relief to Iran/Max Meizlish//FDD-Policy Brief/June
24/2026
Hamas Haven Provided by Turkey Fuels Terror in the West Bank/Sinan Ciddi & Ahmad
Sharawi/FDD-Policy Brief/June 24/2026
From the Shah's Regime to the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist: Has the
Prodigal Son Returned to His Mother's Embrace?/Tariq Izzat Dandash/Janoubia/June
24, 2026
US-Iranian Negotiations on Soft Ground/Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali/Okaz/June 24, 2026
Latest English LCCC Lebanese &
Lebanese Related News & Editorials published
on 24-25 June/2026
The Summoning of Journalist Sawsan Mhanna for Investigation Over a Social
Media Post Is Another Chapter in the Ongoing Campaign of Intellectual
Intimidation and Attacks on Freedom
Elias Bejjani/June 24/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155524/
The summoning of journalist Sawsan Mhanna for investigation
because of a social media post expressing her opinion is another chapter in the
series of illegal and intimidating actions targeting activists, journalists, and
free, sovereignty-minded citizens in Lebanon and across the Lebanese diaspora,
especially those who reject Hezbollah’s domination of Lebanese decision-making
and oppose Iran’s project in Lebanon.
This condemned summons is not an isolated incident. It comes as part of a
continuing pattern of using legal complaints and security measures as tools of
pressure and intimidation against opposing voices. Instead of protecting freedom
of opinion and expression, state institutions and security agencies are being
used to pursue people because of their political and intellectual views. This
reinforces the belief of many Lebanese that the state, its judiciary, and its
security institutions remain fully subject to Hezbollah’s influence and
political will.
This summons, as well as many similar investigations and legal actions, must be
strongly condemned. They continuously target journalists, activists, and
citizens who exercise their right to express their opinions and reject illegal
weapons and what they view as Hezbollah’s domination and occupation of the
Lebanese state. These practices are not aimed at achieving justice. Rather, they
seek to intimidate opponents, silence free voices, and create a climate of fear
and self-censorship among Lebanese citizens, whether they live in Lebanon or
abroad.
Because the Lebanese state is viewed by many as being under Hezbollah’s control,
there is little hope that it will fulfill its duty to protect public freedoms.
The problem lies within the state itself and especially within its judicial and
security institutions, which are seen as serving Hezbollah’s political and
security interests. Therefore, attention should be directed toward free nations
and international and regional human rights organizations, urging them to apply
political, legal, and diplomatic pressure to protect freedom of opinion and
expression in Lebanon, help end Iranian influence in the country, and stop the
judicial and security intimidation directed against opponents.
The summoning of Sawsan Mhanna today is, in effect, a warning to every free
journalist, every sovereignty-minded activist, and every citizen who dares to
express an opinion outside the limits imposed by those in power. The real
objective of these actions is clear: to subject Lebanese society to fear and to
encourage self-censorship in order to avoid legal harassment and threats.
Full solidarity with journalist Sawsan Mhanna and with all those targeted
because of their opinions. Freedom of expression is not a crime, and attempts at
intimidation, no matter how frequent, will not silence those who continue to
call for a free, sovereign, and independent Lebanon.
***
Below is statement published today (Translate4d from Arabic), June 24, 2026, by
journalist Sousan Mhanna on the X platform:
Sousan Mhanna:To the Lebanese public,
I was informed by the Criminal Investigation Department of the need to appear
before the investigator’s office on Thursday at 12:00 noon, based on
instructions from the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, following a
lawsuit filed by the “Union of Municipalities of the Southern Suburb” because of
a post I published on the X platform.
In light of this measure, legitimate questions arise: Why is the Criminal
Investigation Department tasked with pursuing journalists and media
professionals because of their opinions and publications? And where is the
Publications Court, the competent judicial authority responsible for examining
cases related to publishing and the media? And when will the President of the
Republic intervene to put an end to these practices that constitute a violation
of the most basic legal guarantees granted to journalists, foremost among them
their right to appear before the competent judicial authority, rather than
before security agencies? Resorting to security summonses in matters of opinion
and publication can only be understood within the framework of a policy of
intimidation, attempts to silence voices, and pressure on the free media, at a
time when freedom of expression is supposed to be safeguarded and protected by
law and the Constitution.
Note: The attached image is an AI creation.
The Sin, Ignorance, and Subservience of Equating the
Jihadi Iranian Occupier & The Terrorist Hezbollah with the Saving-Liberating
Israeli Army
Elias Bejjani/June 22/2026
A statement was recently issued by so-called "national figures and civil society
groups," filled with the same old clichés that have brought nothing but ruin to
Lebanon. At a time when the nation is passing through a historic crossroads that
determines its very existence, the authors of this statement fell into the trap
of "malicious equality" and hollow, repetitive language. They demonstrated the
height of subservience, ignorance, and political cowardice by placing Israel,
Iran, and its Hezbollah militias on the same level of responsibility for
Lebanon’s destruction.
This desperate attempt to equate a jihadi, colonial Iranian project—which has
devoured the Lebanese state and swallowed its sovereignty—with the State of
Israel, whose existential interests today align 100% with Lebanon's independence
and sovereignty, is a blatant distortion of reality and history.
1. The Shared Fate and Lebanese-Israeli Mutual Interest
Hezbollah is not a Lebanese party; it is merely a military brigade in the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). For decades, this Jihadi Armed Iranian
Army has posed a direct existential threat to the Jews and their state, while
simultaneously serving as the primary tool to suffocate Lebanon. This is exactly
where Lebanon's supreme interest meets what Israel is doing today: uprooting
this military cancer is the only way to revive the Lebanese Republic.
Iran and its local army (Hezbollah) completely occupy Lebanon. They did not
leave a single inch of its land without turning it into tunnels, weapons depots,
and gunpowder stores, hijacking the decision of peace and war, and turning the
state into a lifeless skeleton. The Israeli military action to dismantle this
terrorist infrastructure is not an aggression against Lebanon, but rather an
"existential service" that opens the door to cleansing the land and restoring
stolen national decision-making.
2. The Tragedy of the Hijacked Shiites Community
The greatest sin of the Iranian occupation was not just hijacking the Lebanese
state, but also hijacking the honorable Lebanese Shiites community and turning
it into fuel for the "Wilayat al-Faqih" project. This criminal Iranian plot has
caused the killing of thousands of Shiites, impoverished them, destroyed their
areas and villages, and ultimately turned them into a devastated and displaced
community. The Terrorist Hezbollah dragged them into absurd wars in which they
had no stake, simply to serve Tehran's imperial illusions. How do the authors of
the statement dare to equate those who turned the homes of the Lebanese into
rocket storehouses with those who seek to get rid of this threat?
3. Historical Facts: Israel's Wars Are Reactions
The historical ignorance in the statement ignores a fact as clear as day: all of
Israel’s wars on Lebanon since its establishment as a state were legitimate
"reactions" to protect its security against threats and wars launched from
Lebanese territory.
For decades, Israel endured attacks launched by Palestinian organizations,
leftist gangs, Arab nationalist factions, Nasserists, groups funded by Gaddafi,
and eventually Sunni and Shiites political Islam sponsored by Iran and Syria.
Israel was never the initiator of aggression; it was always defending itself
against the chaos of both Lebanese and foreign weapons.
4. No Land Ambitions: History Bears Witness
Israel has proven in words and actions throughout history that it has no
ambitions for a single inch of Lebanese land. In the year 2000, Israel withdrew
completely from South Lebanon to the international borders, leaving behind no
colonies or settlers. It has always withdrawn after its military operations
ended, as soon as its borders were secured. In the current war, Tel Aviv
reaffirmed the same principle: entry is not for occupation, but to eliminate
Hezbollah’s infrastructure and ensure the return of northern residents. This
time, Israel will not withdraw before completely ending this existential threat,
which directly serves the interest of building a real Lebanese state with no
illegal weapons sharing its authority.
5. Classifying the Pretenders of Sovereignty
Those who drafted this statement and equated the actual Iranian occupier and its
terrorist Hezbollah with Israel, which is uprooting this occupier, can only be
classified into one of four categories:
The Ignorant: They do not read history and do not understand geopolitics or the
intersection of international interests.
The Coward: They tremble with fear of calling things by their true names,
resorting to grey language to protect themselves from the militia's brutality.
The Subservient (Dhimmi): They live with a mindset of historical dependency and
submission, ready to accept a masked Iranian occupation under the slogan of
"coexistence."
The Opportunist: They sell national sovereignty in political bazaars, looking
for personal gains or electoral seats at the expense of the vital truth.
To all those who signed, supported and promoted the shameful statement: Stop
crying with hollow language. Saving Lebanon requires recognizing reality and
welcoming the uprooting of those who caused the national disaster, not hiding
behind suspicious statements that equate the victim with the executioner, and
occupation with liberation.
Moving Toward the State Requires Courage, Not Evasion
Crossing over to a stable homeland and a state that matches the ambitions of the
Lebanese people cannot be achieved by hiding behind faded formulas that equate
the real killer, who suffocated the country and tore its social fabric, with the
surgeon who is removing this malignant tumor. By refusing to acknowledge
reality, this statement proves that its signers are still trapped in past
psychological complexes and outdated slogans. Saving the Lebanese Republic
requires intellectual and political courage to admit the facts as they are: the
real threat to Lebanon is Iranian in identity and origin, and saving Lebanon
from this nightmare is a Lebanese interest first and foremost, even if it
intersects with the interests of others. Evasion and false equality do not build
a nation; they only prolong the crisis and legitimize foreign guardianship under
new masks.
The Path to Salvation
Abu Arz/June
24/2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
The Path to Salvation Internal and external conditions are now ripe for
saving Lebanon, provided the state fulfills its duty in three essential steps:
1- Continuing negotiations with Israel sincerely and seriously, leading to a
peace agreement that ends the senseless state of war.
2- Immediately beginning the implementation of the decision to disarm Hezbollah,
as it is the primary obstacle to saving the state and the country.
3- Declaring Lebanon's complete neutrality in regional and international
conflicts that have brought it nothing but bloodshed, tears, and destruction. If
the will is there, the path to salvation will become clear. At your service,
Lebanon.
Video Link and Transcript of a Highly Important
Interview with Brigadier General Khaled Hamade / A reading into the deeply
rooted acceptance of guardianship among certain factions of the political class,
and the reality that the Lebanese state is negotiating in America on behalf of
Hezbollah and Speaker Berri, with a warning against the dangers of replicating
the border strip status.
The interview was conducted by journalist Bassam Abou Zeid from the "Hona Libnan"
(Here is Lebanon) platform.
June 24, 2026.
Transcription and editing by diaspora activist and publisher of the Coordinating
Council LCC website, Elias Bejjani, with absolute freedom.
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155512/
Interview Introduction: The Lebanese State as a Negotiating Front and the Danger
of Replicating the "Border Strip"
Amidst a turbulent round of intertwined regional and international negotiations
spanning Washington and Switzerland, the interview with security and political
affairs analyst, retired Brigadier General Khaled Hamade, conducted by
journalist Bassam Abou Zeid on the "Hona Libnan" platform, offers a sharp
strategic reading that goes against the official current and calls things by
their true names.
Brigadier General Hamade puts his finger on Lebanon’s bleeding wound,
dismantling the "submissive acceptance of guardianship" that is deeply rooted
among certain factions of the political class. He delivers fiery stances, most
notably that the Lebanese state has effectively begun negotiating in Washington
on behalf of Hezbollah and according to its agenda, at a time when Tehran is
seeking its own private interests and guarantees with the American side under
the guise of "oil for food and medicine."Furthermore, Hamade warns in the
interview against the futility of betting on a free Israeli withdrawal from the
South without stripping Hezbollah of its weapons. He points out that the
official insistence on rejecting international proposals, such as "experimental
zones," places Lebanon before a catastrophic scenario that could culminate in a
repetition of the "South Lebanon Army era" (the former border strip) and
tethering its residents economically and functionally to the Israeli interior as
a fait accompli. Brigadier General Hamade’s critical reading spares neither the
performance of the President of the Republic nor the Government, going as far as
holding Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri responsible for the current chaotic
negotiating terms and the legacy of the previous maritime demarcation. He
concludes his remarks by launching a scathing attack on the system of corruption
and administrative appointments within the "deep state," asserting that the
Lebanese street has entirely bypassed and grown disgusted by its figures.
Cautious Optimism in the Fifth Round of Lebanese-Israeli
Negotiations
Riyadh - Al-Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
The fifth round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations resumed today, Wednesday, in
Washington, according to Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath correspondents. This round
represents a renewed effort to advance de-escalation between the two sides and
reach long-term security and political understandings, amidst ongoing
disagreements regarding the Israeli withdrawal and the future of Hezbollah's
weapons. Diplomatic sources reported that political and military officials from
both sides are participating in the session, under US auspices. Washington is
seeking to push for arrangements that guarantee lasting stability on the
southern border after months of clashes in Lebanon since last March. Indicating
the atmosphere of the ongoing talks, Israel's representative to the United
Nations affirmed that the negotiations with Lebanon are "very fruitful,"
considering that the continued contacts under US auspices are opening the door
to progress on a number of outstanding issues between the two sides. Exclusive
information obtained by Al-Arabiya and Al-Hadath, citing a US source, indicates
a more positive atmosphere prevailing at the second day of the fifth round of
Lebanese-Israeli negotiations in Washington compared to yesterday's sessions.
Relative progress has been made in discussions concerning the mechanisms for
implementing any potential agreements on the ground. According to the source,
the Lebanese delegation is holding firm to its demand for a complete ceasefire
and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories they still occupy in
southern Lebanon. They are also demanding a clear and specific timeframe for the
withdrawal. Meanwhile, the current talks are focused on establishing an
implementation mechanism and a practical framework for applying the anticipated
agreements, with discussions moving from general principles to the details
related to the ceasefire, withdrawal mechanisms, and monitoring. The source
explained that the Lebanese army enjoys official support for implementing any
new security arrangements, noting that Ain al-Tineh (the Speaker of Parliament)
supports any steps the military institution may take in this regard. Washington
also considers the Lebanese army commander and the military institution to be
key partners in implementing the security agreements and insists on the army's
role as the primary force for maintaining security in the areas from which
Israel may withdraw. Despite ongoing disagreements over the timetable for the
Israeli withdrawal, the American source confirmed that the current negotiating
climate appears more optimistic, amid indications of progress in discussions
regarding deployment and implementation mechanisms compared to the first day of
negotiations. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had previously affirmed that his
country would accept nothing less than the restoration of its full sovereignty
over its territory and the complete withdrawal of any foreign military presence.
Conversely, recent Israeli statements have demonstrated a more hardline stance.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted earlier today that "the
mission in Lebanon is not yet complete," indicating that the Israeli army is
continuing to establish what he termed a "security zone" in the south to prevent
Hezbollah from threatening Israel. He stated that there are "matters that still
need to be accomplished" on the Lebanese scene, remarks reflecting the continued
Israeli position of linking any final settlement to broad security guarantees.
Israel also continues to insist that the ultimate goal of the negotiations must
include the disarmament of Hezbollah, a demand the party categorically rejects.
Hezbollah has called on the Lebanese government to withdraw from the direct
talks, arguing that the focus should be on the Iranian-American track to compel
Israel to withdraw. Although four previous rounds of negotiations failed to
produce a lasting agreement, the relative calm on the southern front in recent
days has bolstered hopes for progress, however limited, on key contentious
issues. The resumption of talks between Lebanon and Israel comes at a time when
Lebanese developments intersect with broader negotiations between the United
States and Iran, prompting Lebanese officials to warn that including the
Lebanese issue within regional understandings could limit Beirut's ability to
assert its negotiating priorities.
Israeli Officials: We Will Hand Over Land in Southern Lebanon to the Lebanese
Army
Riyadh - Al-Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Following the fifth round of Lebanese-Israeli talks held yesterday in
Washington, three Israeli officials confirmed that Israel and Lebanon are
discussing a US-backed pilot project under which Israeli forces would hand over
some land in the south to the Lebanese Armed Forces. The officials explained
today, Wednesday, that the participating Lebanese forces would undergo US
training and security vetting, according to Reuters. In contrast, Lebanese
President Joseph Aoun confirmed that the identification of the "model areas" is
still under discussion, pending Israeli approval. This came after a US source
told Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath yesterday, Tuesday, that Israel is linking any
withdrawal to concrete steps on the ground from the Lebanese side, emphasizing
that the main point of contention in the negotiations revolved around the
mechanism for initiating the Israeli withdrawal from the south. Lebanon began a
new round of talks with Israel in Washington yesterday, determined to proceed
with direct negotiations, even though Tehran's decision to include the Lebanese
issue in its negotiations with the United States appears to be casting a shadow
over this round. Lebanese officials have insisted that direct negotiations with
Israel are the only way to end the war that has raged since March 2, when
Hezbollah, backed by Iran, launched rockets and drones into northern Israel,
prompting a fierce Israeli air and ground offensive that has killed more than
4,000 people in Lebanon. However, four rounds of Lebanese-Israeli talks since
last April have failed to produce a lasting ceasefire. Instead, the longest lull
in the fighting came this week after Iran and the United States agreed on a
memorandum of understanding stipulating a cessation of hostilities on all
fronts, including Lebanon. This agreement, however, has strengthened the
position of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah group and dealt a blow to the Lebanese
state, whose leaders, including President Joseph Aoun, have repeatedly warned
that Tehran cannot negotiate on Lebanon's behalf, according to Reuters. Lebanon
has repeatedly stated that one of its main objectives in the talks is to secure
an Israeli military withdrawal, but senior Israeli officials have said that the
troops will remain in southern Lebanon indefinitely.
Lebanese-Israeli Negotiations Discuss “Experimental Zones” and Clash with Army
and Hezbollah Conditions
South Lebanon/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
The second round of direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations began in Washington
with a distinctly military character, amidst American hopes of translating
recent regional understandings into practical steps in southern Lebanon.
However, the initial hours of talks revealed the extent of the differences
between the parties involved, both regarding mechanisms for consolidating the
ceasefire and the “experimental zones” project proposed by Washington as a first
step towards a gradual Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory.
Eight Hours of Discussion… and a Security Impasse
The first session of negotiations concluded after eight hours of intensive
meetings, with further discussions scheduled for today with the participation of
the Lebanese military delegation. According to military sources, the discussions
stalled on a key point concerning the mechanism for consolidating the ceasefire.
The Israeli side insists on its right to carry out military operations and
assassinations against what it considers “security threats,” even after reaching
any new arrangements. This Israeli position reflects the core of the dispute:
Lebanon seeks a complete ceasefire that prevents any attacks or unilateral
actions, while Tel Aviv wants to maintain freedom of military movement within
Lebanese territory under various security pretexts. Lebanon seeks to fully
establish a ceasefire that prevents any attacks or unilateral operations, while
Tel Aviv wants to maintain freedom of military action within Lebanese territory
under various security pretexts. “Experimental Zones” Between Lebanese Rejection
and Israeli Conditions
The idea of “experimental zones” tops the current negotiating agenda.
According to information relayed by Israeli sources, a US-backed project is
being discussed that would transfer control of specific areas in the south to
the Lebanese army. These areas would be subject to strict security monitoring,
and the Lebanese army would benefit from training and development programs under
US and international supervision. However, this idea faces multiple objections.
The Lebanese military delegation expressed reservations about some of the
proposed areas for starting the project, while reports indicate that Hezbollah
rejects the army's deployment to areas north of the Litani River within the
framework of the project, insisting that any pilot zones begin in the
territories still occupied by Israel south of the Litani. In the same context,
US sources revealed that Israel is stipulating the deployment of the Lebanese
army in the Ali Taher Heights before any withdrawal from the area, in addition
to inspecting Hezbollah tunnels and ensuring they are free of weapons and
militants.
Israeli Contradictions Between Saar and Katz
While the negotiations continue, a clear contradiction has emerged within the
Israeli position itself. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar declared that
Israel's continued presence in southern Lebanon is linked to the continuation of
Iranian influence. He argued that “if Iran were to withdraw its hand from
Lebanon, there would be no need for Israel to remain in the south.” In contrast,
Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz adopted a more hardline stance, asserting
that the Israeli army would not withdraw from southern Lebanon even if requested
to do so by the United States. He emphasized that what he termed the “security
zone” in Lebanon and Syria had become an integral part of Israeli security
doctrine. This divergence reflects the absence of a unified Israeli vision
regarding the future of southern Lebanon and raises questions about the ability
of negotiations to achieve a genuine breakthrough given the ongoing divisions
within the Israeli political and security establishment.
Lebanon Insists on Full Withdrawal
Meanwhile, Lebanese officials continue to emphasize that the negotiations
underway in Washington are separate from the recent US-Iranian understandings
reached in Switzerland, and that their primary objective remains achieving a
complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese territories. In this
context, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stressed that Lebanon will not accept the
continued presence of any Israeli occupation points, whether five or two,
affirming that the discussions focus on completing the Israeli withdrawal,
releasing prisoners, and addressing outstanding border issues, in parallel with
completing the process of extending state authority and its exclusive control.
Weapons according to the Taif Agreement.
President Joseph Aoun affirmed that discussions regarding “pilot zones” are
ongoing, and that any final agreement remains contingent upon Israeli approval
of arrangements guaranteeing withdrawal, army deployment, the return of
residents, and the commencement of reconstruction.
The South between Washington and Switzerland
Despite Lebanese officials' insistence on separating the Washington and
Switzerland tracks, the facts indicate a clear link between them. Lebanon is
present in the US-Iranian negotiations, and any broad regional understanding
will have direct repercussions on the Lebanese situation.
Pending the outcomes of the upcoming sessions, the landscape remains open to two
possibilities: either the success of the “pilot zones” project as a prelude to a
gradual Israeli withdrawal and the consolidation of the ceasefire, or its
collapse under the weight of reciprocal conditions, which would return the South
to a cycle of field escalation and postpone any comprehensive settlement until
the picture of major regional understandings becomes clearer.
Rubio from Kuwait: We will help the Lebanese government extend its control over
all its territory without any foreign interference
National News Agency/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced from Kuwait, "We want navigation
through the Strait of Hormuz to resume free of charge, and all countries of the
world support us in this. If Iran closes Hormuz, we have options for dealing
with it. We expect Iran to fulfill its obligations."
He pointed out that "the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations are continuing today and
tomorrow. Israel is present in Lebanon because Hezbollah targets it with
missiles. Today we have a second track, which is the negotiations between the
Lebanese government and Israel, and we hope it will succeed. We will help the
Lebanese government extend its control over all its territory without any
foreign interference, and we should help build the capabilities of the Lebanese
army." He noted that "President Donald Trump expects Iran to commit to the talks
and for the deal to be clear and good. The technical talks with Iran concern the
nuclear file and the sanctions." He announced that "the technical committee will
return to Switzerland on the 29th or 30th of this month to resume talks with
Iran." He stressed that "Washington will be in complete agreement with its Gulf
allies in its talks with Iran."
Ambassador Issa: There was a stumbling block yesterday between the Lebanese and
Israeli delegations, but we hope it will be resolved today.
National News Agency/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
US Ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, told Al-Jadeed TV that "there was a
stumbling block yesterday between the Lebanese and Israeli delegations, but we
hope it will be resolved today."
Netanyahu: We are establishing a security zone in southern Lebanon… and we still
have much to do.
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Israel is working to
establish a "security buffer zone" in southern Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah from
carrying out attacks against it, stressing that Israeli operations in Lebanon
are not yet over.
Netanyahu said, "We are establishing a security buffer zone in southern Lebanon
to prevent Hezbollah from launching attacks against us," adding, "There is still
something we must do in Lebanon." Regarding the confrontation with Iran, he
indicated that Israel has carried out numerous operations against Tehran,
emphasizing that the primary objective is to prevent it from acquiring nuclear
weapons. Netanyahu also revealed that his strategy after the October 7th attack
was not limited to confronting Hamas, but also included Iran and its allies in
the region, saying: “After October 7th, I didn’t think about fighting Hamas
alone, but also Iran and its proxies.” He added that he insisted on carrying out
the military operation in Rafah despite the pressure and calls to refrain from
it, considering these steps to be part of a broader security vision that
addresses the various fronts facing Israel.
Katz: Israel Will Not Withdraw from Southern Lebanon… and
Washington Has Not Requested It
Janoubia /June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz confirmed that the United States has not
asked Israel to withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon, stressing that Tel
Aviv is proceeding with its decision not to withdraw from the area. In an
interview on the sidelines of a conference for local leaders in Tel Aviv, Katz
said: “We have declared that we will not withdraw under any circumstances, and
so far there has been no American request for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon,”
considering this a “diplomatic achievement.” He added that Israel had informed
the US administration of its position, noting that he had discussed the matter
with US Defense Secretary Pete Hagseth. He also reported that Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had told US President Donald Trump that the
continued presence of Israeli forces in southern Lebanon was aimed, in his
words, at "protecting the residents of the north." Katz's statements come amid
reports of an Iranian demand for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern
Lebanon as part of ongoing talks between Tehran and Washington.
Katz: We Will Not Withdraw from Lebanon Even if America Asks for It
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Amid escalating tensions between Tel Aviv and the American administration,
Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz reiterated that he will not withdraw the
army from southern Lebanon. In statements made on Wednesday, Katz said, “Even if
there is an American request, we will not withdraw our forces from southern
Lebanon… and we will not allow the 200,000 residents of the northern settlements
to return to their previous state of threat.” He also emphasized that the
Israeli army will not leave what he called the “security zone” in Syria and
Lebanon, adding, “This is our security doctrine.” He continued, “The Israeli
army must be on the enemy’s side, defending the towns from within its own
territory… soldiers inside, residents outside… we do not withdraw.”
Simultaneously, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar affirmed that “the
negotiations underway since Tuesday in Washington with Lebanon are historic and
extremely important.” He also asserted that “Hezbollah poses a threat to
Lebanon’s independence and Israel’s security,” as he put it. For his part,
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam clarified in statements today that “the
issue of disarming Hezbollah is not about appeasing Israel.” He added that the
Lebanese authorities opted for direct talks with Israel because it is the least
costly path for Lebanon. He noted that the government was briefed on the
committee formed in Switzerland to solidify the ceasefire, but pointed out that
the negotiations in Washington are proceeding differently. He also emphasized
Lebanon’s insistence on a complete Israeli withdrawal from the south and the
release of prisoners. He said, “We will not accept the remaining five points,
nor even two. We also demand the release of prisoners and a resolution to the
issue of the outstanding points on the border.” These statements came as the
fifth round of talks between Lebanon and Israel, which began yesterday in
Washington, continues, aimed at reaching an agreement to end the war and clashes
that erupted between Israel and Hezbollah on March 2nd, resulting in the deaths
of approximately 4,000 Lebanese. They also come amidst a crisis of confidence
between Washington and Tel Aviv, and recent criticisms leveled by US
administration officials against the Israeli government. As US-Israeli relations
experience significant volatility, the impact has become evident in the recent
public criticisms leveled by US President Donald Trump. The US president
described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "crazy," accusing him of
being a warmonger and urging him to act rationally.
Israel kills two Hezbollah members near Ali al-Taher Heights
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
The Israeli army announced on Wednesday that it had killed two Hezbollah members
in the Ali al-Taher Heights in the Nabatieh district of southern Lebanon,
claiming they posed a "threat" to Israeli forces. The army stated, "This morning
(Wednesday), forces from the Givati Brigade's special unit operating in the
Ali al-Taher Heights identified two armed terrorists from the Hezbollah
terrorist organization who posed a threat to our forces operating in the
security zone." The Israeli army immediately deployed its air force and ground
troops, attacking the two men "to eliminate the threat."
The second element (the Israeli army): Yesterday, Tuesday, two similar incidents
occurred in southern Lebanon involving four members of Hezbollah and two members
of the Lebanese army. Hezbollah sources stated that those targeted yesterday
were civilians, including municipal workers in the Deir neighborhood of Nabatieh.
According to Israeli reports, Israeli forces remain near the Ali Taher facility
belonging to Hezbollah and are currently refusing to withdraw unless the
Lebanese army assumes responsibility for entering the site, according to Hebrew
media reports.
Qalibaf: Ending the War in Lebanon is No Less Important Than Ending It Against
Iran… and the Islamabad Memorandum is a Fruit of Resistance
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf affirmed that a ceasefire and
an end to the war in Lebanon are of equal importance to Tehran as a ceasefire
and an end to the war against Iran, indicating that the Lebanese arena remains
an essential part of any future regional arrangements. Qalibaf emphasized his
country's readiness to cooperate with the countries of the region on the basis
of respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, considering
that the region's security cannot be achieved through external forces coming
from thousands of kilometers away, but rather through the cooperation of its
countries and peoples. He believes that the Islamabad Memorandum of
Understanding proved that dialogue can achieve results when the other party
abandons the policy of imposing its will and recognizes Iran's rights, stressing
that what was achieved was not the result of pressure or coercion, but rather
the fruit of what he described as the steadfastness of the Iranian people and
the resistance. Qalibaf considered the memorandum a “declaration of defeat for
America,” noting that experience has proven that diplomacy is only effective and
sustainable when based on mutual respect and equality, far removed from threats
and attempts to impose conditions. Speaking about the background of the recent
confrontation, he pointed out that the war was not merely a fleeting military
attempt, but rather part of a broader project to alter the balance of power in
the region and impose an external will on its peoples. He emphasized that Tehran
views what transpired as a pivotal moment in shaping future regional balances.
These positions come at a time when the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding is
being presented as a preliminary framework for halting military operations on
multiple fronts, including Lebanon, and opening a broader negotiating track
between Washington and Tehran in the coming phase. Reports also indicate that
the memorandum includes arrangements related to de-escalation in Lebanon, in
addition to the issues of the Strait of Hormuz, sanctions, and the Iranian
nuclear program. Iranian references to Lebanon acquire particular significance
amidst the escalating debate surrounding the consolidation of the ceasefire in
the south, the role of the Lebanese army, and international pressure aimed at
pushing Israel toward withdrawal steps in exchange for more stable field
arrangements. In this context, Tehran seeks to establish the principle that
Lebanon is not a secondary issue in the negotiations, but rather an essential
part of any comprehensive regional settlement, and that the stability of the
Lebanese front is directly linked to the future of the existing understandings
with Washington. Thus, Qalibaf reiterates that the test of the Islamabad
Memorandum is not limited to the Iranian issue, but also extends to the ability
of the parties involved to translate the ceasefire in Lebanon into a lasting
reality that prevents a return to war and consolidates stability in the region.
Will the Radwan Forces launch a kidnapping operation in southern Lebanon? And
what about the besieged fighters?
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
For days, Israeli media reports have been circulating about the siege of 30
Hezbollah members in tunnels at what is known as the Ali al-Taher facility, near
which Israeli forces are still present, in Kfar Tebnit, Nabatieh district.
What's new? According to the Israeli website Walla!, Israeli army forces
besieged an underground facility in Kfar Tebnit last week, where dozens of
Hezbollah members are holed up. The security establishment sees this as a test
of a model that could allow for the dismantling of Hezbollah elements and
infrastructure in areas of southern Lebanon, while a state of alert continues in
the field for fear of a kidnapping attempt by the Radwan Forces. This facility,
located four kilometers southeast of Nabatieh and 37 kilometers southeast of
Sidon, was quickly sealed off by Israeli forces thanks to precise intelligence
gathered by various branches of the Military Intelligence Directorate and the
Northern Command, according to the website. Messages were conveyed to Israel
through several intermediaries, seeking safe passage for the fighters. According
to a security source, "The Israeli response to all the intermediaries was clear:
surrender or be killed inside the underground facility." Other sources familiar
with the details of the negotiations told Walla! News that, as part of a
ceasefire, the fighters could surrender to the Israeli army, but at this stage,
they are choosing to remain inside the underground facility. One source familiar
with the details said, "Things can change in an instant, but until then, it's
important to understand that Israel sees value in an effective model that allows
for the removal of Hezbollah operatives and infrastructure from the area.
Therefore, the focus is on a pilot program."
Shooting near the US Embassy in Awkar... Here are the
details
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Lebanese Army in the vicinity of the US Embassy in Awkar after the shooting on
June 5, 2024 (Reuters). Press reports indicated on Wednesday that the Lebanese
Army arrested two individuals after firing shots at them for failing to comply
with orders near the US Embassy. According to reports, a car failed to stop at a
Lebanese Army checkpoint near the US Embassy, prompting soldiers to fire
warning shots into the air. Despite this, the car continued to disregard orders
and fled the scene. According to reports, after security forces searched the
area for the vehicle, they were able to arrest the two individuals, as reported
by Al-Hadath TV.
Israeli Warning to Evacuate Ain Arab… and Threats to
Demolish Homes After Residents Return
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
The border town of Ain Arab witnessed a new escalation after an Israeli patrol,
accompanied by a D9 bulldozer, entered the town's outskirts. This occurred just
one day after the Lebanese army reopened the road leading to the town and some
residents returned to their homes. According to reports, the Israeli patrol
instructed the town's mayor to inform residents that they must evacuate their
homes before 5:00 PM today, threatening to demolish them if they did not comply.
The Lebanese army had reopened the road to Ain Arab yesterday, allowing
residents to return to the town after a period of closure and disruption. The
new Israeli threats have sparked anxiety and anticipation among residents, amid
fears that demolitions may target the homes that have recently been returned to.
Hezbollah’s Ongoing Effort to Build Up Its Drone Force:
Training Drone Operators and Establishing Logistical Infrastructure.
Dana Polak/Alma/June 23, 2026
An analysis of Hezbollah’s operational patterns during the most recent campaign
against Israel indicates the growing centrality of its drone force within the
organization’s military activities.
Of the 1,163 attacks carried out by Hezbollah during the “ceasefire” period and
until it ceased attacks against Israel (from April 17 to June 20, 2026), 637
attacks were conducted using drones and UAVs, accounting for 54.8% of all
attacks. Most of these operations relied on FPV drones, which have become one of
the organization’s most prominent combat tools.
The high proportion of drone and UAV attacks demonstrates that Hezbollah views
these systems as a significant operational force multiplier. They provide the
organization with a combination of precision, availability, lethality, and
intelligence-gathering capabilities. In addition, they enable real-time
documentation, which significantly contributes to Hezbollah’s information and
influence campaign through the dissemination of footage from attacks.
These advantages have made the drone force one of Hezbollah’s key investment
areas. As early as late 2024, the organization identified the drone force as a
decisive capability in a future conflict.
In recent months, several operatives involved in drone operations for
Hezbollah’s operational units have been eliminated. Hezbollah is actively
working to build and maintain a dedicated drone force that will allow the
organization to preserve and further develop its capabilities in this domain.
Targeting these operatives is intended to undermine the expertise and manpower
required to operate and sustain the drone force.
At the same time, a parallel logistical effort continues to support the
development of this capability. An example can be found in a case recently
uncovered in Lebanon, in which a businessman was investigated on suspicion of
involvement in importing several shipments of electronic components from France
allegedly intended for the production and assembly of drones for Hezbollah.
According to reports, the shipments included ostensibly civilian-use items, such
as motors and electronic components with a wide range of applications, which
were allegedly procured and transferred through procurement networks operating
in Europe and Lebanon. The case highlights the importance Hezbollah places on
securing access to the components and technologies required to continue
developing its drone capabilities.
The elimination of drone operators on the one hand, and the exposure of
procurement and component-smuggling efforts on the other, reflect the two
principal pillars upon which Hezbollah’s drone force relies: skilled personnel
and a supporting logistical infrastructure. Together, these developments provide
further indication that the organization continues to devote substantial
resources and attention to this field.
Ali al-Taher Ridge Sector: Is Hezbollah Attempting to
Undermine the Ceasefire?
Dana Polak/Alma/June 23, 2026
Throughout the day, two strikes were carried out against Hezbollah cells
operating in the Ali al-Taher Ridge area in southern Lebanon and posing a threat
to IDF forces. The two cells comprised a total of approximately seven Hezbollah
operatives, all of whom were hit during the strikes.
Does Hezbollah, under Iranian direction, seek to undermine the ceasefire by
deliberately creating friction with Israel in an effort to provoke an Israeli
military response, erode the existing understandings, and increase
international—particularly American—pressure for an Israeli withdrawal from
southern Lebanon?
President Aoun: Negotiations in Washington Continue,
Independent of Recent US-Iranian Meetings
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
President Joseph Aoun affirmed to a British parliamentary delegation that “we
look forward to Britain’s continued support for Lebanon and its backing in its
efforts to maintain an international presence in the south after the UNIFIL
withdrawal begins at the start of 2027.” He added, “Work is underway to solidify
the ceasefire in southern Lebanon, to be followed by the withdrawal of Israeli
forces, the deployment of the Lebanese army, the return of residents, the
release of prisoners, and the commencement of the reconstruction process.” He
noted that “the designation of the ‘model areas’ is still under discussion,
pending Israeli approval.” Aoun indicated that “negotiations in Washington are
ongoing and separate from the outcomes of last week’s meetings in Switzerland
between the United States and Iran, with Qatari and Pakistani involvement.” Also
at Baabda Palace, Aoun discussed with Minister of National Defense Michel
Mansour the security situation in Lebanon in general, and particularly in the
south, in light of the ceasefire announcement. They also discussed the state of
the military establishment and its needs.
Salam: The Washington Track Differs from the Swiss Cell… We
Will Not Accept Any Israeli Presence in the South
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam confirmed that Lebanon has been informed of the
formation of the cell that emerged from the Swiss meetings, noting that Lebanon
is part of it and that its primary objective is to solidify the ceasefire. He
added that the ongoing negotiation track in Washington is different in nature
and objectives. During his meeting with a delegation from the Press Syndicate,
headed by its president, Awni al-Kaaki, Salam said: “We are part of this cell,
and its goal is to solidify the ceasefire, but the Washington track is different
from it.” Regarding the ongoing negotiations, Salam explained that Lebanon chose
to go to Washington because it represents “the least costly path for Lebanon,”
emphasizing that the results of any negotiations cannot be predetermined, but
the Lebanese position is clear and firm. He added: “Will we reach an agreement?
No one knows in advance the outcome of any negotiations, but we know very well
what we want from them, which is a complete Israeli withdrawal.” The Prime
Minister stressed Lebanon's categorical rejection of any Israeli presence on
Lebanese territory, stating, "We will not accept the presence of five points,
nor even two," while simultaneously affirming the commitment to the release of
prisoners and addressing the outstanding border issues. He noted that Lebanon
understands the Israeli side may propose security arrangements during
negotiations, but these proposals will be considered based on their
acceptability, adding, "I am not pessimistic." These positions are being
expressed within two parallel tracks: the first concerns solidifying the
ceasefire through the committee established in Switzerland, and the second
relates to the Washington negotiations addressing the issues of Israeli
withdrawal, prisoners, outstanding border points, and security arrangements in
the south.
Salam linked this negotiating track to a broader political and constitutional
framework, namely the implementation of the Taif Agreement and the extension of
state authority over all Lebanese territory, deeming this matter
"non-negotiable." He stated, "We are 36 years behind in extending state
authority and in implementing a number of reforms since the Taif Agreement was
adopted." He also emphasized that his demands of Hezbollah were not new, but
rather the implementation of commitments the party had previously made within
successive governments, whether through adherence to Resolution 1701 after 2006
or through the 2024 cessation of hostilities agreement, which enshrined the
principle of the state's monopoly on the use of force and restricted its
possession to designated legitimate entities. Thus, Salam outlined a clear
Lebanese equation based on a complete Israeli withdrawal, the consolidation of
the ceasefire, and addressing the issue of prisoners and outstanding points, in
parallel with completing the process of extending state authority and the
state's monopoly on the use of force, as stipulated in the Taif Agreement and
international resolutions.
Salam to the Press Syndicate, headed by Kaaki: I ask
nothing of Hezbollah except that it fulfill its commitments. We are not
restricting weapons to appease Israel; this is an independent Lebanese matter,
agreed upon, and we have been long overdue in its implementation since the Taif
Agreement.
National News Agency/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic
by Google)
Prime Minister Dr. Nawaf Salam, during his meeting with a delegation from the
Press Syndicate headed by its president, Awni Kaaki, affirmed that "Lebanon is
informed about the cell formed in Switzerland, of which we are a part, and whose
goal is to solidify the ceasefire." However, he added, "The Washington track is
different. We went to the negotiations in Washington because it is the least
costly path for Lebanon. Will we reach an agreement? No one knows in advance the
outcome of any negotiations. But we know very well what we want from them, which
is a complete Israeli withdrawal." In response to the delegation's questions, he
added, "We will not accept the remaining five points, nor two. We also demand
the release of prisoners and the resolution of the issue of the outstanding
points on the border. In return, we appreciate the Israeli side proposing
security arrangements, and we will discuss what is acceptable and what is not."
"I am not pessimistic." Regarding the issue of the monopoly of arms and the
implementation of the Taif Agreement, Salam said: "There is an indisputable
point. The Taif Agreement addresses the Israeli withdrawal, reforms, and the
extension of state authority. We are 36 years behind in extending state
authority and implementing several reforms since the Taif Agreement was
adopted." He continued: "I am only asking Hezbollah to fulfill its commitments.
Through the 2006 government, of which it was a part, it committed to
implementing Resolution 1701, which stipulates the need to complete the
extension of state authority over all its territory, implement the Taif
Agreement, and, most importantly, make the area south of the Litani River a
weapons-free zone. It also committed again in 2024, through the cessation of
hostilities agreement under the government of President Najib Mikati, to the
monopoly of arms, and the agreement specifically identified the six entities
authorized to bear arms." He added: "We are not restricting arms to appease
Israel." This is an independent and agreed-upon Lebanese issue, and we have been
long overdue in its implementation, ever since the Taif Agreement was adopted.
He said, “The Taif Agreement is a comprehensive package, but it has been
implemented selectively. Its importance lies in the fact that it renewed
Lebanon’s social contract and ended the war, but administrative decentralization
has not been implemented, nor has the independence of the judiciary been
achieved. As for the issue of abolishing political sectarianism, it is
stipulated as a fundamental national goal that requires action to achieve. This
necessitates the establishment of a national body tasked with developing plans
and studies for its abolition according to a phased plan, as stipulated in
Article 95 of the Constitution.” He continued, “We must complete the
implementation of the Taif Agreement, correct what has been implemented contrary
to its text, work to close the gaps that have appeared in its implementation,
and be prepared to develop it whenever the need arises.” President Salam added,
“We have engaged in dialogue, from 1975 until 1989, unfortunately, sometimes
with fire and weapons, and we have conducted dozens of rounds of political
negotiations leading up to the Taif Agreement. Therefore, we do not need new
negotiations to implement the agreement.” There are issues being discussed in
Parliament or the Cabinet—institutions whose role we are working to
restore—including the draft law on administrative decentralization and other
reform bills. However, we will not negotiate the implementation of the Taif
Agreement. Regarding the end of the UNIFIL mission in the south, President Salam
said, “We still see a need for an international force in the south to carry out
three essential tasks: monitoring, reporting, and coordination and liaison. Even
if we reach an agreement with Israel, we will still need this role, given our
shared history.” President Salam noted that the UN Secretary-General had
presented three options, while the decision rests with the Security Council.
These options are subject to modification in accordance with the outcome of the
negotiations and the military arrangements that will accompany the Israeli
withdrawal.
Lebanese Army Faces New Field Test: US Training and
Gradual Handover of Southern Areas
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Reuters, citing three Israeli officials, revealed that Israel and Lebanon are
discussing a US-backed pilot project under which Israel would hand over some
territory in southern Lebanon to the Lebanese army. This move is considered an
initial test of the withdrawal process from limited areas and the Lebanese
army's ability to deploy and prevent any security vacuum. According to the
officials, the personnel participating in the deployment will undergo US
training and security vetting as part of arrangements aimed at providing field
and political guarantees and monitoring the results of the experiment before
expanding it to other areas. In the same context, the Israeli Broadcasting
Corporation reported that the Israeli army is preparing to withdraw from limited
areas in southern Lebanon, to be replaced by the Lebanese army, in order to test
its ability to prevent Hezbollah from regaining control of those areas.
The corporation also indicated that Israel is considering a gradual reduction of
its ground presence in the south, coinciding with increasing US pressure to push
Tel Aviv towards practical steps that would allow for the expansion of the
Lebanese army's deployment. Meanwhile, The New York Times, citing Israeli
officials, reported that the Israeli military command had issued new
instructions limiting military operations in Lebanon to a purely defensive
framework. Israeli media also reported the withdrawal of "readiness teams" from
the north following the ceasefire.
Despite these indications, the situation on the ground remains fragile. Two
Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire in southern Lebanon, the first reported
casualties in three days, reflecting the continued complexities surrounding any
attempt to transform the truce into a permanent arrangement.
These developments coincide with the ongoing fragile ceasefire and with US
efforts to stabilize the south and place the Lebanese army in a leading position
within any future security arrangements. Domestically, pressure is mounting on
the government after dozens of families of soldiers participating in operations
inside Lebanon demanded an end to the fighting and the return of their sons.
They criticized the lack of a clear objective for the war and demanded either
the achievement of specific goals or an immediate end to the mission. These
developments come after the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of
understanding on June 18th stipulating a cessation of hostilities on all fronts,
including Lebanon, while emphasizing respect for its sovereignty and territorial
integrity. Lebanon, however, maintains its demand for a complete Israeli
withdrawal and the restoration of state authority through the Lebanese army.
Against this backdrop, Israeli concerns are growing regarding any potential
Syrian role in Lebanon, following statements by US President Donald Trump about
the possibility of assigning the task of dealing with Hezbollah to Damascus,
which sparked widespread debate within Israel. Meanwhile, Syrian President Ahmed
al-Sharaa affirmed that his country prefers political and consensual solutions
in addressing the Lebanese issue. Thus, southern Lebanon faces a dual test: the
first, a field test, which hinges on the success of the limited withdrawal and
the deployment of the Lebanese army; and the second, a political test, which
depends on the ability of the parties involved to transform the fragile
ceasefire into a stable framework that restores security decision-making solely
to the Lebanese state.
Lebanon hands over 128 Syrian prisoners to Damascus... and
the number has risen to 260 since the start of implementation of the agreement
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Within the framework of implementing the prisoner return agreement between
Lebanon and Syria, the Lebanese authorities handed over, on Wednesday, 128
Syrian sentenced prisoners to the Syrian authorities, in the second batch to be
transferred since the signing of the agreement between the two countries at the
beginning of this year. According to a security source told Al Arabiya, this
step came after the handover of a first batch of 132 prisoners last March,
bringing the total number of Syrian prisoners transferred from Lebanese prisons
to 260 so far. This comes within the agreement signed between Beirut and
Damascus last February to address the file of Syrian prisoners, which is
considered one of the most prominent files outstanding between the two countries
for years, in light of the presence of large numbers of Syrian detainees and
convicts inside Lebanese prisons. Security estimates indicate that Lebanese
prisons contain about two thousand Syrian prisoners detained or sentenced in
various cases, including security files related to belonging to armed groups or
participating in actions related to the Syrian war. The process of transferring
convicts is seen as one of the most prominent fruits of the new coordination
between the Lebanese and Syrian governments, in addition to other files on the
table for discussion, most notably border demarcation, combating smuggling, and
the file of missing and forcibly disappeared persons, in addition to the issue
of displaced Syrians in Lebanon. Follow-up sources expect that the delivery of
new batches of prisoners will continue during the next stage, in accordance with
the legal mechanisms and conditions stipulated in the bilateral agreement
between the two countries.
Lebanon “Iranian”: An End, Not a Beginning
Rafiq Khoury/Nidaa Al Watan/June 24, 2026 (Translated from
Arabic by Google)
Linking Lebanon to the Islamic Republic is not a new issue arising from the
American-Israeli war on Iran. The insistence on linking the ceasefire between
Hezbollah and Israel to the “Memorandum of Understanding” between America and
Iran is not merely a matter of solidifying the truce. This linkage has been
decades in the making, much like the Iranian method of carpet weaving. The
connection to a comprehensive truce aims to prevent any disruption or risk to
the American-Iranian negotiations on a final agreement, just as President Jimmy
Carter did at Camp David in 1978, when he wanted to “keep the lid on Lebanon,
which was a boiling pot, so as not to spoil the main course, which was
comprehensive peace,” as recounted by Ambassador David Hale in his book
“American Diplomacy Towards Lebanon.” However, the linkage that has been
completed militarily cannot be completed politically in the face of an official
and popular Lebanese stance supported by Arab and international powers. If the
war revealed to Tehran the importance of the "Lebanese" front through the proxy
war launched by Hezbollah under the leadership of the Revolutionary Guard, then
the post-war negotiations are leading Washington to explore the importance of
insisting on closing this front. It is not easy for President Donald Trump to
play the Lebanese card both ways. On the one hand, he seems to accept that Iran
negotiates on behalf of Lebanon through Hezbollah's role in the proxy war and
rejects direct negotiations in Washington between Lebanon and Israel under
American auspices. On the other hand, he wants more than just the disarmament of
Hezbollah, criticizing the Lebanese government's hesitation or inability to
confiscate illegal weapons, blaming Netanyahu for failing to quickly eliminate
Hezbollah, asking Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to enter Lebanon to complete
the mission, and insisting that the Washington negotiations begin with some kind
of security agreement leading to a peace agreement. It is too early to draw up
scenarios regarding shifts in the local, regional, and international balance of
power in an inconclusive war. No one knows the chances of reaching a final
ceasefire in the Swiss negotiations, nor the possibility of a return to war
after the fall. The claims of both sides to a decisive victory are self-serving
interpretations of reality. Hezbollah's perception that its position is now
secure in Lebanon, a country increasingly intertwined with Iran's geopolitical
and strategic power, is a denial of the catastrophe its wars have brought upon
us. This connection to Iran is not a source of strength for Lebanon, but rather
a point of weakness and danger, even if it grants Hezbollah a semblance of power
amidst widespread devastation. Nor is the American failure to topple the Iranian
regime a complete and lasting victory for Hezbollah in the face of the reality
wrought by the war. If the regime's survival is the "top priority," as Imam
Khomeini stated, then what frightens the Revolutionary Guard most after the loss
of Syria is the potential loss of Lebanon. It is easy to debate whether
Washington or Islamabad negotiations are preferable for achieving a ceasefire in
Lebanon. However, the true test lies in the ability to guarantee an Israeli
withdrawal from the territory occupied during the proxy war and in Tehran's
confrontation with the American-Israeli war. The greatest challenge facing
everyone is Lebanon's success in achieving the Israeli withdrawal and the
removal of illegal weapons, and in reaching, during the sixty-day negotiations,
a "permanent end to the war on all fronts," as stipulated in the "Memorandum of
Understanding." As in the Washington negotiations, so too in the Swiss
negotiations, "diplomacy does not operate in a vacuum, nor is it achieved
through the eloquence of the participants, but rather through striking a balance
between risks and incentives," in Kissinger's view.
Israel Withdraws for Lebanon’s Sake, Otherwise for Iran’s
Abdul Wahab Badrakhan/Al-Nahar/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by
Google)
Not all tracks—American, Iranian, and Israeli—are working as Lebanon, both the
state and its people, would like. However, there is a glimmer of hope that
efforts to end the war will succeed. Opportunities are available to all three
parties, especially the United States, to act in accordance with the
requirements of any genuine legal and peaceful engagement with the Lebanese
state. Marginalizing, bypassing, or disregarding its sovereignty and interests
means that these parties are determined to keep Lebanon an open arena for their
conflicts. It is likely that this will remain the case unless the truce between
America and Iran transforms into peace. Furthermore, any “peace” or “conflict
resolution” between Iran and Israel is not conceivable in the foreseeable
future. Iran's insistence that the "Memorandum of Understanding" with the US
include a ceasefire in Lebanon is, of course, an attempt to "internationally
legitimize" its intervention and influence, represented by "Iran's
party/Hezbollah." However, this insistence clashes with the reality that there
is a state in Lebanon representing at least two-thirds of the
population—regardless of any grievances against it—and that this "party" has
gone too far in demonstrating its subversion of the state without offering the
Lebanese people a better model in governance and administration, in respecting
coexistence, or even in integrity and combating corruption. All of Lebanon
supported the "resistance" until the liberation of the South (in 2000), after
which the "party" and the "resistance" became sources of division and
instability, major contributors to the economic collapse, and tools for
suppressing any popular uprising. The party's weapons (before and after the 2006
war) became, and remain, a major point of contention in the country, and it lost
its popularity and credibility to the point that it—the "hero of
liberation"?!—is now being branded as using the slogan of "resistance" to invite
Israeli occupation. He waged the wars of "supporting Gaza" and "revenge for
Khamenei," hoping to return from them to seize control of the state. When he
finally returned to "resistance" against the new occupation, he lacked the
resources that had previously sustained him. Every missile and drone launched at
the enemy contributes to expanding the occupation, not to mention the killing,
destruction, and land confiscation. The "Party's" leaders find no way out except
by attacking and accusing the state of treason. After what appears to be an
American-Iranian "understanding" in Switzerland on a ceasefire and "guaranteeing
the unity and integrity of Lebanese territory" (according to Mohammad Baqer
Qalibaf), and a similar "understanding" in the "Washington negotiations" (except
for the ceasefire), has the path been paved and opened for serious discussions
on an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory? This is what gives direct
negotiations their meaning and justification. Calling the mechanism
"experimental" or "test zones" to be handed over to the Lebanese army does not
negate the obligation of withdrawal and its legal conditions. Perhaps Donald
Trump's repeated rebukes of Benjamin Netanyahu and the withholding of the
American "green light" for Israeli aggression in Lebanon have this time served
to present Israel with a new reality: either it withdraws in favor of the
Lebanese state, or it will be forced to withdraw later due to Iranian
obstruction of the nuclear negotiations with the United States. In the same
vein, and despite the American desire to "appease" Iran at this stage, Trump's
threat to deliver a "severe blow" to it if it does not rein in its proxy,
Hezbollah, has served to warn Tehran that its condition of ending the war in
Lebanon makes it "responsible" for Hezbollah's actions. Vice President J.D.
Vance, who led the "understanding" with Qalibaf regarding Lebanon, clearly
indicated working on a "mechanism to disarm Hezbollah." Is this the implicit
meaning of that "understanding"?
Tom Barrack and the Diplomacy of Orientalist Illusions
Makram Rabah/Now Lebanon/June 24/2026
The problem with Tom Barrack is not that he is of Lebanese origin. The problem
is that he sometimes appears to behave as if this origin gives him an innate
understanding of Lebanon. It does not. Family memory, ancestral nostalgia, and
immigrant sentiment do not produce political knowledge. They do not equip anyone
to read a country as complicated, wounded, and weaponized as Lebanon, especially
at a moment when war, illegal arms, institutional collapse, and negotiations
under fire all intersect.
Lebanon is not a place that can be understood through folklore, old family
stories, or the sentimental confidence of those who imagine that bloodlines are
a substitute for analysis. It is a country whose state has been systematically
hollowed out, whose institutions have been paralyzed, and whose sovereignty has
been confiscated by an armed organization that operates above the constitution,
beyond accountability, and in direct service of Iran’s regional project.
This is what Barrack either misses or chooses to ignore: Hezbollah is not a
normal political party. It is not one faction among others in a domestic
Lebanese game. It is an armed organization, designated as terrorist by the
United States, which hides behind a parliamentary and social façade while
retaining the structure, behavior, and mission of a military-security force tied
to Tehran. Anyone who does not begin from this fact cannot propose a serious
solution for Lebanon. He becomes, knowingly or not, part of the problem.
The danger of Barrack’s approach is that it seems trapped in an old Orientalist
reflex: the belief that the Middle East is managed through personal relations,
sectarian bosses, local intermediaries, and a little political theater. It is
the worldview of the American Arabist who thinks that if he knows the right zaim,
drinks coffee in the right salon, and speaks warmly about the region’s
“complexities,” he has somehow unlocked its politics.
The danger of Barrack’s approach is that it seems trapped in an old Orientalist
reflex: the belief that the Middle East is managed through personal relations,
sectarian bosses, local intermediaries, and a little political theater. It is
the worldview of the American Arabist who thinks that if he knows the right zaim,
drinks coffee in the right salon, and speaks warmly about the region’s
“complexities,” he has somehow unlocked its politics.
This is not diplomacy. It is nostalgia dressed up as policy.
Worse, it serves neither Lebanon nor the United States. It does not serve
Lebanon because it recycles the very forces that destroyed the Lebanese state.
And it does not serve American interests because it builds policy on the
illusion that the man who can open doors is also the man who can deliver a
solution. In Lebanon, that illusion has a long record. It always ends in the
same place: the state retreats, the militias advance, and Washington convinces
itself that failure was realism.
This is why allowing Nabih Berri to invest in his relationship with Tom Barrack
is so dangerous. Berri is not a neutral speaker of parliament. He is not a
constitutional referee. He is a central pillar of the political order that
protected Hezbollah’s weapons, crippled state institutions, and turned every
sovereign decision into an internal bargain. When Berri becomes Washington’s
gateway to Lebanon, Washington has not discovered a path to a solution. It has
entered the same maze that has consumed the Lebanese state for decades.
The ongoing American-sponsored negotiations between Lebanon and Israel are not a
technical detail. They are a real opportunity. But they are also an opportunity
that can be wasted very quickly if they are handled through the same bankrupt
logic: personal channels, side messages, recycled demands, and no implementation
plan.
The understandings reached between the parties do not need more Lebanese
rhetoric. They need execution. They need a state that decides that the monopoly
over arms is not a negotiating point but the condition of its own existence.
Sovereignty is not a slogan to be invoked abroad while being surrendered at
home. It is an act of authority. It is the ability to decide who carries
weapons, who deploys along the border, who speaks in the name of the country,
and who controls the decision of war and peace.
Lebanon cannot return to the negotiating table simply to repeat the same
demands: stop Israeli attacks, withdraw from occupied points, respect Resolution
1701, support the Lebanese Army. These demands are legitimate. But they are no
longer sufficient. The world has heard them too many times. The question today
is no longer what Lebanon wants from others. The question is what Lebanon is
prepared to do itself.
When will the Lebanese Army actually deploy? What is the timeline for
dismantling illegal military infrastructure south of the Litani and beyond it?
Who controls the decision of war and peace? What happens if Hezbollah refuses?
Who will be held accountable if the Lebanese state remains a spectator on its
own territory?
Without answers to these questions, negotiations become another exercise in
delay. Israel will argue that Lebanon is buying time. Washington will start
looking for alternative arrangements. Hezbollah will use the vacuum to regroup
and reposition. Nabih Berri will turn the process into another season of
bargaining. And the Lebanese state will once again appear as a power that
demands sovereignty from others while refusing to exercise it at home.
This is the core of the Lebanese tragedy. Lebanon asks the world to treat it as
a sovereign state while allowing a non-state army to decide its fate. It asks
Israel to withdraw while refusing to confront the force that gives Israel the
justification to remain. It asks for reconstruction while leaving the country
under the shadow of Iranian weapons. It asks for international confidence while
demonstrating that the most important decisions are still made outside the
state.
Nor is it accidental that this approach coincides with talk of a role for the
new Syrian regime in containing or encircling Hezbollah. This is not a practical
idea. It is an insult to Lebanese sovereignty. To ask Syria to help manage
Hezbollah is to admit that Lebanon cannot clean its own house. It returns the
country to the logic of tutelage, the very logic for which the Lebanese paid
such a heavy price: Lebanon’s sovereignty becomes a regional file, its borders
become bargaining material, and its security becomes something negotiated by
others.
Lebanon does not need a new guardian. It does not need a mediator driven by
vague ancestral nostalgia. It does not need a domestic zaim who markets the
paralysis of the state as political wisdom. It needs a decision.
Lebanon does not need a new guardian. It does not need a mediator driven by
vague ancestral nostalgia. It does not need a domestic zaim who markets the
paralysis of the state as political wisdom. It needs a decision.
That decision begins with a simple truth: Hezbollah is not a southern problem,
not a Shiite file, and not a bargaining chip. Hezbollah is the heart of the
sovereignty crisis. Every attempt to avoid this fact — whether through Berri,
Damascus, or an American mediator enchanted by the myths of the region — will
lead to the same result: a weaker Lebanon, a bolder Hezbollah, and more foreign
powers deciding the country’s future.
The warning today is clear. The American window will not remain open forever.
Diplomacy can create an opportunity, but it cannot replace political courage. No
envoy, no agreement, no ceasefire mechanism, and no regional arrangement can
save Lebanon if the Lebanese state refuses to act like a state.
If Lebanon enters negotiations without a clear roadmap, without a timeline, and
without the political will to impose sovereignty, then Lebanon will not
negotiate its future. Its future will be negotiated for it. If Lebanon enters
negotiations without a clear roadmap, without a timeline, and without the
political will to impose sovereignty, then Lebanon will not negotiate its
future. Its future will be negotiated for it. And that is the real catastrophe.
This article originally appeared in Elaph.
**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
Israel’s Offer to Lebanon: Land for Hezbollah’s
Disarmament...The interests of Lebanon and Israel align on the core issue of
disarming Hezbollah.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain/This Is Beirut/June 24/2026
Months ago, I argued that Israel had reformulated the traditional Arab peace
proposal. The old formula of “land for peace” held that Israel would cede
territory in exchange for Arab recognition and normalized ties. Israel has
flipped the formula to “peace for land.” The Arabs would first make peace and
disarm militias such as Hamas and Hezbollah, with Israeli territorial
concessions to follow. The Palestinians chose to shoot themselves in the foot.
They refused to surrender Hamas’s weapons and paid the price, losing roughly
half of the Gaza Strip. Lebanon now appears headed down the same path,
preserving Hezbollah’s arsenal at the cost of territory Israel is transforming
into a depopulated security zone.Yet before Lebanon accepts the amputation of
part of its territory, Iran and Hezbollah believe they can salvage both the
militia’s arsenal and land. Although Israel adhered to the ceasefire outlined in
the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Iran and the U.S., Hezbollah never
stopped fighting. It maintained that it had the right to “resist” until Israel
fully withdrew. It should be noted that the MoU does not stipulate an Israeli
withdrawal from Lebanon, only a ceasefire. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad
Bagher Ghalibaf called his Lebanese counterpart, Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally,
to clarify that any potential Israeli withdrawal would be negotiated separately
as part of a final Iran-U.S. agreement. Tehran crafted the MoU as an open-ended
arrangement. Because it included both the unfreezing of Iranian assets and the
lifting of U.S. sanctions on Iran’s banking, shipping, and insurance
sectors—precisely as in Barack Obama’s JCPOA—Tehran could remain comfortable
even if a “final agreement” never materialized. That is why one of the memo’s 14
provisions allows the 60-day negotiating period to be renewed
indefinitely.However, with Iran now divided among rival factions, a hardline
faction appears unwilling to accept Israeli military control in Lebanon. This
faction pressured Hezbollah to continue attacks on Israel and provoke military
retaliation, effectively merging the ceasefire and withdrawal into a single
demand. Hezbollah, meanwhile, cannot tolerate an indefinite MoU. It would mean
the group stops shooting while Israel retains control of Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors therefore insisted that the MoU be
reinterpreted so that “ceasefire” automatically includes full Israeli
withdrawal. Sensing Washington’s unprecedented flexibility, Tehran calculated
that escalation would succeed. It therefore said it was closing the Strait of
Hormuz unless the U.S. compelled Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.Tehran’s
urgency only increased when Lebanon’s elected government continued its own
independent, direct negotiating channel with Israel. This U.S.-mediated channel
offers a genuine alternative, with Israeli withdrawal conditioned on Hezbollah’s
disarmament. Disbanding Hezbollah’s military apparatus has been official
Lebanese government policy since before Israel’s incursion, which was triggered
by the militia’s resumption of war against Israel on March 2.In short, the
interests of Lebanon and Israel align on the core issue of disarming Hezbollah.
As the two sides hold another round of talks in Washington this week, Jerusalem
has signaled its willingness to commit to a full withdrawal once Hezbollah
surrenders its weapons over to the Lebanese state. Through peaceful negotiations
with Israel, the Lebanese government can therefore achieve two goals in one
stroke: disarm Hezbollah and secure an Israeli withdrawal. Hezbollah, by
contrast, wants the opposite—retaining its arms while forcing Israel out. Iran
and Hezbollah do not seek settlements through peace with Israel, but only
through war, ceasefires, and renewed conflict. The irony is unmistakable. Much
of the world, ever eager to engage in blood libel against Israel, believes
Hezbollah’s claims and condemns Israel for war and occupation. The reality is
the opposite: Israel seeks peace and withdrawal, while Hezbollah seeks war to
compel an unconditional Israeli pullout, without peace.Hezbollah’s intransigence
echoes the Palestine Liberation Organization’s (PLO) playbook in 1970, when it
refused Jordan’s demand to disarm. Fighting broke out, Arab capitals rushed to
back the PLO, and Syria’s Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad massed troops on
Jordan’s border. Israel’s Prime Minister Golda Meir sent Assad a clear warning:
cross the border and lose your army. The Arab instigators backed down. Jordan
prevailed, disarmed the militias, and expelled them. The PLO relocated to
Lebanon, where it undermined the country’s sovereignty.Today, as Israel enables
Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, Iran and parts of the Arab world are conspiring
against the Lebanese government and siding with the militia. Iran has gained
additional leverage by strong-arming Washington through its new weapon:
threatening to disrupt navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The question now
facing Washington is whether it will restrain Israel and the Lebanese
government, allowing Hezbollah to preserve its illegal militia and setting the
stage for future war. Or will the U.S. withstand Iranian pressure and support
Beirut in restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty by dismantling Hezbollah?
**Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense
of Democracies and a columnist focusing on Lebanon and broader Arab affairs.
The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published
on 24-25 June/2026
Trump: Negotiations with Iran are progressing well... NATO countries let us down
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
US President Donald Trump affirmed on Wednesday that the negotiations with Iran
are progressing well, as technical discussions continue between the two sides to
establish mechanisms for implementing the agreement, which includes the nuclear
file, economic sanctions, and frozen Iranian assets. During his meeting with
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte at the White House, he clarified that
including shipping fees in any agreement with Iran would be "unacceptable."
Furthermore, the US president stated that NATO countries "let the United States
down" in the conflict with Iran. He added, "We were let down. We didn't need any
help with this at all. We literally crushed them (Iran) in the first week, but
it would have been nice if they had said, 'We'd like to help.'" Trump also said,
"If someone else had been in that position (NATO Secretary General), we wouldn't
be having this meeting today, frankly, because we were left alone." The US
president directed particular criticism at Spain, and also criticized the
positions of Italy, the United Kingdom, Germany, and France. Several NATO member
states resisted supporting the US military campaign against Iran by denying US
military aircraft access to their airspace or refusing to send naval forces to
help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Trump repeatedly described the alliance as a
"paper tiger" and threatened to withdraw from the 32-member coalition in recent
weeks, arguing that Washington's European allies relied on US security
guarantees while providing insufficient support for the US-Israeli campaign
against Iran.
Trump Asks Congress for Additional Funding to Cover Costs
of Iran War
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
US President Donald Trump asked Congress on Wednesday for an additional $88
billion in funding, the bulk of which would cover the costs of a war in Iran.
This comes amid growing bipartisan concern about the conflict and its political
costs. The White House's request for $87.6 billion in additional funding
includes tens of billions for the Department of Defense, along with financial
allocations for American farmers, efforts to respond to the Ebola outbreak in
Central Africa, and domestic infrastructure projects. The US administration also
said it is requesting $67 billion for the Department of Defense to meet what it
described as urgent needs related to a potential war with Iran, including
"funding for armed forces personnel, military readiness expenses, and
operational costs necessary to replenish military stockpiles." Office of
Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, in a letter to House Speaker Mike
Johnson, said, "I urge Congress to act on these important and urgent requests as
quickly as possible." The request was submitted to Congress at a politically
sensitive time, as a majority of lawmakers oppose any further military action.
The Office of Management and Budget sent the additional spending request on
Wednesday. The request came just hours after the US president rebuked Republican
senators during a private luncheon, engaging in a heated exchange with one of
them over their vote in favor of a war powers resolution that would halt any
further hostilities. The Republican-controlled US Senate on Tuesday passed a
bill aimed at halting US military action against Iran, as the Trump
administration negotiates a peace agreement with Tehran. The resolution, which
had already been approved by the House of Representatives, passed by a vote of
50 to 48. While the resolution requires Trump to withdraw US forces from any
hostilities with Iran, the vote is likely to remain largely symbolic.
Trump Attacks Senate After Iran Vote: You Gave Tehran a Message of Weakness
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
US President Donald Trump launched an attack on the Senate, accusing several of
its members of weakening his administration's position against Iran. This came
after the Senate voted in favor of a resolution calling for an end to US
military operations against Tehran, a move the White House considered a symbolic
political setback at a sensitive time. In a post on the Truth Social platform,
Trump asserted that Iran is "in a very difficult position and on the verge of
collapse," claiming it is now ready to offer "almost anything" and is showing
"great respect for the United States and its president." Trump argued that the
Senate vote on the war powers resolution came at a "bad time and was pointless,"
indicating that this step sent the wrong message to Tehran, namely that the
United States does not support his policy. He considered what happened to be
political support for the adversary. He also criticized four Republican senators
who voted with the Democrats, arguing that their position made his
administration's task more difficult on this issue, but he stressed that he
"will get it done one way or another." The US Senate voted Tuesday by a vote of
50 to 48 in favor of a resolution calling for an end to US military operations
against Iran, after the House of Representatives had previously approved it.
Although the resolution does not have direct legal force, it represents the
first clear stance taken by Congress regarding war powers related to the
conflict with Iran. It also reflects growing concern within the legislative
body, including among some Republicans, about the continued US military
involvement. This debate comes as the Trump administration continues its
negotiations with Tehran on the Iranian nuclear program and a number of regional
issues, giving the vote dimensions beyond mere symbolism and reopening the
debate between the White House and Congress over who has the authority to
declare war. In this context, the War Powers Resolution has returned to the
forefront of discussion as one of the tools Congress uses to try to limit the
president's ability to conduct prolonged military operations without clear
authorization, while successive US administrations maintain the president's
authority as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Trump's attack reveals the
sensitivity of the current negotiating phase with Iran. His administration
believes that any internal division could negatively impact Washington's
negotiating position, while opponents of the military approach within Congress
argue that continuing operations without clear authorization raises
constitutional and political issues that cannot be ignored. This vote is
particularly significant because it came just days after the United States and
Iran signed a ceasefire agreement and began negotiations on the arrangements for
the first 60 days following the agreement. Although the Senate resolution is not
legally binding, it represents a political and symbolic setback for the Trump
administration, reflecting congressional opposition to any continued US military
involvement without clear legislative authorization. Those objecting cite the US
Constitution, which grants Congress the sole power to declare war, arguing that
the administration has exceeded the legal deadline for obtaining congressional
approval for military operations. Observers also believe the resolution could
give Tehran additional leverage in the ongoing negotiations by suggesting that
any US decision to resume hostilities would face increasing domestic opposition.
Conversely, supporters of the administration warned that this move could weaken
the American negotiating position, while Senator Jim Risch, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that adopting the resolution could
push the Iranians to harden their stance or even abandon the negotiating table,
calling for giving the diplomatic track a chance to continue. Thus, the Iranian
issue shifts from the arena of external negotiations to the heart of the
political confrontation in Washington, where calculations of war and diplomacy
intersect with a broader battle over the limits of presidential power and
Congress's role in military decision-making.
Rubio: We Want Full and Free Navigation in the Strait of Hormuz
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio affirmed on Wednesday that the United States
wants the full and free resumption of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz,
without any fees or obstacles. He emphasized that Washington has options to deal
with any attempt to close the strategic waterway. Speaking in Kuwait as part of
his Gulf tour, Rubio stated that freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz
is a fundamental priority for the United States and the international community.
He added that any measures that impede the movement of ships in the strait are
contrary to international law and the interests of the global economy. He
explained that the memorandum of understanding signed between the United States
and Iran will enter the implementation phase within sixty days, expressing his
hope that Tehran will adhere to its commitments under the agreement. He added
that technical teams from both sides are currently working on the implementation
details, and that the teams will return to Switzerland on June 29 to resume
talks related to the nuclear issue and sanctions. Rubio confirmed that the
ongoing technical discussions are focused on the mechanisms for implementing the
nuclear agreement and the issue of economic sanctions, noting that Washington
expects Iran to adhere to what has been agreed upon. He also stressed that the
United States will not take any steps that could harm the security of its Gulf
allies, emphasizing that regional security will remain a fundamental element in
any future arrangements or understandings with Tehran. The US Secretary of
State's remarks come at a sensitive time for the region following the US-Iranian
memorandum of understanding, which ended weeks of military tension and opened
the door to a new negotiating track. Regarding the situation in Lebanon, Rubio
confirmed that the fifth round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations is continuing
today and tomorrow in Washington, expressing his hope that it will yield
positive results. He said that the United States' goal is to enable the Lebanese
state to extend its authority over all its territory, indicating that Washington
will continue to support Lebanese institutions to achieve this goal. He added
that the Israeli presence in some areas of southern Lebanon is linked, from the
Israeli perspective, to the threats posed by Hezbollah, emphasizing that the
current negotiating track aims to address these issues within a broader security
and political framework. These statements coincide with the continuation of
direct talks between Lebanon and Israel under US auspices, amid Beirut's
insistence on a clear timetable for the Israeli withdrawal from the south, while
Israel maintains its demand to include the issue of Hezbollah's weapons in any
future settlement.
UN Estimates: Evacuation of Stranded Sailors in the Strait
of Hormuz Will Take Weeks
Riyadh - Al-Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
The Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), Arsenio
Dominguez, stated that the evacuation of approximately 11,000 sailors stranded
in the Strait of Hormuz will take "a few weeks," as international efforts
continue to restore normalcy after months of security disturbances in the vital
waterway. The UN official explained to AFP that the evacuation process has
already begun, but requires complex logistical arrangements due to the large
number of sailors and vessels affected by the crisis that has gripped the region
in recent months. This comes after the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
announced the start of a plan to evacuate seafarers stranded in the region due
to reduced shipping traffic and disruptions to crew rotations during the
heightened tensions related to the war in the Middle East. The evacuations
coincided with increasing signs of a return to maritime activity in the Strait
of Hormuz, following the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States
and Iran, which contributed to reopening the waterway to commercial vessels.
According to data from Kpler, a shipping tracking platform, the strait saw 37
cargo ships pass through in a single day this week, the highest number since the
crisis began. AXS Marine also recorded 42 transits, indicating a partial
restoration of confidence in shipping in the region. Despite this improvement,
the figures remain far below pre-war levels, when the strait typically saw
around 120 ships pass through daily. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's
most important waterways, through which approximately one-fifth of the world's
oil trade passes, in addition to vast quantities of liquefied natural gas and
other strategic raw materials. During the recent escalation, shipping traffic
plummeted to fewer than ten vessels per day at times, sparking widespread
concern in energy markets and global supply chains. As navigation resumes, Iran
and Oman are working on new arrangements to manage maritime services and traffic
in the Strait of Hormuz, following both sides' reaffirmation of their commitment
to keeping the waterway open to international trade. Observers believe that the
successful evacuation of the stranded sailors will be a crucial test of the
return to stability in the Strait of Hormuz and will provide further evidence of
the region's ability to overcome the repercussions of the crisis that threatened
one of the world's most sensitive maritime chokepoints.
Pakistan: Technical Talks Between US and Iran to Resume
Next Week
Janoubia/June 24, 2026
Pakistan clarified that negotiations between the US and Iran are ongoing, just
days after the conclusion of the first day of talks at the Buggenstock resort in
Switzerland. A spokesperson for the Pakistani Foreign Ministry explained at a
press conference on Wednesday that technical negotiations at the expert level
will resume next week, mediated by Pakistan and Qatar. He noted, however, that
technical-level talks between the two sides are continuing, despite the
participants taking occasional breaks. He also confirmed that Pakistan is in
contact with both the American and Iranian teams to ensure the effective
implementation of the memorandum of understanding signed on June 18 by US
President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart, Masoud Pezeshkian. He
further explained that "the initial agreement stipulated a direct line of
communication between the American and Iranian sides to avoid problems."
Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif emphasized on Tuesday that his country
will continue its diplomatic efforts to achieve lasting peace in the region,
stressing the importance of dialogue and negotiation in addressing regional
crises. He also expressed his hope that the ongoing technical negotiations
between Tehran and Washington will lead to a sustainable agreement that
strengthens regional stability. This came after the US and Iran held lengthy
talks in Switzerland on Sunday night, with Qatari and Pakistani mediators
present. The atmosphere was reportedly positive, just days after the signing of
the memorandum of understanding. The participants in the Swiss meeting also
agreed to establish working committees to follow up on the issues of US
sanctions against Tehran, the release of frozen Iranian funds abroad, the Strait
of Hormuz, and the situation in Lebanon.
Grossi settles the matter: The memorandum of understanding stipulates
inspections of Iranian facilities
Janoubia/June 24, 2026
Amid controversy and contradictions between statements from Iranian and American
officials regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency's inspection of
Iranian nuclear facilities, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed that
inspectors will visit nuclear sites in Iran. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday
at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, which was damaged by the
tsunami, Grossi said that his inspectors will visit Iranian uranium enrichment
sites, a key provision of the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding signed on
June 18. He added, “I can understand political statements; they are part of
reality. But the main point I want to remind you of and draw your attention to
is that a memorandum of understanding was signed that clearly stipulated that
nuclear activities related to nuclear material facilities would be subject to
IAEA oversight in every sense of the word.” He continued, “Obviously, to do
this, we have to conduct inspections. Whether it happens the day after tomorrow,
in a week, or in ten days is important, but it’s not essential; it will happen.”
Grossi’s statement is the most definitive yet from the UN agency, which is
considered a key player in determining the status of Iran’s nuclear stockpile,
according to the Associated Press. This comes after conflicting statements from
the United States and Iran on Tuesday regarding whether those sites would be
subject to inspections. US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance
confirmed that inspections would be permitted. Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign
Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei denied that his country had agreed to
inspections of the bombed nuclear facilities, referring to Fordow, Natanz, and
Isfahan. These inspections are crucial to the agreement, which stipulates that
Iran's highly enriched uranium stockpile will be "diluted." Iran has
consistently maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful, despite being the
only country in the world that enriches uranium to 60% purity without possessing
a nuclear weapons program.
Trump's Posts Confuse Iranian Negotiators… “Psychologists
Seek Help”
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
As fragile talks between the United States and Iran began last weekend in
Switzerland, US President Donald Trump surprised everyone by dropping an
unexpected “bombshell,” threatening in social media posts to attack Iran if it
did not stop funding its ally, the Lebanese Hezbollah. However, Iran’s chief
negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who was about to meet with US Vice
President J.D. Vance at the Burgenstock resort in Switzerland, was unaware of
this, having left his phone outside the negotiating room, according to The Wall
Street Journal. But when an aide informed him of Trump’s statement, Ghalibaf
turned to criticize his American counterpart, J.D. Vance, according to sources
familiar with the matter. He told him that these threats violated the opening
paragraph of the memorandum of understanding that Trump had signed just days
earlier, which obligates the United States and Iran not to attack or threaten
each other. Then his team ended the direct talks. He later clarified in an
interview with Iranian state television on Tuesday that he told Vance: “Today
your president issued threats… You must understand that we never negotiate under
threat or pressure.” He added that the American side requested another meeting
through intermediaries, but the Iranian delegation refused. Sources familiar
with the details confirmed this account. For his part, Vance explained inside
the negotiating room that Trump meant the United States would respond if Tehran
violated the agreement, according to an American official familiar with the
talks. He added that Vance pushed for a break to allow the Iranians time to
consider the proposals, not because of Trump’s post. However, this was not the
first time Trump’s social media posts had become an unexpected disruptive factor
in the negotiations. Intermediaries repeatedly warned the American side during
the lengthy negotiations that these posts threatened efforts to reach an
agreement. They also tried to persuade Iran to disregard his public statements
and focus on what his negotiators were saying behind closed doors.
“He wants to appear unstable.” According to the newspaper, these developments
reflect the new reality that Trump has imposed on diplomacy with his public
approach. His unconstrained approach and reliance on unconventional envoys
rather than seasoned diplomats are noteworthy. In April, after issuing a harsh
warning to Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, Trump added the phrase “Thank
God.” The US president then confided to an aide that he “wants to appear as
unstable as possible to force Iran to the negotiating table.” He later
threatened to destroy Iran’s oil export terminal on Kharg Island, its power
plants, and even the country’s “civilization.” On the Iranian side, diplomats
revealed that the president’s unconventional style led them to read “The Art of
the Deal,” a 1987 book co-authored by Trump, to understand his negotiating
tactics as a real estate entrepreneur. The book advises using extreme and
unexpected demands to create anxiety and force concessions from opponents.
Iranian negotiators also told mediators that they had consulted a team of
psychologists to understand Trump’s thinking, according to some of the
mediators. These experts worked with Iranian diplomats to try to predict Trump’s
public reactions to Iranian proposals, but a source familiar with Iranian
diplomacy in Switzerland said the negotiating team there does not include
psychologists, and that Iran prefers not to engage in psychological speculation
about Trump’s motives or decisions. Political analysts and mediators believe
that Trump’s bellicose statements have not yet yielded any additional
concessions from the Iranian side. “Trump is applying the art of the deal by
issuing extreme threats to test the other side’s resolve,” said Mohammad Amiri,
an expert on Iranian affairs and a member of the Global Advisory Council at the
Wilson Center in Washington. “But the Iranians are well aware of these tactics,
and they will not change the dynamics of the negotiations.” Nevertheless,
Iranian officials and mediators believe that the US president’s pronouncements
have made it more difficult for more pragmatic officials in Tehran to convince
hardliners that the United States can be trusted to fulfill its commitments.
AFP, citing a diplomatic source: Gulf-Iran reconciliation talks expected in
Saudi Arabia
NNA/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
A diplomat told AFP that Saudi Arabia is expected to host reconciliation talks
between the Gulf states and Iran, without providing details on the date. The
source, who is familiar with the arrangements, said a summit is expected to be
held in Riyadh aimed at repairing relations between Iran and its Gulf neighbors,
and possibly other regional parties, in the wake of the war in the Middle East,
separately from the ongoing talks between the United States and Iran.
Qatari Foreign Ministry: Technical preparations for US-Iran
agreement have begun
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
The spokesperson for the Qatari Foreign Ministry confirmed on Wednesday that
technical teams have begun working on the details of the agreement between the
United States and Iran. Majid Al-Ansari told Al Arabiya/Al Hadath that the
security of the Strait and the stability of energy supplies are a shared
responsibility, stressing the importance of maintaining maritime security in the
region. Furthermore, Al-Ansari clarified that coordination among the Gulf states
is ongoing at the highest levels, emphasizing that regional dialogue must be
based on the principles of good neighborliness. This came after the US and Iran
held lengthy talks in Switzerland on Sunday night, with the Qatari and Pakistani
mediators present. The atmosphere was reported to be positive, just days after
the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The participants in the Swiss
talks also agreed to establish working committees to follow up on the issues of
US sanctions against Tehran, the release of frozen Iranian funds abroad, the
Strait of Hormuz, and the situation in Lebanon.
Saudi-Iranian talks addressed negotiations with
Washington... Saudi Arabia welcomes reaching an agreement between the US and
Iran
Riyadh: Al-Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by
Google)
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan contacted his Iranian
counterpart, Abbas Araqchi. During the call, they reviewed the latest
developments in the negotiations between Iran and the US, and the progress made
in implementing the agreed-upon understandings. In a related context, the two
sides reviewed the latest regional developments and the importance of continuing
efforts to promote dialogue and diplomatic solutions that serve the common
interests of all countries and peoples of the region. The Iranian Foreign
Ministry stated that Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi briefed Saudi Foreign
Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan on the progress of negotiations with the
United States. Saudi Arabia hopes for a lasting agreement between Iran and the
United States that will enhance regional security and stability. Saudi Arabia
welcomed the agreement reached between the United States and Iran to end
military operations, facilitated by mediation efforts undertaken by the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan.
Qatari-Pakistani Call Discusses US-Iranian Understanding
and Ras Laffan Explosion
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
The Emir of Qatar, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and the Prime Minister of Pakistan,
Shahbaz Sharif, discussed the latest regional developments, primarily the
memorandum of understanding signed between the United States and Iran, during a
telephone call on Wednesday. According to the Qatar News Agency, the call
addressed bilateral relations and ways to strengthen them, in addition to
regional and international developments, particularly the US-Iranian
understanding and its repercussions on the region. Shahbaz Sharif praised
Qatar's role in supporting regional security and stability, commending Doha's
diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions and enhance opportunities for dialogue and
understanding. The two leaders also exchanged condolences for the victims of the
explosion in the Ras Laffan industrial area. The Emir of Qatar expressed his
condolences for the deaths and injuries of several Pakistani citizens, and both
leaders affirmed their solidarity with the victims' families. This call comes
amidst a flurry of diplomatic activity in the region following the US-Iranian
understanding, with Gulf and international observers closely monitoring its
implications for security and political issues in the Middle East.
Secret Documents Earthquake Shakes Tehran: Prosecution of
MPs and Dismissals at State TV After Leak of the Supreme Leader's Letters
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Following statements made by Mahmoud Nabavian, a member of the Parliament's
National Security Committee, during a television program, the political
department of the official Iranian Radio and Television Organization (IRIB)
announced that his remarks and references to certain classified documents and
correspondence of senior officials constitute a legal violation warranting
prosecution. IRIB announced that it would include the matter on its agenda. The
organization's political affairs department also announced that, in this
context, one of its directors had resigned, and that disciplinary measures would
be taken. Mahmoud Nabavian had stated on a television program that Supreme
Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had set 11 conditions for negotiations, including
obtaining compensation from the United States, the right to enrichment, the
lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen assets, and the exercise of
sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. He also added that Mojtaba Khamenei
demanded that fees be imposed on the Strait of Hormuz immediately. Nabavian
further claimed, through reading texts described as highly confidential messages
from Mojtaba Khamenei, that after the Islamabad negotiations, Khamenei wrote to
his negotiating team, saying: “What transpired in the negotiations with Pakistan
is entirely different from what was agreed upon and what was a condition for the
legitimacy of the negotiations. The negotiations must be halted.” Nabavian
asserted that Mojtaba Khamenei stated that the nuclear issue should not be
negotiated; either a victory is achieved, with the other party recognizing
Iran’s rights, or the nuclear issue is permanently removed from the negotiating
table. Following these statements, some media outlets close to Iranian President
Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker and head of the negotiating team,
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, claimed that Nabavian had read excerpts from “highly
confidential” messages concerning Mojtaba Khamenei and that he had relayed
incomplete and fragmented quotes attributed to the Iranian Supreme Leader. The
website Entekhab wrote in this context: “It is unclear how Nabavian obtained the
secret messages, and the relevant program on the state broadcaster was cut off.”
Following Nabavian’s statements, Saeed Ajroui, a member of the Iranian
negotiating team’s media team, said that Nabavian presented outdated information
in a “distorted” manner and deliberately read incompletely in order to evade
responding to his claims regarding the text of the Memorandum of Understanding.
In recent days, Mahmoud Nabavian and several figures close to the hardline
Paydari faction have strongly criticized the Memorandum of Understanding and the
path to an agreement between Iran and the United States. They have accused
Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Masoud Pezeshkian, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi
of treason and issued threats against them. For his part, Mehdi Tabatabaei, the
communications and media advisor to the Iranian president, described Pezeshkian
as “a rude person” in response to a death threat against him by a religious
eulogist named Mohammad Ali Bakhshi, via the X platform. He called for “firm and
legal action by the relevant authorities against suspicious, undisciplined, and
transgressing elements” who direct “blatant insults” at the country’s
second-highest official. Bakhshi had said in a speech in the city of Rey, near
Tehran: “If the conditions set by the Supreme Leader are not met, we know what
we will do and with whom, with the sword and with your throats. We will defeat
you.” Hours before the state broadcaster’s statement condemning Mahmoud
Nabavian’s actions, the Secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council
issued new directives warning media outlets against promoting what it called the
“dualism of the battlefield and diplomacy,” stressing the need to refrain from
any narratives that portray a conflict between these two spheres. The
instructions from the Supreme National Security Council, a copy of which was
obtained by Iran International, stated: “Given the renewed closure of the Strait
of Hormuz in response to the continued violation of the ceasefire and Israeli
attacks in southern Lebanon, and coinciding with the presence of the Iranian
negotiating delegation in the Geneva talks, the media, in its news coverage and
analysis, must strictly refrain from portraying the duality of (the field and
diplomacy).”
US military announces killing of senior ISIS leader Ali
Hussein al-Alawi in airstrike in Syria
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that its forces conducted a precision
airstrike on June 19 in northwestern Syria, killing senior ISIS leader Ali
Hussein al-Alawi. In a statement, CENTCOM explained that the operation was part
of ongoing US efforts to disrupt the organization's capabilities, target its
leaders, and prevent any plots targeting Americans abroad or within the United
States. CENTCOM affirmed that it continues to work in coordination with its
regional partners to pursue the remaining ISIS elements and eliminate their
threats. U.S. Central Command chief General Brad Cooper said, “Central Command
and its partners remain committed to eliminating the remnants of ISIS and
ensuring its lasting defeat,” adding, “We will continue to defend the United
States, our forces, our allies, and our partners in the region.”
Qatar affirms: A hotline between the U.S. and Iran is necessary to reopen the
Strait of Hormuz.
Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
With the partial resumption of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, following the
signing of the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the U.S. days ago,
and the continuation of talks between the two sides through joint working
committees, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani
affirmed that establishing a direct communication line between Washington and
Tehran is necessary to prevent rogue elements from obstructing the reopening of
the strait. He also anticipated that his country would resume liquefied natural
gas production normally “within a few weeks.” In an interview with the Financial
Times, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani explained that the communication
line agreed upon by the two sides during their talks in Switzerland is
“essential to counter disinformation and ensure coordination during
mine-clearing operations in this vital waterway.” He further noted that the
challenge The point is that “anyone who just wants to mess around” can use
maritime navigation communications to warn ships, saying, “Back off, we’re going
to shoot, we’re the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.” He continued, “That’s what we
sometimes experience… So the purpose of the communication line is to ensure that
any ship receiving a threat is verified by the Iranian side… and allowed to pass
safely.”
“Divisions in Iran?”
When asked about the possibility of divisions within Iran, he said, “There will
always be people who don’t like the agreement, and others who will try to
sabotage it.” This happens in any conflict and with any party.” The reopening of
the Strait of Hormuz is a key element of the memorandum of understanding signed
on June 18, and of the ongoing talks between the US and Iran through
intermediaries, as well as of US President Donald Trump’s efforts to alleviate
the global energy crisis. Tehran has already gradually reopened the strait,
without imposing fees on ships, immediately after signing the memorandum of
understanding with the United States last week for a period of 60 days, with
mine removal to begin during the first 30 days of the ceasefire extension. The
closure of this strategic waterway, which erupted on February 28 between Iran on
one side and the US and Israel on the other, left more than 1,200 cargo ships
carrying goods worth approximately $125 billion stranded, according to new data
released Wednesday by the insurance company Allianz. Data from the International
Maritime Organization indicates that more than 40 ships were hit by missiles,
and 14 sailors were killed during the conflict. Before the conflict,
approximately 135 ships passed through the strait daily, carrying a fifth of the
world's oil supply. The global oil and gas industry. Its closure caused
widespread disruption in energy markets and pushed oil prices above $100 a
barrel.
Al Arabiya correspondent Mohammed Ayda killed in car bombing in Mukalla
Riyadh - Al Arabiya.net/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic by Google)
Al Arabiya/Al Hadath correspondent Mohammed Ayda was killed on Wednesday when an
explosive device targeted his car in the city of Mukalla, Hadramawt Governorate,
eastern Yemen. His body was taken to Ibn Sina Hospital in Mukalla. Al Arabiya/Al
Hadath correspondent Radfan Al-Dubais reported that the Mukalla security
administration had informed Ayda a month prior of a threat to his life. He added
that the security administration had urged Ayda to take the warnings seriously,
noting that he had been receiving continuous threats recently, but had not taken
them seriously enough before his car was targeted. The correspondent also
explained that the explosion was powerful, resulting in the car being completely
burned on 60th Street near the Pakistani School in central Mukalla. Aida was
alone in his car when it was targeted by the explosion. He had just dropped his
family off at home and left when an explosive device detonated in his vehicle,
killing him in the city of Mukalla in Hadramawt Governorate.
The car was charred as a result of the explosion. Meanwhile, the head of the
Yemeni Presidential Leadership Council, Rashad Muhammad al-Alimi, directed the
formation of a joint high-level committee to investigate the circumstances
surrounding the assassination of Al-Arabiya and Al-Hadath correspondent Muhammad
Aida. The committee includes representatives from the Ministry of Interior, the
State Security Service, and Military Intelligence, in coordination with a
committee formed by the local authority leadership in Hadramawt Governorate,
with the aim of uncovering the circumstances of the incident and identifying
those responsible. Yemeni Prime Minister Shaya al-Zindani and the Governor of
Hadramawt, Salem al-Khanbashi, also directed the relevant security agencies to
expedite the investigations and dedicate all necessary resources to uncovering
those involved and bringing them to justice.
The Yemeni authorities affirmed that targeting journalists constitutes an attack
on the freedom of the press, stressing the necessity of holding those
responsible for the attack accountable. It is worth noting that Ayda has worked
as a cameraman and freelance reporter with Al Arabiya Network since 2019,
covering major political, developmental, and security events and developments in
eastern Yemen, from the coast and valley of Hadramawt and the desert to Al
Mahrah Governorate. Born in 1986 in Shar'ab District, Taiz Governorate, Mohammed
Ayda began his career in Sana'a as a television cameraman for Al Saeeda TV, a
Yemeni channel, before working for Alhurra TV. In late 2018, Ayda was pursued
and nearly arrested by armed men in Sana'a after they stormed his home,
terrorizing his family and looting his belongings. This prompted him to leave
Sana'a and move to Aden, before later joining Al Arabiya Network and settling in
Mukalla to continue his journalistic work. Ayda is the father of one son and
three daughters. Al Arabiya and Al Hadath channels extend their deepest
condolences to the family and loved ones of our colleague Ayda, following his
tragic death in a targeted attack. We pray that God Almighty grants him His
mercy and bestows patience and solace upon his family, loved ones, and
colleagues.
The Latest LCCC analysis &
editorials from miscellaneous sources published on 24-25 June/2026
Trump Administration Provides Billions in
Unrestricted Oil Sanctions Relief to Iran
Max Meizlish//FDD-Policy Brief/June 24/2026
The Trump administration is laying the groundwork for a major cash infusion for
the Iranian regime.
On June 22, the Treasury Department issued General License (GL) X, a 60-day
authorization for the production, sale, delivery, and offloading of
Iranian-origin crude oil, petrochemicals, and petroleum products. The license
follows a memorandum of understanding in which the United States committed to
roll back sanctions based on steps Iran takes to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and
negotiate over its nuclear program.
GL X will benefit Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which
controls much of the sectors covered by the license. Its sweeping authorization,
including payments in U.S. dollars, appears designed to facilitate sales to
international buyers. Yet the IRGC remains a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist
Organization, meaning dealings with it may still create criminal
material-support exposure that an Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
license cannot eliminate.
Unconditioned Sanctions Relief Benefits IRGC Rearmament
Iran’s state budget allocates one-third of oil revenues — roughly $12.4 billion
— to its armed forces and the IRGC. Less than a month before issuing GL X,
Treasury warned that “Iran’s military oil sales … enabl[e] the regime’s ability
to fund the rebuilding of its armed forces and pose continued threats to the
United States and its partners in the region.”
GL X gives Iran the ability to fund its rearmament without any oversight by the
United States. This is because the license contains no escrow mechanism; no
restrictions on Iran’s use of the proceeds; no cap on the volume or value of
authorized sales; no approved list of buyers or participating banks; and no
transaction-specific reporting requirement that would provide Treasury or
Congress with insight into the purchasers, vessels, insurers, intermediaries,
payment routes, or financial institutions involved in what will almost certainly
be billions of dollars in generally licensed oil sales.
Second Only to Iran, China Benefits From Sanctions Relief
Although GL X only technically applies to U.S. persons, its effect will likely
extend abroad. Subject to program-specific considerations, Treasury generally
does not sanction foreign parties for conduct authorized for U.S. persons.
Chinese refiners, shippers, insurers, and banks will therefore likely treat GL X
as a practical 60-day safe harbor for transactions that could otherwise trigger
mandatory sanctions.
Chinese “teapot” refineries already purchase roughly 90 percent of Iran’s oil
exports. These refineries increased their intake after Treasury authorized the
sale of Iranian oil already at sea earlier in the war. GL X will similarly
encourage Chinese buyers to expand those purchases and deepen supply, shipping,
and payment networks that may endure after the license expires. Coupled with a
lax enforcement posture by OFAC, GL X may also provide the functional equivalent
of statutory waivers without requiring the administration to invoke waiver
authorities that carry congressional reporting or notification requirements.
Additional Waivers, Sanctions Relief May Follow
The immediate question is whether GL X is the first in a series of future
concessions before Iran takes verifiable steps on its nuclear program and
support for terrorism. Also pertinent is whether it permits Iran to repatriate
proceeds from previously unauthorized oil sales. Treasury should urgently
clarify both issues.
Congress should also insist that the administration provide detailed information
regarding any active or contemplated sanctions relief pursuant to the Iran
Nuclear Agreement Review Act, which requires the president to notify Congress of
the details of any negotiations involving Iran’s nuclear program.
Lastly, companies should not mistake temporary relief for the dismantlement of
the broader sanctions architecture prohibiting dealings with Iran. Several
congressionally mandated sanctions cannot be permanently terminated unless the
president certifies that Iran has ceased supporting terrorism and verifiably
dismantled its nuclear, biological, chemical, and ballistic missile programs.
Iran’s missile program is not part of the current negotiations, and Tehran
continues to support terrorism. Neither of these conditions is likely to change
if the Iranian regime remains in power.
*Max Meizlish is a research fellow for the Center on Economic and Financial
Power (CEFP) at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). For more
analysis from Max, please subscribe HERE. Follow FDD on X @FDD and @FDD_CEFP.
Follow Max on X @maxmeizlish. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan
research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
Hamas Haven Provided by Turkey Fuels Terror in the West
Bank
Sinan Ciddi & Ahmad Sharawi/FDD-Policy Brief/June 24/2026
Israel’s Shin Bet security agency announced that it had foiled dozens of planned
terror attacks in the West Bank directed by Hamas operatives in Turkey over the
past year.
According to the agency, operatives at the headquarters of Hamas in the West
Bank have been “directing and advancing extensive military activity into Judea
and Samaria and Israel from Turkish soil, including recruiting operatives to
carry out attacks and transferring weapons and funds into the area.”
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government has a long record of
operational and political support for Hamas, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist
Organization, even permitting senior leaders such as the late Ismail Haniyeh to
reside there. The terrorist organization has used its presence in Turkey as a
functional base for its actions in the West Bank through recruitment and the
transfer of funds to terror cells.
Hamas Operatives Released in 2011 Deal Roam Freely in Turkey
A closer look at the Turkey-based Hamas cell identified on June 21 reveals that
most of its operatives were released in the 2011 deal in which IDF soldier Gilad
Shalit, who was kidnapped by Hamas in June 2006, was exchanged for 1,027
Palestinian and Arab-Israeli prisoners.
Their number includes Walid Abu Nasser, also known as Walid al-Zir, who is from
Bethlehem. In 2025, he was part of a Hamas delegation that visited Palestinian
prisoners released by Israel in Egypt, alongside Majed Ja’aba, another
individual identified by the Shin Bet as facilitating Hamas terror attacks in
the West Bank. Israel alleges that Abu Nasser/al-Zir funds Hamas networks in
Bethlehem.
Ja’aba was also released as part of the Shalit deal. In 2017, the Shin Bet
claimed that Ja’aba, while living in the Gaza Strip, helped coordinate the
transfer of funds from Turkey to Hamas cells in Hebron. Israeli authorities now
allege that Ja’aba helped facilitate the transfer of weapons to a Hamas cell in
Hebron that carried out the November 2023 Tunnels Checkpoint attack, which
killed an IDF soldier.
Others identified include Muhammad Mallah, another Hamas operative released in
the Shalit deal, who is originally from Tulkarem. Mallah was sent to Syria
following his release in 2011 and then to Qatar. There is also Salam Yaish, a
Hamas operative from Nablus who operates from Turkey and is allegedly recruiting
operatives in his hometown to carry out attacks in the West Bank. In 2025, the
Israel Defense Forces warned residents in Nablus against contact with Yaish.
Finally, there is Ayman Sharawna, also released through the Shalit deal, who was
arrested by the IDF in 2002 for plotting an attack in the Israeli city of
Beersheba.
Turkey and Hamas: Partners in Terror
In 2014, Saleh al-Arouri, the late former deputy leader of Hamas, took advantage
of Ankara’s permissive environment to finance and order the kidnapping and
murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank. The abduction triggered a
50-day operation named “Protective Edge” in Gaza against the terror group.
Israeli security services have also alleged that Hamas worked with the
Turkey-based IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation, a charity with close links to
the government in Ankara, to access advanced satellite-mapping tools to improve
the accuracy of Hamas rockets targeting Israel.
Moreover, in September 2023 — just weeks before the October 7 atrocities in
Israel that resulted in the murder of more than 1,200 Israelis, alongside
widespread rape and the kidnapping of 251 hostages — Israeli customs seized 16
tons of explosive material shipped from Turkey to Gaza concealed among
construction supplies.
Washington Must Continue Targeting Hamas Operatives in Turkey
Washington should continue using its counterterrorism authorities, like
Executive Order 13224, to target those in Turkey enabling Hamas financing,
recruitment, and West Bank operations, starting with the cell identified by the
Shin Bet.
Other Turkey-based organizations also warrant scrutiny, including the
Association of Jerusalem and Our History, also known as KUTAD, a Hamas-linked
front run by Jihad Yaghmour, a U.S.-designated Hamas official in Turkey.
Yaghmour has hosted senior Hamas delegations and allegedly handled covert
activity for the group.
**Sinan Ciddi is a senior fellow and director of the Turkey Program at the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Ahmad Sharawi is a senior research
analyst. For more analysis from the authors and FDD, please subscribe HERE.
Follow Sinan and Ahmad on X @SinanCiddi and @AhmadA_Sharawi. FDD is a
Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on foreign policy
and national security.
From the Shah's Regime to the Guardianship of the
Islamic Jurist: Has the Prodigal Son Returned to His Mother's Embrace?
Tariq Izzat Dandash/Janoubia/June 24, 2026 (Translated from Arabic
by Google)
Since the Islamic Revolution overthrew the Shah's regime in 1979, a mental image
of Iran has been constructed as the United States' primary enemy in the Middle
East. But after nearly half a century, one is entitled to ask: Was the
relationship between Washington and Tehran a complete break, or was it a
conflict governed more by interests than by slogans?
In politics, relationships are not measured by what is said in public, but by
what is done behind closed doors. While Iranian rhetoric proclaimed hostility
towards the West, the facts revealed converging interests and indirect
understandings between the Islamic Republic and the United States. From the
Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, to the post-9/11 era, and culminating in the
2003 invasion of Iraq that toppled the Islamic Republic's biggest regional
rival, the picture appears more complex than a simple narrative of conflict
between two irreconcilable enemies. Iraq, which waged a bloody war against Iran
for eight years, was forcibly removed from the equation by American power. The
question here is not who triumphed over whom, but rather who benefited most from
the transformations the region witnessed. Then came the nuclear agreement under
former US President Barack Obama, confirming that the doors to negotiation were
never truly closed. After years of escalation and sanctions, the two sides sat
at the same table and reached understandings that proved interests can supersede
slogans when necessary. Ironically, the regime that presented itself for decades
as the spearhead against global capitalism succeeded in surviving and adapting
within the international system, while regimes and movements that raised similar
revolutionary slogans collapsed. This does not mean that the relationship
between Washington and Tehran was one of friendship, but it raises a legitimate
question about the nature and limits of this conflict. How many times did fronts
ignite while channels of communication remained open? And how many times did the
peoples of the region pay the price for confrontations while major interests
found their way to settlements? Today, with the new understandings and the
return of negotiation, the question becomes even more pressing: Has the Iranian
regime been an existential adversary of the United States for all these decades,
or a necessary partner in managing the region's balance of power? Is what we are
witnessing today a new shift in the relationship between the two sides, or
simply the return of the prodigal son to his mother's embrace? The answers may
vary depending on political stances, but one thing remains constant: history is
not written by slogans alone, but by results. When we examine the outcome of the
past decades, we find reasons to re-examine the traditional narrative of the
American-Iranian relationship, setting aside emotional biases.
US-Iranian Negotiations on Soft Ground..
Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali/Okaz/June 24, 2026 (Translated from
Arabic by Google)
The US-Iranian negotiations are taking place today on soft ground that can
barely support the steps of the negotiators, as the entire scene is based on a
deep-rooted lack of trust between two parties who exchange messages as much as
they exchange suspicions, to the point that each round seems closer to testing
the opponent's ability to endure than to trying to bridge the gap. Meanwhile,
the recent escalation in Lebanon and the rising tension around the Strait of
Hormuz place obstacles before any potential breakthrough that cannot be overcome
by intentions alone. Tehran does not come to the table seeking a quick
settlement, but rather invokes its familiar negotiating doctrine based on
"patience" and on drowning its opponent in endless technical details, until the
sixty-day deadline reveals itself to be a timeframe too narrow to accommodate
the logic of attrition that it has mastered. Because time, in Iranian
calculations, is not an enemy to be feared, but rather a tool to be managed with
cold patience, according to a vision that sees the agreement as a process to be
managed, not an end to be rushed towards. At the heart of this equation stands
the Strait of Hormuz as the sharpest tool of pressure that Iran will not
relinquish as long as a permanent agreement is absent, despite its awareness
that threatening to close it would throw it into open confrontation with the
international community and with the regional countries that share this vital
waterway with it. This confrontation could, in the long run, push towards
creating alternative routes for exporting energy via pipelines and ports that
bypass the strait and gradually diminish its value as a hostage in Tehran's
hands. The Lebanese file is inseparable from this conflict; indeed, it
constitutes one of its most complex aspects. Iran sees linking its front with
the Lebanese front as a strategic gain, granting it greater negotiating leverage
and additional bargaining chips. Meanwhile, Israel is exerting every effort to
separate the two arenas in order to deny Tehran this extension. The presence of
Israeli forces in southern Lebanon remains a genuine dilemma, weighing down the
process and transforming into a knot that is difficult to unravel without its
repercussions affecting the entire regional landscape. Southern Lebanon has even
become a litmus test for the seriousness of any promised truce. Amidst all this,
the role played by US Vice President J.D. Vance attracts considerable attention.
Because he transcends the boundaries of what previous vice presidents have been
accustomed to, the Iranian side perceives him as a more rational and flexible
figure with whom one can engage, moving away from the approach of negotiators
close to Israel that characterized previous phases. However, this role is not
understood solely in its external context, but rather falls within internal
arrangements of the Republican Party that anticipate the future and redistribute
centers of power in preparation for what is to come. Tehran seizes upon this as
a window that may widen if conditions ripen, or close quickly if the balance of
power within the United States shifts. The deeper tension remains inherent in
the clash between two conflicting doctrines: an Israeli security doctrine that
sees the perpetuation of a state of war as a condition for its survival and a
guarantee of deterrence, and a growing American desire to "cool down" the fronts
for economic and political considerations, foremost among them the midterm
elections, which compel Washington to reduce the cost of its involvement in the
region's conflicts. Between Israel's insistence on keeping the conflict ablaze
and the American effort to contain it, negotiations proceed haltingly, burdened
beyond their capacity, unable to promise more than a fragile truce that could
collapse at the first serious test. Thus, the desired settlement remains hostage
to a delicate balance between two wills that only converge at the precipice of
cost, while the entire region remains hostage to an outcome that has yet to
materialize.
Selected Face Book & X tweets on 24 June/2026
Hiba Nasr
A State Department Official on Lebanon Israel talks:
The second day of talks have begun. Israel and Lebanon are negotiating as two
sovereign states with the goal of finding long lasting peace and security. Our
shared goal is to end the cycle of violence for good. The talks continue to
advance a comprehensive peace and security between the two countries.
Tom Harb
In today’s negotiations at the U.S. State Department between Lebanon and Israel,
the Lebanese military officers left their seats to avoid being photographed with
the Israelis.
Members of Congress on the Appropriations Committees, Foreign Affairs / Foreign
Relations Committees, and Armed Services Committees have taken note of this
unprofessional conduct by the Lebanese Armed Forces. After years of substantial
U.S. training, equipment, and taxpayer support, this behavior raises serious
questions about the future of American funding for the Lebanese army.
A U.S.-backed military that refuses basic diplomatic protocol sends the wrong
message. Serious consequences for continued support will be on the table.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
A commission of three people, none of them speaks Arabic or Hebrew, that did not
travel to Israel or Gaza/West Bank, that did not interview Israeli officials and
only interviewed Palestinians who had traveled, came up with a verdict by
relying heavily on open sources, which mostly rely on Hamas fighters
masquerading as -“aJazeera” journalists.
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Hezbollah seems to be desperately trying to unblock the siege on the Ali Al-Taher
military tunnel city. Every day, it deploys two or more fighters masquerading as
civilians. Israel threatens then strikes them dead. Hezbollah starts whining
Israel killed civilians. The UN Inquiry will count them as children in its next
report.
Excerpt from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remarks, today, at the Federation
of Local Authorities in Israel Conference:
Prime Minister of Israel
“It’s true, Hezbollah is still in Lebanon, but there is something else there
now. Today, there is a security zone there that prevents Hezbollah and its
remnants from invading the Galilee, because that was the plan. We are destroying
all of this underground infrastructure. I was there in southern Lebanon and I
saw it; it’s unbelievable. It is simply different. We
still have work to do, especially on what I call the 'Manhattan Project' – we
will be the first in the world to solve the explosive drone problem, which is a
global issue, and we are solving it.
'But you haven't solved it 100%.' True, but we are on our way. If we had
followed your suggestion to stop at Rafah, we would have gotten nada, zero,
gornisht, nothing. I don't know how many languages are spoken here. Zero. That
is not who we are.
And then we continued – Syria. Here, too, they told us not to enter; they said
it wasn't wise, speaking with such hesitation. We entered with all our might,
and we also saved our Druze brothers, whom I salute. We will protect our Druze
brothers and we will never abandon them. We have protected them, and we will
protect them! And then we did what no one believed we
would do. Because over the years, I have dedicated most of my adult life to
preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons; I saw it as an existential
threat to our survival. I do not want the thousands-of-years-old existence of
the Jewish people to be cut short by these Ayatollahs acquiring nuclear weapons.
We carried out operations, mostly with the Mossad, inside Iran, all kinds of
operations, but they told us: 'A military operation in Iran? You are forbidden
from doing that.' 'Eliminating the leadership of Iran? No, no, not that.' So I
did not listen to them, and I led Operation Rising Lion. I chose this name, 'A
people shall rise like a lion' – because we have a nation of lions and an army
of lions, and I told them: 'Go in – we will enter with all our might.'
I also told President Trump, well, two presidents, Biden first of all,
when they told me 'Do not enter Rafah.' Do you know why they said 'Do not enter
Rafah'? Because the President of the United States said he would halt the
weapons supply. I said I respect him very much, and he even came here at the
beginning of the war, but we have no choice, we will enter – and if we must, we
will fight with our fingernails. Because there are moments when you must know
how to tell even the President of the United States what we stand for.When I
came to President Trump before Operation Rising Lion, I told him: 'We are going
into Iran, because I am not waiting for these oppressors who declare openly that
they want to destroy us, and you too, by the way, I told him, but us first. I
will not let that happen. Therefore, we are taking action.' I didn't ask for
permission; I simply informed him of our plan. To my joy, he also joined toward
the end with a very important action.
But they said 'it’s impossible.' Don't do it. Don't get entangled, because Iran
will come and destroy our cities and our citizens, and thousands, if not tens of
thousands, will die. So the very same people who told us don't enter Gaza, don't
enter Rafah, don't enter Lebanon, don't enter Syria, don't enter Iran, Master of
the Universe, don't destroy their leadership... Today, they come and tell us,
'But you didn't finish the job.' They, who wanted zero, come and tell us, 'You
didn't achieve 100%, only 80-90%.' There is still work to do, it is not over,
that is true, but who will do it? If you don't have true leadership, not what
they put in the talking points of various advertising agencies.
When you are tested on the ground, just as our commanders are tested on
the ground, then the only thing that speaks is the result. And the result is
monumental! There is still work to do in Gaza, in Lebanon, and against Iran, but
I want to tell you two things: As long as I am Prime Minister, Iran will not
have nuclear weapons. And one more thing: As long as I am Prime Minister, we
will maintain the security zone in southern Lebanon. For as long as it takes, we
will maintain the security of the North, and together, we have also done a great
deal for prosperity."
Sam Jundi
Call me crazy, but as an American 🇺🇸 citizen born in Lebanon 🇱🇧, I haven’t
been able to enter the country I was born in for 11 years, not because I’m a
criminal, but simply because I spoke out against the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its proxies, Hizbollah and Amal militias.
Yet I can pack my bags today, travel to Israel 🇮🇱 tomorrow, and be treated
with respect and dignity like any other person. So I ask: who is the real enemy?
The one that has occupied and controlled Lebanon for 40+ years… or the neighbor
that seeks peace and prosperity?
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
Hezbollah ramps up its instigation against Lebanese army officer who is blocking
their smuggling at the Beirut Airport. Hezbollah usually ends up assassinating
those they wage campaigns against.
Lebanon has to either fight Hezbollah with force, aka civil war, or live under
Hezbollah’s brutal tyranny.
Rep Josh Gottheimer
The Lebanese people have made clear: they don't want to live under the boot of
the Iranian regime. That's why @RepMikeLawler and I are introducing a bipartisan
resolution demanding Iran’s proxy Hezbollah disarm and cease its attacks
immediately.