English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For June 30/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.june30.26.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
The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest
Matthew 09/36-38: "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest"

Titles For Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on 29-30 June/2026
In Memory of Blessed Father Yaacoub the Capuchin, The Mind of Christ Written in Deeds and Mercy/Elias Bejjani/June 26/ 2026
The Jihadists of Political Islam, Both Sunni and Shiite, Are Dragging the Middle East Back to the Stone Age/Elias Bejjani/June 26/2026
Katz: Trump's Pressure on Netanyahu Prevented Hezbollah's Collapse... We Won't Withdraw Before Disarming It
Netanyahu and Katz in the Majdalzoun Tunnel: Israel Blackmails the Lebanese Army
Israel sets a condition for peace with Lebanon: End the Iranian occupation!
Israeli Army Attacks Hezbollah Headquarters... Evening Bombing in Markaba
The security annex to the framework agreement revealed... and its key provisions
Will US Pressure Lead to the Dismissal of the Army Commander?
Regarding the visit of the US Central Command Commander... a statement from the embassy! Transparency
Top US admiral in Beirut to discuss US-backed deal with Israel
US Embassy says Washington agreement establishes a “clear process to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty and disarm Hezbollah”
CENTCOM Commander Discusses Implementation of Security Annex to Framework Agreement with Israel in Beirut / Tel Aviv Speaks of Freedom of Movement and Delayed Withdrawal from Southern Lebanon
Framework Agreement... Aoun: We Will Extend State Authority to the Southern International Border
Washington is a partner in implementing the agreement... and Cooper's tour to discuss the "practical path"
A "Conditional" Green Light: How Did Washington Buy "Calm in the Southern Suburbs" with Tehran's Money?
Hezbollah saw nothing in the agreement but the exclusion of Iran... Will the state adhere to its implementation?
Washington Shifts from Crisis Management to Imposing Solutions, and Aoun Accepts the Challenge
UAE lifts travel ban for Lebanon: WAM
Israel-Lebanon deal may entrench stalemate rather than end war, analysts say
Video link: Commentary by journalist Ali Hamadeh: Hezbollah fails to form a front against Presidents Aoun and Salam!
US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper is in Beirut to discuss details for conducting a test in two experimental areas.
Al-Shaibani to Beirut with a Message of Reassurance: Syria Has No Intention of Military Intervention
Berri: Lebanon-Israel Agreement is a “Dictation” and Will Not Be Implemented
Hezbollah-allied Lebanese parliament head says US-Israel-Lebanon deal ‘will not pass’
Berri to Al-Modon: The Agreement is Self-Destructive and a Danger to Syria; Thanks to Jumblatt
Salam after the UAE decision: It embodies the strength of relations and renews confidence in Lebanon
Jumblatt rejects the framework agreement... but calls for limiting weapons and ending Hezbollah's wars
Jumblatt: How sweet the May 17 Agreement is compared to today's agreement!
Bayram: The Resistance Will Remain as Long as the Occupation Remains
Ihab Hamadeh: The Framework Agreement Violates the Constitution and the National Pact
Hajj Hassan: The Framework Agreement is a Project of Sedition
Statement from the Lebanese Renaissance Gathering: Yes to holding the leaders of the duo accountable for the decision to wage war and to recovering the looted funds
Said Ghattas: Peace is coming.
Cancer is a malignant and devastating disease. Even after treatment ends, the body still struggles to repair the damage caused by radiation/chemotherapy. It's a very long process./Ibtissam Keedy/Face Book/June 29/2026
The “Resistance Axis” That Has Mastered the Obstruction of Lebanon’s Progress for Four Decades/Abdallah Khoury/Facebook/June 29, 2026

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on 29-30 June/2026
Trump says Iran meeting to be held Tuesday in Doha, envoys Witkoff and Kushner to attend
Iran’s president says $6 billion of Iranian assets in Qatar to be released
Iran says no talks with US scheduled in coming days
De-mining of the Strait of Hormuz to be carried out only by Iran, deputy FM says
Qatar advises temporary suspension of sailing and fishing, commercial shipping exempt
Gaza health officials say three killed in Israeli drone strike
Syria slams Israeli incursions after violence in south
Turkey ‘strongly condemns’ Israeli incursions in Syria
Iraq sets September 30 deadline for pro-Iran militias to disarm
UK’s long-awaited defense plan allocates £5 billion to drones

Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on 29-30 June/2026
Paper Agreements Will Not Disarm Terrorists/Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute./June 29, 2026
Escalation against neighbors, Iran’s strategic miscalculation in the Gulf/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya English/29 June ,2026
Iran's 'Deal': What Happens After Trump?/Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/June 29, 2026
The Transformation of Mount Annaya into the Monastery of the Transfiguration, then a Hermitage/George Hayek/June 29/ 2026
A Review of the Book: “Ain Ebel, May 5, 1920: The Anniversary of the Great Sacrifice for Lebanon”By Colonel Charbel Barakat
Dilemmes sécuritaires et dilemmes de souveraineté /Charles Chartouni/ ici beyrouth/29 juin 2026
Security Dilemmas and Sovereignty Dilemmas/Dr. Charles Chartouni/Jun e 29/2026
The agreement Hezbollah feared and Lebanon needed/Makram Rabah/Al Arabiya English/29 June ,2026
How do we present the "Framework Agreement" to the chorus of accusations of treason?/Nabil Boumonsef/Al-Nahar Al-Arabi/June 29, 2026
Thank you, loyal Iran! For what?/Jean Al-Faghali/Nidaa Al-Watan/June 29, 2026

Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on 29-30 June/2026
In Memory of Blessed Father Yaacoub the Capuchin, The Mind of Christ Written in Deeds and Mercy
Elias Bejjani/June 26/ 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155563/
In the spiritual depths of Christianity, faith does not stop at the boundaries of theoretical contemplation or passing emotional sentiments. Rather, it is a permanent movement of love—constantly ascending toward God and constantly bending down toward humanity. Saint James formulated this essential truth with a decisive, definitive phrase in his epistle when he said: “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17).
This living faith, which does not settle for saying “Lord, Lord,” is the very divine spark that ignited the heart of Blessed Father Yaacoub the Capuchin. Khalil Haddad (Father Yaacoub) was not a monk who locked the Gospel between the covers of a book; rather, he embodied it as a “living Gospel” walking upon the earth. He realized that words without actions are an empty echo, so he translated his watchful prayers into writing—penned with the sweat of his brow and the tears of service—upon the bodies of the sick, the tears of the hungry, the elderly priests, and the abandoned.
The faith-driven motivation for Father Yaacoub sprang from seeing the face of Christ mysteriously present in every broken human being. He did not view a psychiatric patient at “The Convent of the Cross” or an elderly priest at “Christ the King” as a social burden. Instead, he saw Christ Himself in them, who said: “Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). Therefore, his faith transformed into a silent, mighty “revolution of love,” mirroring the commandment of John the Apostle: “Let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth” (1 John 3:18).
Identity and Roots: Who is Khalil Haddad?
Blessed Father Yaacoub the Capuchin (Khalil Haddad) whose feast the Church celebrates today was born in the historic Keserwan town of Ghazir, Lebanon, on February 01, 1875. His real name before donning the monastic habit was Khalil Haddad. Khalil grew up in a pious family that taught him the love of God and self-sacrificing service. He received his early education in the town’s school, then moved to La Sagesse (Al-Hikma) School in Beirut, where he stood out for his sharp intelligence and linguistic eloquence. In the midst of his successes, he felt a powerful monastic calling pressing upon his heart. He did not hesitate; he chose the path of poverty, humility, and hard labor with the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin.
The Secret of the Altar: When and how was he ordained a priest?
After completing his deep monastic and theological studies and professing his solemn vows, Khalil Haddad was ordained a priest on November 01, 1901, in the Church of Saint Anthony of Padua of the Capuchin Fathers in Beirut. On that sacred day, he took the name “Father Yaacoub” (known popularly as “Abouna Yaacoub”). From the moment he wore the priestly vestments, he launched into a continuous workshop of spiritual and social labor whose flame never dimmed throughout the long decades of his life.
A Revolution of Love: What are his most prominent achievements?
Father Yaacoub was not a monk content with contemplative prayers within the walls of a cell; he was a man of the field who ran after human pain wherever it was found. The medical and educational institutions he scattered across the hills of Lebanon were not merely administrative achievements, but a practical rendering of his deep-rooted faith. Among his most prominent achievements were:
*Establishing the Congregation of the Franciscan Sisters of the Cross (1930): Which became the executive and spiritual arm managing his massive institutions and caring for the abandoned.
*Launching a Comprehensive Educational Renaissance: By establishing free schools in remote villages and towns to empower children of the poor classes to receive an education.
*Establishing the “Library of Love”: As a tool to spread culture, awareness, and spiritual and moral literacy.
*Building the Monument of “Our Lady of the Mountain” and the “Shrine of the Cross of Lebanon”: In the Jal El Dib region, to serve as a unifying spiritual beacon gathering the Lebanese people around the Cross.
Citadels of Humanity: The institutions he built and helped launch
He believed that every stone he raised to shelter an orphan or an elderly person was a physical prayer ascending to heaven. By virtue of this faith, Father Yaacoub became a complete “social and health safety net” embodied in a single man. Here are the humanitarian citadels he constructed:
*The Convent of the Cross Hospital (Jal El Dib): The most prominent and largest institution, dedicated to receiving psychiatric and mental health patients, as well as those abandoned on the streets whom society had cast away and who had no breadwinner.
*Our Lady of the Sea Hospital (Byblos/Jbeil): A distinguished health center fully dedicated to the care of chronic patients and the elderly.
*Saint Joseph Hospital and School (Dora): To serve working-class and poor families in the suburbs of Beirut, securing free medical care and education for their children.
*Christ the King Convent (Zouk Mosbeh): A unique, exceptional institution dedicated exclusively to housing elderly and sick priests and monks, honoring their old age and long service to the parish.
*Our Lady of Hope Hospital (Baalbek): To extend the bridges of care and medical services to the beloved Beqaa region.
*The Home for the Elderly (Al-Mina, Tripoli): To serve the elderly and the homeless abandoned in northern Lebanon.
*Free Schools: He founded more than 15 free schools in various Lebanese regions to support the families most in need.
The Embracing Father: The humanitarian role of Yaacoub the Capuchin
Father Yaacoub’s role as a true social safety valve manifested during difficult periods that Lebanon endured, particularly following the aftermath of World War I and the Great Famine. He never discriminated based on sect, denomination, or religion. He used to roam the country gathering donations with the boldness of a defender of truth and the humility of a monk, until he was nicknamed in popular circles as the “Beggar of Charity.” Through his life, he proved that a priest is not just someone who preaches from a pulpit, but someone who washes the wounds of humanity with the shroud of mercy, walking in the footsteps of his Master who “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). He focused his utmost attention on the groups from which society turned away in shame or marginalized, restoring human dignity to their hearts.
The Crossing to Heaven: A legacy renewed every year
After a journey filled with total self-giving and supreme benevolence, Father Yaacoub the Capuchin slept in the odor of sanctity on June 26, 1954, at the age of 79. Given his pure life overflowing with miracles and signs of grace, Pope Benedict XVI declared him Blessed upon the altars of the Universal Catholic Church in a historic and solemn celebration witnessed at Martyrs’ Square in Beirut on June 22, 2008. The Church designated June 26 as his annual feast day, which is the day of his crossing into the heavenly chambers.
Father Yaacoub the Capuchin remains the greatest witness in our modern history that deeds are the soul and pulse of faith, and that true faith is the one that speaks the language of tireless giving.
The Prayer of Father Yaacoub from His Heavenly Abode for Suffering Lebanon
From the heights of your heaven, O Father of the Poor and Apostle of Mercy, where you stand today alongside the righteous and the saints in the presence of the Lord of Glory, look down with a tender, fatherly gaze upon your homeland, which lies beneath the Golgotha of pain. Lebanon—whose hills you stamped with the kisses of prayer and above whose peaks you raised the Cross of Redemption—groans today under the weight of suffering, its dignity gnawed at by forces of occupation, injustice, and displacement.
O Beggar of Charity, we implore you today to be our fervent intercessor before the Divine Throne:
Intercede for the suffering and the displaced: O you who sheltered the abandoned without a home, wipe away the tears of families that have been displaced, protect the children whose innocence has been stolen, and be a support for every soul broken by hunger and oppression.
Liberate this occupied nation: O you who fought with your free faith against injustice and reliance on mortals, pray so that Lebanon may shake off from its shoulders the dust of dependency and occupation, and that its plundered sovereignty and dignity may return to it, so that it remains a nation of freedom and a message.
Cultivate within us the spirit of solidarity and action: Just as you transformed your faith into citadels of mercy and institutions, pray so that faith does not die in our hearts, but rather embodies itself in deeds of love and steadfastness, so that we may support one of another in these difficult days.
O our Father Yaacoub, you who closed your eyes upon the land of Lebanon while commanding love, do not leave the Land of the Cedars to fall into the abyss of oblivion. Be a safety valve for us from your heavenly abode, and pray to Christ the King to dispel the darkness of this long night, so that Lebanon may rise from the tomb of its suffering victorious, with a glorious resurrection that bears witness to the power of life and truth.
Amen.
NB: The information in this study is cited from various documented ecclesiastical, theological, research, and media references.

The Jihadists of Political Islam, Both Sunni and Shiite, Are Dragging the Middle East Back to the Stone Age
Elias Bejjani/June 26/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155539/
The catastrophe caused by those who are intellectually and culturally backward—the flag-bearers of Takfirism (excommunication) and fundamentalism—represents an overt practice of the culture of death and barbarism. In their dictionary, a human being is a creature stripped of any distinction that separates them from non-human entities. In their culture, human life carries no value, no dignity, no freedom, no sanctity, and no rights. Today, Takfiri and fundamentalist groups spread corruption, murder, destruction, and displacement across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Egypt, as well as several African nations, committing the most heinous massacres against humanity.
The forced displacement of Christians from Arab and Islamic countries is an inherently barbaric act. It is a fully-fledged crime entirely devoid of ethics, civilization, faith, and the fear of God. These groups are nothing more than instruments of slaughter, completely detached from human nature after stripping themselves of their own humanity.
One of the most profound tragedies witnessed by the Middle East in recent decades is the accelerating collapse of the historic Christian presence. From Iraq to Syria, Egypt to Gaza, and onward to Sudan, Nigeria, Turkey, and Lebanon, the Christian presence is tragically receding under the weight of religious violence, extremism, and the rise of Political Islam in its various jihadist manifestations.
Political Islam, in both its Sunni and Shiite schools, has fostered a hostile environment for religious and cultural pluralism. While Sunni Takfiri groups raised the banners of jihad, slaughter, and religious cleansing, armed Shiite factions practiced an equally dangerous sectarian approach and dominance across multiple Arab arenas. The ultimate result has been the displacement of millions, the destruction of historical communities, and the undermining of the foundations of coexistence.
In Iraq: Christians faced one of the largest uprooting operations in their modern history. Ancient towns and villages in Mosul and the Nineveh Plains were emptied of their inhabitants following terror campaigns led by jihadist organizations. Properties were confiscated, churches were torched, and families were forced to choose between displacement or death.
In Syria: The war and the rise of extremist Islamic factions drove massive numbers of Christians to emigrate. Historic Christian towns faced attacks, kidnappings, and extortion, as the Takfiri ideology transformed into a destructive force against all forms of pluralism and openness.
In Egypt: For decades, Copts have lived under the threat of sectarian assaults and terrorist attacks targeting churches, worshippers, and clergy. Despite official and security efforts, fears persist regarding an extremist ideology that views Christians as second-class citizens.
In Gaza: The Christian presence has shrunk dramatically due to being caught between the hammer of violence and wars, Islamist control, and ongoing conflict, forcing the vast majority to emigrate in search of safety.
In Turkey: The Christian presence (comprising Armenians, Greeks, and Syriacs) has dwindled to a tiny fraction of the population after a century of upheavals, displacement, and profound demographic shifts.
In Africa (Sudan and Nigeria): Decades of political Islamization contributed to tearing Sudan apart and weakening its Christian presence. Meanwhile, armed jihadist groups in Nigeria continue to attack villages and churches to sow terror across vast regions.
This catastrophe is not confined to the Middle East and Africa. Many critics of Political Islam argue that certain Islamist movements in the West seek to export these conflicts to Western societies by demanding special religious privileges or seeking to impose social and cultural norms derived from Islamic Sharia onto societies fundamentally built on secularism, democracy, and individual liberties. The danger here lies not in Muslims as individuals and citizens, but in the political ideologies that prioritize ideological allegiance over the values of citizenship and integration.
Consequently, defending persecuted Christians and minorities is not a sectarian religious issue; it is a human, cultural, and moral cause. Societies from which diversity is expelled and where religious freedoms are suppressed are societies inevitably marching toward tyranny and collapse. The Middle East will not rise as long as it remains captive to the culture of Takfirism, sectarianism, jihad, and fundamentalism. There is no future for stability except through the establishment of civil states that respect human beings, safeguard freedoms, and place the law above all religious ideologies.
The Reality of Christians in the “Land of the Cedars”
In Lebanon, facts indicate that Christians face a gradual existential threat that is no longer limited to emigration and declining numbers, but now directly endangers their land, identity, and political role. Over the past decades, large-scale demographic changes have escalated through the transfer of real estate ownership—by coercion, intimidation, or financial inducements—in predominantly Christian areas to entities linked to the political, financial, and military influence of the Shiite Duo (Amal Movement and Hezbollah).
In this context, the area known today as the Southern Suburbs of Beirut historically encompassed vast expanses and towns of a distinctly Christian character before wars, displacement, and security, political, and economic pressures led to a massive shift in its demographic fabric. Today, warnings are repeatedly raised regarding intensive purchasing operations and the expropriation of properties and real estate in regions across Keserwan, Jbeil, the Beqaa, the South, and Mount Lebanon, as part of a long-term demographic plan aimed at expanding the spheres of influence belonging to the Shiite Duo.
The existence of Hezbollah as a military and security force parallel to the state—and indeed, one that hijacks its decision-making—has created an imbalanced reality. This has left many Christians and other Lebanese powerless to confront the real estate, security, and political expansion practiced by the Iranian axis. The continuation of this trajectory threatens historic Lebanese pluralism and undermines the national partnership upon which Greater Lebanon was founded since its inception.
In conclusion: Protecting the Christian presence in Lebanon cannot be achieved through slogans, dhimmitude (subservience), and turning a blind eye to the frightening and terrorizing realities practiced by Christian political leaders and the clerical shepherds of their churches. Instead, it requires enforcing the state’s full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory, restricting weapons exclusively to legitimate state institutions, and preventing any disguised demographic changes imposed by force of influence or skewed power balances. This is vital to safeguarding the right of all Lebanese to remain in their land and preserve their historical identity and heritage.

Katz: Trump's Pressure on Netanyahu Prevented Hezbollah's Collapse... We Won't Withdraw Before Disarming It
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz stated that the pressure exerted by US President Donald Trump on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the Lebanese front led to a change in the course of military operations, adding that this "contributed to strengthening Hezbollah's presence in southern Lebanon and preventing its collapse." Katz explained during a briefing for military journalists on Monday that Washington's linking of the Lebanese and Iranian files was "in America's interest," noting that Israel was forced to modify its military plans after this shift. He added that the Israeli army had been carrying out extensive operations in Lebanon, but stopped targeting buildings in Beirut after the Trump administration linked the negotiations with Iran to the situation on the Lebanese front.
The Alternative Plan
Furthermore, Katz emphasized that "Hezbollah would have fallen had the two arenas not been linked," adding that Israel moved to the "alternative plan," which is based on expanding the security zone in southern Lebanon instead of continuing large-scale operations. He also noted that the change in the American position came after a phone call between Trump and Netanyahu, in which he did not participate. He said that the American president exerted pressure on the Israeli prime minister during that call, which led to the adoption of a new policy toward Lebanon. He pointed out that this shift allowed for the return of residents to southern Lebanon and also enabled Hezbollah to strengthen its presence in the region, as he put it.
We will stay for a long time.
Regarding the implementation of the framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel, the Israeli minister affirmed that the Israeli army will maintain its presence in southern Lebanon for an extended period and will not withdraw before Hezbollah is disarmed. He said that Israel "has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon," but believes that ensuring the security of its northern border requires disarming Hezbollah before any military withdrawal.
Katz also expressed doubt about the Lebanese army's ability to carry out this task, saying that "the Lebanese army will not suddenly transform into lions attacking Hezbollah," indicating Tel Aviv's continued skepticism about the Lebanese state's ability to impose its full control in the south. These statements came as negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, sponsored by the United States, continue following the signing of a framework agreement in Washington aimed at reaching permanent security arrangements. These arrangements include a phased Israeli withdrawal concurrent with the deployment of the Lebanese army and the implementation of agreed-upon security measures. However, disagreements persist regarding the withdrawal timeline and the mechanisms for disarming Hezbollah. The statements also came amidst strained US-Israeli relations stemming from the Iran nuclear deal and its implications for Lebanon.

Netanyahu and Katz in the Majdalzoun Tunnel: Israel Blackmails the Lebanese Army
Farah Mansour/Al-Modon/June 30, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
No sooner had a few days passed since the signing of the latest security "framework agreement" between Beirut and Tel Aviv, under American auspices, than the Israeli leadership rushed back into the media minefield. In a striking joint statement signed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, Tel Aviv announced the destruction of a Hezbollah tunnel in the town of Majdalzoun in southern Lebanon, measuring 200 meters long and 25 meters deep, as part of what it called "Operation Finale." The explosion, which used more than 80 tons of explosives, split the town in two with its immense force, and the sound of the blast was heard far beyond the immediate area. This announcement was preceded by an attack led by the Israeli army spokesperson, Captain Ella Wawiya, who directly accused the Lebanese army, claiming that it had "failed in its duty" south of the Litani River and had not dealt with this tunnel. However, this intense media blitz, which Tel Aviv was careful to accompany with a statement claiming that Washington had been "informed in advance of the operation," cannot be interpreted in isolation from the critical political timing. A close examination of the field data obtained by Al-Modon from informed sources reveals that the Israeli targeting of the Lebanese military establishment at this particular juncture is not a response to a security breach, but rather a preemptive attempt to blackmail the army and engineer a new reality on the ground that imposes specific interpretive conditions on the nascent "framework agreement."
The Majdalzoun Tunnel: The Truth Debunks the Propaganda
Documented data confirms that the tunnel in the town of Majdalzoun (Wadi Hassan) was not initially on any reconnaissance lists, neither by the Lebanese army nor even by the Israeli intelligence agencies, which have long boasted of possessing a comprehensive survey of southern Lebanon. The Israeli army only recently discovered this tunnel during its ground incursions. The irrefutable proof of this lies in the Israeli military's own conduct. If Tel Aviv had prior knowledge of the tunnel's existence, it would not have hesitated for a moment to target or attempt to destroy it through intensive airstrikes, even in the period preceding the outbreak of the last war. Recent history provides a clear example: all the facilities about which the occupation possessed precise information, such as the "Ali al-Taher" facility, were targeted with concentrated and intense military force before and during the war. Therefore, accusing the Lebanese army of "negligence" in dealing with a secret tunnel whose existence was unknown to anyone is a blatant logical and military contradiction. Moreover, there is a crucial geographical and operational detail that refutes the Israeli claims. The Majdalzoun tunnel is located deep within the urban fabric, that is, "inside the town," not in its wooded areas or open outskirts. This logistical difference completely alters the nature of military surveillance in peacetime. Such clandestine constructions within private properties and populated residential areas are difficult to detect without precise above-ground intelligence, data which was unavailable to any party before the ground incursion. Moreover, in the weeks leading up to the new war, extensive discussions took place within the "Mechanism" committee regarding the inspection of private property without a judicial warrant. The American position was closer to the Lebanese viewpoint on respecting private property rights during inspections, that is, within legal frameworks.
The Extortion Trap: From Qantara to Bypassing International Channels
In the same vein, the tunnel in the town of Qantara stands out as another example of ongoing Israeli disinformation. This tunnel, whose demolition was broadcast by Israeli military media to embarrass Beirut, was in fact a tunnel that had been "completely deactivated" by the Lebanese army some time ago. While reinforcing its deployment south of the Litani River, the Lebanese army had emptied the Qantara tunnel of any weapons or equipment, rendering it entirely inoperable, leaving it as a mere empty concrete structure underground. When the occupying soldiers entered it, they knew full well that it was a "militarily dead" tunnel. Nevertheless, it was detonated and presented as a strategic achievement to serve the narrative of "Lebanese army incompetence." The troubling question here is: why are Netanyahu and Katz so insistent on exaggerating these operations and targeting the Lebanese army, coinciding with the signing of the framework agreement? The answer lies in Israel's underlying desire to blackmail the military establishment, forcibly drawing it into "direct communication" channels with the Israeli side under the weight of media and field threats. Through this pressure, Tel Aviv seeks to circumvent the UN umbrella (UNIFIL), bypass the "mechanism committee," and disregard American mediation. Israel wants to create a reality that imposes direct security coordination, bypassing official international channels.
The Israeli propaganda campaign continues with claims of finding drones and launch platforms inside the Majdalzoun tunnel, attempting to suggest that the tunnel posed an imminent strategic threat or served as a launchpad for sophisticated operations against northern towns. However, informed sources confirm to Al-Modon that the drones found inside the tunnel are Iranian-made, older models, practically out of service. These drones bear no resemblance whatsoever to the current arsenal Hezbollah relies on in its operations, as the party now employs advanced systems based on fiber optic technology and complex digital control. This technical detail further proves that the targeted tunnel was not a vital, active facility in the current conflict, but rather a storage facility of no military value by Hezbollah's new standards, discovered by the occupation forces by chance and exploited for political gain.
The Army's Record: The American "Mechanism" Bears Witness
Accusing the Lebanese Army of negligence deliberately ignores the immense achievements and tremendous efforts exerted by Lebanese military units during the fifteen months preceding the war. According to figures and data, the Lebanese Army successfully and decisively dealt with more than 100 tunnels and military installations in the area south of the Litani River, dismantling them completely. The irony here is that many of these tunnels dismantled by the Lebanese Army far surpassed the Majdalzoun tunnel in military importance, size, and scale. These operations were not conducted in secret, but rather under the full supervision and guidance of the Joint "Mechanism" Committee, which includes prominent American officers and senior leaders from the US Central Command (CENTCOM). This international committee is fully aware of the operational effort undertaken by the Lebanese Army to maintain stability and implement international resolutions, and it bears witness to the falsity of the Israeli accusations.
In conclusion, it is clear that the Israeli propaganda campaign, culminating in the Netanyahu-Katz statement regarding the Majdalzoun tunnel, is not merely an isolated security incident, but rather an early Israeli attempt to impose its will on the new framework agreement through force. By continuing its operations under the guise of "final action" and demonizing the Lebanese army, Israel seeks to justify the continued presence of its forces in the "expanded security zone" and to impose harsh conditions on the ground under the pretext that the Lebanese army is not ready to assume its responsibilities.

Israel sets a condition for peace with Lebanon: End the Iranian occupation!
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar stated that "peace with Lebanon is possible on the condition that the Iranian occupation of Lebanon through Hezbollah ends." He said: "Iranian influence in Lebanon is what prompted Hezbollah to attack Israel on March 2nd."

Israeli Army Attacks Hezbollah Headquarters... Evening Bombing in Markaba
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
The Israeli army carried out a bombing in the town of Markaba in southern Lebanon on Monday evening. Its artillery targeted the town of Haddatha in the Bint Jbeil district. Israeli warplanes launched an airstrike, targeting the area between Qantara and Deir Siryan. Earlier in the day, heavy Israeli artillery shelling targeted the outskirts of Deir Siryan towards the Litani River. A drone dropped a stun grenade on the Ghassan Daher quarry on the Ibl al-Saqi road. Several houses in the towns of Majdal Zoun and Mansouri were reportedly damaged as a result of the bombings carried out by the Israeli army last night. The Israeli army conducted a large-scale search operation using heavy machine guns in the town of Khiam at night, amidst heavy gunfire throughout the area. Israeli forces also bombed residential buildings in the towns of In Taybeh and Hadatha, sound bombs were dropped near civilians in Burj Qalawiya and Barashit. In response, IDF Spokesperson Avichai Adraee wrote on the "X" platform: "Last night, the Air Force attacked three Hezbollah terrorist sites in the Nabatieh and Mefdoun areas of southern Lebanon. These strikes came in response to Hezbollah's continued targeting of our forces operating in the security zone. In another strike carried out earlier yesterday, IDF forces attacked a Hezbollah terrorist launch site, which continues its attempts to target IDF forces." Adraee emphasized that "the IDF will continue to work to eliminate every threat targeting its forces and will not allow Hezbollah to harm the citizens of the State of Israel." https://twitter.com/i/status/2071488224489312406

The security annex to the framework agreement revealed... and its key provisions
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Hiba Nasr published the security annex to the Lebanese-Israeli-American framework agreement.
She stated that the document below constitutes the confidential "Security Annex" of the "Tripartite Framework": (Preliminary Translation)
1. "Definition of Pilot Areas:
The Parties shall immediately define and commence implementation of the first pilot area in the South Litani sector, within an agreed-upon military planning process based on a four-phase model:
1. Clearance: Taking legal measures against all non-state armed elements engaged in unauthorized activities, and destroying, disabling, or rendering unusable their associated infrastructure, including but not limited to weapons, arms depots, tunnels, and command centers belonging to these non-state armed groups.
2. Verification: Verification of the complete removal of all non-state armed groups and their military infrastructure by a third party agreed upon by the Parties.
3. Deployment: Deployment of highly efficient units of the Lebanese Armed Forces to assume and maintain exclusive operational control, preventing any resurgence of non-state armed groups.
4. Reconstruction: The Lebanese state shall lead the reconstruction efforts, with the support of the international community and in coordination with the political process.
2. Implementation and Verification:
The Lebanese Armed Forces shall undertake The implementation of this model will be led by the Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MCG4L), whose success will be measured by the verifiable implementation of the disarmament and deconstruction process, as agreed upon within the framework of these negotiations. Lebanon and Israel will establish the MCG4L, which will operate 24/7 to manage deconfliction, verification, and overall implementation. This group will report to the relevant political authorities in both Lebanon and Israel through indirect military channels between the two sides. Verification will continue in parallel with the deconfliction process.
3. Security Commitments:
The Lebanese Armed Forces commit to taking the necessary operational measures to ensure the disarmament of Hezbollah and all other non-state armed groups, and to ensure that they do not possess any military role or capability within Lebanon.
4. Gradual Redeployment: Subject to the completion of an agreed and verifiable disarmament and deconstruction process, Israel commits to a phased reduction and redeployment of its forces, contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions, leading to withdrawal from Lebanese territory. This process will be planned and sequenced through the MCG4L, in conjunction with the Lebanese Armed Forces' deployment. Lebanese.
1. Desired Outcome:
Within the broader effort to disarm all non-state armed groups and dismantle their military structures, as agreed upon within the framework of these negotiations, the Lebanese state will regain full authority over all Lebanese territory, and Israel’s long-term security will be guaranteed.
2. Oversight and Dispute Resolution:
The parties, with facilitation from the United States, will conduct periodic reviews of the implementation of this Annex and may amend it by mutual agreement. Any disputes concerning its interpretation or implementation will be resolved through trilateral discussions.

Will US Pressure Lead to the Dismissal of the Army Commander?
Transparency.com/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Political sources told Al-Jadeed that the issue of US pressure to replace or dismiss Army Commander General Rudolph Haykal was the subject of serious discussion at the presidential level. They indicated that a solution involving replacing all security chiefs, with the exception of the Director General of General Security, Major General Hassan Shqeir, was considered, but the discussion concluded that the idea was premature. According to the information, the Army Commander maintains his previous stance of not resigning. However, if the political authority deems it necessary, the Cabinet should decide. Meanwhile, military sources confirmed that the military institution remains steadfast in its approach to national and internal issues, adhering to its principles and priorities. Military sources also confirmed to MTV that President Aoun's relationship with the Army Commander is excellent, and any claims to the contrary are merely attempts by those negatively affected by the agreement to sow discord between them.

Regarding the visit of the US Central Command Commander... a statement from the embassy! Transparency
Online/June 29, 2026   (Google translation from Arabic)
The following statement was issued by the U.S. Embassy in Beirut:
"Following the historic Framework Agreement signed in Washington, D.C., on June 26, 2026, U.S. Central Command Commander Admiral Brad Cooper and the head of the Lebanon Military Coordination Group, General Joseph Clearfield, met with President Joseph Aoun and Army Commander General Rudolph Heikel. They discussed next steps and the formal launch of the Framework Agreement's implementation, with the goal of quickly and tangibly building on the momentum generated by this agreement. This Framework Agreement lays out a realistic path to ending the current conflict and establishes a clear and orderly process for restoring Lebanon's sovereignty and disarming Hezbollah."

Top US admiral in Beirut to discuss US-backed deal with Israel
US Embassy says Washington agreement establishes a “clear process to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty and disarm Hezbollah”
Al Arabiya English/Published: 29 June ,2026
CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper met with Lebanon’s president and army commander on Monday to discuss the recent framework agreement between the US, Lebanon, and Israel.
President Joseph Aoun told Adm. Brad Cooper that he was committed to extending the state’s authority across the country and the full deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) up to the border with Israel. Cooper also met with the LAF commander to discuss enhanced cooperation and the importance of “successfully implementing the security annex mechanism” under the Washington agreement, according to a LAF statement. CENTCOM later published a statement on X about Cooper’s trip, which also included a stop in Israel.
“While in Lebanon, Cooper and his staff met with President Joseph Aoun and Lebanese Armed Forces Commanding General Rodolphe Haykal. The leaders discussed the path forward in implementing a historic framework agreement signed in Washington, DC, on Friday,” CENTCOM said.In Israel, the top US admiral visited US troops deployed there.Separately, the US Embassy in Beirut released a statement about Cooper’s meetings with Aoun and Gen. Rudolphe Haykal. “They discussed the path forward and the official launching of the framework’s implementation, looking to build on the momentum generated by this agreement quickly and tangibly,” the Embassy said.
The US Embassy added that the Washington agreement establishes a “clear process to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty and disarm Hezbollah.”

CENTCOM Commander Discusses Implementation of Security Annex to Framework Agreement with Israel in Beirut / Tel Aviv Speaks of Freedom of Movement and Delayed Withdrawal from Southern Lebanon
Beirut: Asharq Al-Awsat / June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
The US Central Command (CENTCOM) took a practical step in Lebanon to ensure the success of the implementation mechanism for the security annex of the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, reached last Friday. This involved discussing the mechanism with the Lebanese Army Command, amidst internal political divisions regarding the agreement, ambiguity surrounding the security annex, and violations of the ceasefire agreement in the south. Israel and Lebanon agreed on a US-mediated peace framework that includes the continued presence of Israeli forces inside occupied southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed and the Lebanese Army assumes control of the area. The framework agreement stipulates that “the Lebanese Armed Forces will gradually regain control over all Lebanese territory and disarm Hezbollah and any other armed group.” It also stipulates that the first phase will begin in two pilot areas, and a future “security annex” to the framework agreement, still under preparation, will specify all additional details, including security arrangements and verification mechanisms. A coordination group, with US participation, will oversee implementation. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun received CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper in Baabda on Monday, and they discussed preparations related to the implementation of the framework agreement, which was reached as a result of Lebanese-American-Israeli negotiations in Washington.
The Lebanese Presidency stated that Aoun thanked Cooper for the attention shown by US President Donald Trump toward Lebanon and achieving security and stability there, emphasizing “the Lebanese state’s determination to extend its authority, through its armed forces, to the southern international border.” Cooper – Heikel
Cooper discussed with Army Commander General Rudolph Heikel, at Army Headquarters, the latest developments in Lebanon and the region, the importance of successfully implementing the security annex of the framework agreement, and ways to enhance future cooperation, according to a statement issued by the Lebanese Army Command. Heikel expressed his gratitude for American support, stressing the necessity of continued cooperation between the two armies to preserve Lebanon's security and stability.
Ambiguity of the Security Annex
The security annex to the framework agreement has not yet been announced, but Israeli media outlets reported that it stipulates the Israeli army retains complete freedom of action against what it describes as threats within the security zone, and confirms that there will be no automatic withdrawal of Israeli forces. Haaretz quoted a well-informed military source as saying that the military annex attached to the framework agreement is "largely general" and does not include a clear timetable for disarming Hezbollah or for the withdrawal of Israeli forces, nor does it precisely define the areas where the initial steps will be implemented. The source said that "to date, the army has not withdrawn from any area." Despite the understandings, it remains unclear when and how the withdrawal will actually be implemented, as this depends on the guarantees we will receive at the political level. For its part, Channel 12 reported that any Israeli withdrawal will be subject to field assessments, not a fixed timetable; meaning that the implementation of withdrawal operations will be contingent on conditions on the ground, not on a specific timeframe. It also stated that expanding the experimental areas entered by the Lebanese army in the next phase will only occur with Tel Aviv's approval.
Control and Violations
In practice, Israel does not fully control some of the “trial phase” areas that were identified, especially the town of Fron, located south of the Litani River, noting that the Israeli army carried out operations there intermittently. The vicinity of the two experimental areas witnessed military violations. On Sunday, a Hezbollah fighter opened fire on Israeli forces in the adjacent town of Deresrian. As a result, an Israeli officer was killed and a soldier was wounded, before the gunman was killed by a tank shell, according to a video clip published by the Israeli army. On Monday, Israeli media reported that Hezbollah “targeted a headquarters containing senior Israeli army officers in southern Lebanon,” and said that “an explosive device was detonated that targeted the field command headquarters of the deputy commander of the Commando Brigade in southern Lebanon,” noting that there were two injured reserve soldiers in the unit, “one of them in serious condition, the other in moderate condition, and they were evacuated by helicopter.” Lebanese media said that the explosion occurred in the Aita al-Shaab area, adjacent to the border with Israel. At the same time, Israeli forces carried out artillery shelling targeting the outskirts of the towns of Deir Saryan and Yahmar al-Shaqif, while throwing a sound bomb towards a house in the town of Ibl al-Saqi. An enemy drone also violated the airspace of Al-Zahrani and the neighboring villages. The Israeli army announced in a statement, on Monday, that it had attacked “three Hezbollah headquarters in Nabatieh and Mifdoun, southern Lebanon,” in “response to the violation of the ceasefire agreement and targeting forces in the security zone.” At night, the Israeli forces had bombed residential buildings in the towns of Taybeh and Hadada, and threw sound bombs near civilians in Burj Qalawayh and Baraashit, in addition to blowing up a large Hezbollah tunnel in the town of Majdal. Zone, and said that it is located at a depth of 26 meters, extends for 200 meters, and includes marches, artillery shells, weapons, and beds for fighters. Hezbollah confirmed that Israel continued to violate the ceasefire agreement in southern Lebanon by carrying out air strikes, bombings, and targeting civilian areas, stressing that it monitors these violations and reserves its right to respond and defend Lebanon and its people.

Framework Agreement... Aoun: We Will Extend State Authority to the Southern International Border
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
President Joseph Aoun received US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper at Baabda Palace, in the presence of US Chargé d'Affaires in Beirut Keith Hannigan and Chief of the Mechanism Team General Joseph Clearfield. The meeting focused on preparations for implementing the framework agreement reached as a result of Lebanese-American-Israeli negotiations in Washington. President Aoun thanked Admiral Cooper for US President Donald Trump's interest in Lebanon and its efforts to achieve security and stability, emphasizing the Lebanese state's determination to extend its authority, through its armed forces, to the southern international border. In Yarzeh: Cooper and his accompanying delegation also visited Army Commander General Rudolph Heikel at his office in Yarzeh. Discussions covered the latest developments in Lebanon and the region, the importance of successfully implementing the security annex of the framework agreement, and ways to enhance future cooperation. General Heikal expressed his gratitude for the American support, stressing the need for continued cooperation between the two armies to preserve Lebanon’s security and stability.

Washington is a partner in implementing the agreement... and Cooper's tour to discuss the "practical path"
Al-Modon/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri effectively killed the framework agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in Washington, which Israel violated yesterday by continuing its violations and aggression against southern Lebanon, and failing to withdraw from two experimental areas designated for the Lebanese army. Two days after the signing, the agreement has not yet been implemented, and Israeli attacks have continued at a high rate. It has become clear that Israel is proceeding with its plans, and its media revealed the existence of a security annex, kept secret at the explicit request of the Lebanese government, which enshrines the Israeli army's freedom of action within the so-called "yellow line." This allows Israel to carry out operations against what it considers emerging and direct threats. The annex stipulates that the Israeli army retains complete freedom of action against what it describes as threats within the security zone and confirms that there will be no automatic withdrawal of Israeli forces.
Berri: The agreement is worse than the May 17 Agreement
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri asserted that the agreement signed in Washington is nothing more than "dictates" and does not safeguard Lebanon's rights, deeming it ten times worse than the May 17 Agreement. He emphasized that the agreement constitutes a threat to the unity of Lebanon and the Lebanese people, warning that it could open the door to internal division, thus serving the Israeli occupation. He stated, "When I describe the agreement as a threat, this is the highest level of political warning." Berri stressed that any street movements or reactions that might be exploited to plunge the country into chaos and internal conflict are unacceptable. He affirmed that Amal Movement ministers will participate in the cabinet sessions where the agreement will be discussed and will announce their position from within the institutions. He also warned against any interference with the military establishment, saying, "No one should joke about dismissing the army commander, and no one should play with the military establishment." He emphasized that the Lebanese army is a red line and a pillar of national stability and the fundamental guarantee of civil peace. Regarding his relationship with the President of the Republic, Berri revealed that this relationship is currently severed, saying, "He doesn't contact me, and I don't contact him."
Secret Annex to the Agreement
The secrets of the agreement and what has not been announced are beginning to emerge, constituting an additional achievement for Israel at the expense of Lebanon's interests and sovereignty. This is evidenced by what the Israeli media published in leaks about parts of the "secret security annex" to the Lebanese-Israeli agreement. The Times of Israel quoted a well-informed official as saying that the secret security annex to the framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon stipulates that the Israeli army retains complete freedom of action against what it describes as threats within the security zone, and confirms that there is no automatic withdrawal of Israeli forces. For its part, Israel's Channel 12 reported that secret parts of the security annex to the agreement with Lebanon were revealed for the first time, noting that although the agreement was published in full on the US State Department's website, the security annex remained secret at the explicit request of the Lebanese government, although its principles had been approved for publication. According to Channel 12's report, the leaked principles of the annex are as follows:
Linking withdrawal to field assessment: Article 4 of the annex, according to the channel, stipulates that any Israeli withdrawal will be subject to a field assessment, not a fixed timetable. The Lebanese government has agreed to this, meaning that the implementation of withdrawal operations will be contingent on conditions on the ground, not on a specific timeframe.
The Israeli channel emphasizes that expanding the pilot zones into which the Lebanese army enters will not occur in the next phase without Tel Aviv's approval. It notes that there are currently only two pilot zones within the agreed-upon areas, and Israel estimates that the Lebanese army's deployment in these zones will take several weeks. The channel also claims that the security annex enshrines the Israeli army's freedom of action within the so-called "yellow line," allowing it to conduct operations against what it considers emerging and direct threats.
In this context, the report indicated that Israel fears Iran will pressure the United States to link any understandings between them to obligating Israel to a complete withdrawal from Lebanese territory, which Tel Aviv views as undermining the essence of the bilateral agreement. Hezbollah threatens the right to retaliate.
In this context, Hezbollah affirmed its right to defend its homeland following Israeli violations of the ceasefire, citing "an Israeli bombing in the town of Majdal Zoun and airstrikes on the city of Nabatieh and the towns of Mayfadoun and Froun."
In a statement, Hezbollah said, "The enemy bombed residential buildings in the towns of Taybeh and Haddatha, and dropped stun grenades near civilians in Burj Qalawiya and Barashit," clarifying that "the enemy's actions constitute a blatant violation of the ceasefire to which we have adhered thus far." The party affirmed that it "monitors and records Israeli violations and reserves its right to defend our homeland and our people."
Israel's bombing is suspicious.
Hezbollah's announcement came after a joint statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, in which they said that "the Israeli army destroyed a 200-meter-long Hezbollah tunnel in southern Lebanon." They announced that the tunnel was more than 25 meters deep and contained hundreds of weapons and several launch sites intended to target Israel, according to their description. The Israeli statement said: "The army will continue its operations in southern Lebanon with the aim of destroying what remains of Hezbollah's infrastructure and removing threats to towns in northern Israel." On the ground, the occupation forces detonated the Wadi Hassan tunnel in the town of Majdal Zoun in the Tyre district. The sound of the explosion was heard in neighboring villages. Yesterday, Israeli warplanes also launched an airstrike targeting the vicinity of the towns of Deir Siryan and Taybeh in southern Lebanon, while its forces bombed and burned houses in the town of Khiam. They also launched an airstrike targeting a house in the city of Nabatieh and another on the outskirts of a town. Mefdon in the Nabatieh district. The Israeli army announced on Sunday the death of a captain and the wounding of a soldier during a "battle" in southern Lebanon, an incident that occurred despite the framework ceasefire agreement between the two sides.

A "Conditional" Green Light: How Did Washington Buy "Calm in the Southern Suburbs" with Tehran's Money?
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Lebanese political and financial sources revealed to "Eram News" that Hezbollah has begun preparing to launch a new phase of financial compensation payments to those affected by the recent war. This follows the arrival of Iranian funds via Iraq, earmarked for housing allowances and the repair of partially damaged but not completely destroyed homes. The sources described this as being done with "American acquiescence," as long as it remains confined to the humanitarian aspect and does not become funding for rebuilding the party's military capabilities.
A Lebanese financial source familiar with Hezbollah's financial activities stated that the party's committees have completed, in recent weeks, a review of the lists of those affected in the southern suburbs, southern Lebanon, and the Bekaa Valley. This is in preparation for disbursing new payments in the near future, prioritizing families who are still displaced or whose homes require only minor repairs to allow their return. He added that the funds arrived through financial channels linked to Iraq, in an attempt to circumvent the pressures on traditional funding routes. He noted that the party is keen to separate this matter from military spending to avoid any American or Israeli objections that might impede the funds' arrival.
Social Appeasement... Not Reconstruction
According to the political source, Hezbollah does not view compensation solely as a social obligation, but rather as part of a battle to solidify its popular base after the heavy losses incurred during the war. The delay in compensating thousands of families has begun to generate resentment within the party's supportive areas, prompting its leadership to consider the issue of housing and reconstruction a priority no less important than reorganizing its military structure. The source confirms that the party seeks to contain any feeling among its supporters that the Lebanese state is incapable of assisting them by reactivating its service and social network. This ensures its continued presence in the affected areas and prevents the discontent from escalating into a political issue. Conversely, the Lebanese government, according to the source, recognizes that its financial capacity does not allow it to compete with Hezbollah on this issue, while Washington avoids exerting direct pressure to halt these funds, fearing that this could lead to social unrest in the south and the southern suburbs of Beirut, which might impact internal stability.
Washington is watching... but not objecting. Lebanese political analyst Ali Hamadeh told Eram News that reports of Iranian funds reaching Hezbollah reflect a more pragmatic than political approach from the United States. He explained that Washington distinguishes between funds allocated to rebuilding the party's military infrastructure and those intended for civilians affected by the war. Hamadeh stated that the US administration understands that leaving tens of thousands of affected people without support would create a more tense environment and might give Hezbollah an opportunity to exploit public anger in a different way. Therefore, it does not prioritize humanitarian compensation as long as it remains separate from military activity. However, he pointed out that this "turning a blind eye" is not indefinite and depends on the international community's ability to monitor the flow of funds. He emphasized that any indications of the funds being used to rebuild the party's fighting capabilities or organizational structure would prompt Washington to act swiftly to impose new pressure on the funding networks. Rebuilding Homes... or Rebuilding Influence? The Lebanese political source believes that the importance of these payments transcends their financial value, as they represent the beginning of a new phase in which Hezbollah seeks to regain its presence within its support base through social means, after the war severely curtailed its military and political maneuvering. The source adds that the party understands that rebuilding homes offers it an opportunity to repair its relationship with its constituents, especially given the Lebanese state's sluggishness, the ongoing economic crisis, and the diminished capacity of official institutions to provide genuine alternatives for those affected. According to the source, the party aims to send a clear message to its supporters: that despite pressures, sanctions, and losses, it remains capable of providing financial support and standing by those affected, at a time when the state is unable to fulfill this role. Meanwhile, the international community is cautiously observing these developments, considering that the party's success in restoring its social role could offer it a chance to recoup some of the political losses it suffered during the war, even if its military capabilities remain under unprecedented pressure. Therefore, the battle for compensation in Lebanon today appears to extend far beyond simply rebuilding damaged homes. It is more like a battle for influence and legitimacy within the host environment, between a state lacking resources, and a party seeking to prove that its social network is still capable of filling the void.

Hezbollah saw nothing in the agreement but the exclusion of Iran... Will the state adhere to its implementation?
Lara Yazbek/Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
MP Hassan Fadlallah, a member of the "Loyalty to the Resistance" bloc, affirmed that "what the authorities have done will be an additional incentive to acquire all means of power, and those who do not have weapons will buy them." He said that "the agreement of humiliation and shame signed by the authorities will not see the light of day and will not be implemented," stressing that "the resistance will continue to adhere to its weapons and its option of confronting the occupation." He considered that "what the authorities have done is incitement to push the country into chaos and shift the conflict from being with the enemy to an internal conflict," emphasizing that "the resistance will remain the most committed to our country and our national army." Fadlallah affirmed that "our weapons are what protect us, liberate our land, and defend our existence, and our hand will remain on the trigger, and we will continue our path of resistance." He considered that "what the authorities have done is incitement to push the country into chaos and shift the conflict from one with the enemy to an internal one," emphasizing that the resistance "will remain the most committed to our country and our national army." He added that the current attempt "has no other aim than to obstruct the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding, in which the Islamic Republic of Iran insisted on making the interest of Lebanon, the cessation of aggression against it, and the Israeli withdrawal from it the first clause."
Hezbollah declared it clearly: the implementation of the Lebanese-Israeli framework agreement will not happen. This position was expected, according to sovereign political sources speaking to Al-Markazia, since the price of the Israeli withdrawal is the party's weapons, which it considers its "lifeblood" and the reason for its existence. But what is striking is that the party did not stop at accusing the ruling class of treason, stirring up unrest in the streets, and threatening civil war, but rather explicitly declared that it would confront the state, by openly stating that it would further arm its supporters if necessary. The party did not even differentiate between occupied and non-occupied areas, north or south of the Litani River. He showed no willingness to cooperate with the Lebanese army, either here or there. He disregarded the proposal for a gradual Israeli withdrawal in exchange for clearing these areas. In fact, he didn't even acknowledge the agreement and rejected it outright. He seems determined to fight to the end to thwart it and prevent its implementation, even if it means a confrontation with the Lebanese army, which Hezbollah is trying to embarrass by claiming to be concerned for its safety. What Hezbollah interprets in the agreement is that it will curtail Iran's influence in Lebanon, and for this reason, it is resorting to playing all its cards, political and otherwise, to sabotage it. From this point forward, the country is heading towards a critical and delicate phase. Either the state insists on implementing what it committed to and signed in Washington, despite Hezbollah's threats and intimidation, and thus affirms its sovereignty over its land and its decisions, or it backs down in the face of Hezbollah's threats and intimidation, leaving Lebanon trapped in a cycle of war and destruction, and the last remaining arena of Iranian influence in the region.

Washington Shifts from Crisis Management to Imposing Solutions, and Aoun Accepts the Challenge
Najwa Abi Haidar/Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Al-Markazia - In an analysis of the Lebanese scene following the signing of the Washington agreement between Lebanon and Israel last Friday, a Western diplomatic source believes that the country has entered a different political phase, characterized by the United States' shift from a policy of crisis management to one of crafting and imposing solutions. The source considers that "Lebanon is in a better position today, and there is a clear American commitment to supporting this new phase and ending its crisis." The source states that the American approach under former President Joe Biden was always based on a policy of "stabilization," meaning preventing collapse without seeking to bring about fundamental changes in the Lebanese political reality. According to his analysis, this policy was based on coexisting with Hezbollah's presence as a fait accompli, while focusing on maintaining the minimum requirements of the state, particularly in the electricity and medicine sectors, and avoiding any steps that could trigger new confrontations or crises. This approach shifted during the presidential election that brought President Joseph Aoun to Baabda Palace, the source adds. Before Trump, Washington tended to support figures close to the resistance, considering this more in line with a policy of containing the crisis than with a genuine desire to change the political landscape. Today, however, the landscape has clearly changed, with an American administration "determined to break the deadlock," coinciding with a Lebanese president who "accepted the challenge of turning a new page." This, the source says, opens the door to a different phase in the relationship between Lebanon and the United States, and in the approach to internal and regional issues. In assessing the results of the Washington agreement, the source believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "the biggest loser," because, according to his interpretation, the agreement did not achieve its intended goal of reaching a final peace agreement with Lebanon now. Instead, it was limited to a different framework that forced Israel to sign a commitment to withdrawal. The source goes even further, considering that the agreement “thwarted Israeli ambitions related to the Litani River,” referring to what he describes as “the historical project linked to Theodor Herzl’s vision,” stressing that the next stage will be a test of the parties’ ability to translate the agreement into a stable political and security reality.

UAE lifts travel ban for Lebanon: WAM
Al Arabiya English/29 June ,2026
The UAE will begin allowing nationals to travel to Lebanon with immediate effect, the Emirati News Agency (WAM) announced on Monday.Those planning to travel to Beirut will need to register through a service before leaving. Abu Dhabi banned its citizens from traveling to Iran, Lebanon and Iraq in April during the Iran war. It also banned its citizens from going to Beirut in 2023. Read more: UAE bans citizens from traveling to Lebanon amid deadly clashes in refugee camp

Israel-Lebanon deal may entrench stalemate rather than end war, analysts say
Reuters/29 June ,2026
A security deal between Israel and Lebanon risks entrenching a stalemate rather than resolving Israel’s underlying conflict with Hezbollah by tying Israel’s pullout from southern Lebanon to the Iran-aligned group’s disarmament, a condition regional analysts and politicians say is unattainable.
At its core is a bargain few see as workable: Hezbollah has flatly rejected disarmament, and no Lebanese government has the power to enforce it. With Hezbollah unlikely to disarm, analysts say Israel has political cover to keep an open-ended military presence in southern Lebanon, which it invaded after Hezbollah fired at Israel on March 2 in solidarity with Tehran over the war in Iran. The deal leaves the Lebanese state trapped between obligations it cannot meet and sovereignty it cannot fully reclaim, the analysts say. The framework deal also collides with Lebanon’s political realities, asking a fragile sectarian state to confront the most powerful armed faction in the country despite a post–civil war system built on power-sharing rather than coercion. “This is not an agreement, it is an imposed settlement,” said a senior Lebanese politician who declined to be named. The Lebanese army, he said, was neither structured nor equipped to disarm Hezbollah, and expecting it to do so ignored both the group’s entrenched military capacity and the fragile sectarian balance on which Lebanon’s stability rests.
‘Burden’ placed on Lebanon
Political analysts say the imbalance is built into the agreement’s design, with sweeping obligations placed on Lebanon but no reciprocal guarantee of Israeli withdrawal. “This agreement has put all the burden on Lebanon,” said Michael Young, a Beirut-based analyst, adding that it “creates a structure that allows the Israelis to remain (in southern Lebanon) indefinitely.” Fawaz Gerges, a Lebanese scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science, said the deal was “born dead” and is structurally flawed, hinging on a condition that is impossible to meet in practice. Gerges said Israel had already consolidated a buffer zone in southern Lebanon about eight to 10 km (five to six miles) deep while tying any future withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament. The terms of the deal risk the buffer zone becoming long-term and giving it diplomatic legitimacy, he said, describing it as a political “gift” to Israel. The conflict in Lebanon has been a central part of diplomacy towards ending the wider US-Iran war. Gerges said Washington’s deliberate decoupling of the conflicts gave Israel greater freedom of action in Lebanon.
Fear of civil conflict
The framework agreement signed in Washington affirms that Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and makes Lebanese army authority in the south contingent on the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah. Netanyahu portrays the deal as a historic achievement that could lead to broader peace, while Israeli troops remain deployed in a so-called security zone which Israel says is designed to protect its north from potential attack. “We will continue to hold it (territory in the security zone) until Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations are disarmed, and until no further threat to Israel is posed from Lebanon,” Netanyahu said on Saturday. Three senior Israeli officials said Israel has little faith in Lebanon’s ability to disarm Hezbollah but sees the deal as a vital diplomatic step towards building peace with Lebanon in the long run.
About 4,000 people have been killed in Lebanon and a million displaced during Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the agreement as a first step towards restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty, saying it should allow Lebanese people to return to fully liberated land.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri said it amounted to an “agreement of dictates, not one that preserves Lebanon’s rights” and said it would not be implemented. Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the deal “null and void” and a “surrender” and said his group would keep fighting until Israel is forced to leave. Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warned of “internal conflict” in Lebanon.Any attempt to forcibly disarm Hezbollah would risk deepening sectarian tensions. Young said the deal “won’t lead us anywhere except to civil conflict, and maybe an insurrection by the Shia (Muslim) community.”
Deal’s implementation in question
Danny Citrinowicz, a regional analyst and former Israeli military intelligence officer, said Hezbollah’s dismantlement was “something that would never happen” and the deal in effect legitimized an open-ended Israeli military presence. “Nothing will happen. Israel won’t withdraw, and Hezbollah won’t dismantle,” he said. Citrinowicz said no Israeli prime minister has the domestic political space to withdraw while Hezbollah is still armed and northern Israeli communities remain displaced. A narrower pact focused on Hezbollah’s pullout from south of the Litani River, an expanded Lebanese army deployment and an extension of state authority, would have stood a better chance of success, he said. Pro-Hezbollah analyst Mohammed Obeid also said the deal was unlikely to be implemented, adding that its provisions were “like explosives,” capable of detonating Lebanon’s internal stability, as they hinge on state action to disarm Hezbollah.

Video link: Commentary by journalist Ali Hamadeh: Hezbollah fails to form a front against Presidents Aoun and Salam!
US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper is in Beirut to discuss details for conducting a test in two experimental areas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3itCq1XXook
June 29, 2026
Speaker Nabih Berri is working to legally circumvent the tripartite Lebanese-Israeli-American framework agreement in Parliament.
Hezbollah fails to form a front against Presidents Joseph Aoun and Nawaf Salam. The Shiite duo opposes the presidents' move but clings to the government! US Central Command chief Admiral Brad Cooper is in Beirut to discuss details for conducting a test in two experimental areas to be handed over to the Lebanese army after the Israeli army's withdrawal.
A third war could erupt if Hezbollah escalates its operations in the south and targets northern Israel. Iran continues negotiations to obtain funds held in Qatar.

Al-Shaibani to Beirut with a Message of Reassurance: Syria Has No Intention of Military Intervention
Riyadh - Al-Arabiya.net/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani is expected to visit Beirut in the next two days on an official visit, during which he will meet with a number of senior Lebanese officials, including the three presidents: the president, the prime minister, and the speaker of parliament. An official source told Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath that al-Shaibani will discuss outstanding issues between Lebanon and Syria during his visit, most notably the issue of Syrian prisoners in Lebanon, the shared border, and ways to regulate bilateral relations in the coming period. The visit comes at a time of increasing activity in Lebanese-Syrian relations, following the Lebanese authorities' handover of two batches of convicted Syrian prisoners to Damascus, in implementation of a bilateral agreement signed between the two sides last February. According to the source, the Syrian Foreign Minister is carrying a message of reassurance from the Syrian leadership to Lebanese officials, confirming that Syria has no intention of military intervention in Lebanon. This message is particularly important given the sensitivity of the Lebanese situation, the security and political tensions related to the south and the border, and concerns about the repercussions of regional developments on Lebanon. The talks are also expected to address mechanisms for border control, combating smuggling, and enhancing security coordination to preserve the sovereignty of both countries, in addition to discussing humanitarian and judicial issues that have remained unresolved for years.
The Prisoners' File: The issue of Syrian prisoners is one of the most contentious files between Beirut and Damascus, as Lebanese prisons hold a large number of Syrians convicted or detained in various cases, including security and criminal matters. The border file also remains one of the most complex issues, given the overlap of security and economic tracks, and its connection to smuggling, displaced persons, and coordination between the relevant agencies in both countries. Shibani's visit reflects an attempt to restructure the relationship between Lebanon and Syria based on practical issues, at a time when Beirut is striving to consolidate its internal sovereignty, while Damascus is trying to reassure its neighbors that the next phase will be based on cooperation, not escalation.

Berri: Lebanon-Israel Agreement is a “Dictation” and Will Not Be Implemented
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri described the framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel under US auspices as a “dictation,” considering it “ten times worse than the May 17 Agreement,” and asserting that the agreement “will not be implemented.” In a press statement, Berri said, “Ten times worse than May 17 is better than this agreement,” emphasizing his rejection of the path that led to the agreement. He also called for restraint from any street protests or reactions that could be exploited to plunge the country into chaos and internal conflict, warning that the most dangerous aspect of the agreement is the potential for attempts to incite internal divisions. He added that Amal Movement ministers "will not boycott any cabinet session where the agreement is discussed; we will confront it and take our stand there," emphasizing that "this agreement will not stand, and it will not be implemented." Berri indicated that "the only realistic opportunity" to compel Israel to withdraw completely lies in "the American-Iranian negotiating track," considering that any separate negotiations with Israel according to American and Israeli conditions "will only prolong the occupation." Regarding the rumors about a move to dismiss Army Commander General Rudolph Haykal, he said: "No one should make such a joke, and no one should play with the army," stressing that the military institution is a "red line." Speaking about his relationship with President Joseph Aoun, Berri said: "He doesn't contact me, and I don't contact him."

Hezbollah-allied Lebanese parliament head says US-Israel-Lebanon deal ‘will not pass’
Al Arabiya English/29 June ,2026
Lebanese Parliament Speaker and Hezbollah ally Nabih Berri said early Monday that the trilateral framework agreement between Lebanon, Israel and the United States would not pass as it did not guarantee Lebanon’s rights. “This agreement will not pass, and it will not be implemented in its current form,” Berri said in a statement shared by his party the Amal movement, adding that it was “an agreement of ‘dictates,’ not an agreement that preserves Lebanon’s rights.”The deal paves the way for Lebanese-Israeli peace and conditions Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon on Hezbollah’s disarmament. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday hailed the US-brokered agreement with Lebanon, calling it a historic achievement that dealt a blow to arch-foes Iran and Hezbollah.For his part, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the agreement describing it as a surrender to Israel. With agencies

Berri to Al-Modon: The Agreement is Self-Destructive and a Danger to Syria; Thanks to Jumblatt
Munir Al-Rabi'/Al-Modon/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
The agreement is self-destructive and cannot be implemented. This is how Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri summarizes his position regarding the framework agreement announced between Lebanon and Israel. Berri believes that the majority of Lebanese and non-Lebanese are against this agreement, as the conditions for its success are not present and its implementation is impossible. According to Berri, Lebanon remains committed to the resolutions of the Arab League and cannot enter into any agreement of this kind before other Arab states. Furthermore, there are many previous agreements that cannot be withdrawn from, especially international resolutions that preserve Lebanon's right to liberate its land and prevent any aggression against it, and do not impose a peace process upon it. There is also an existing agreement, the November 27, 2024 agreement, which cannot be withdrawn from or bypassed. Finally, there is a clear Iranian-American agreement that mentions Lebanon by name three times and can be relied upon. Within the institutional framework:
Clearly and calmly, Berri affirms to Al-Modon his rejection of the agreement, considering that what is most important to him is how to improve the internal situation, restore national unity, and prevent any division, fragmentation, or strife. This agreement, he believes, was designed to sow discord among the Lebanese, something he will neither accept nor allow to happen. Therefore, he emphasizes the necessity of maintaining stability and working within the institutional framework to restore order. He is also concerned that Lebanon should not pay the price for external conflicts between or within other countries on its territory, nor can it bear the cost of political projects and ambitions that serve as a basis for Israeli or American calculations at the electoral level.
Iran's role:
He believes that the insistence on proceeding with this agreement is an attempt to obstruct what Lebanon could have benefited from in the Islamabad process. Berri had just received a call from the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who indicated that the Iranians insist on including Lebanon in the agreement with the United States and that Iran will continue to pressure the Americans not to exceed what was stated in the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding. What the Iranians are announcing is that they are continuing to work towards a complete cessation of Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon and an Israeli withdrawal from it, just as they previously worked to neutralize Beirut and its southern suburbs during their negotiations with the United States.
It will not pass. For Berri, this agreement cannot pass or be implemented; it defies logic and contradicts Arab and international positions. His primary concern is restoring internal unity and understanding among the Lebanese to prevent Israel from achieving its objectives through war, internal strife, or internal conflict. He commends the opposition to the agreement and believes a political climate is emerging in Lebanon against it. He does not deny his complete alignment with Walid Jumblatt. Perhaps both of them now recall the events of May 17, 1983, and the situation at that time, including the formation of the National Salvation Front, which included former President Suleiman Frangieh and the late Prime Minister Rashid Karami. While circumstances have changed since then, the conclusion remains the same: Lebanon cannot coexist with such an agreement. What Lebanon wants is well-known and clear: an Israeli withdrawal from the south, a complete cessation of attacks and military operations, the confinement of weapons to the area south of the Litani River, the return of displaced residents, and the launch of a reconstruction process.
Jumblatt's Compass
Berri praises Walid Jumblatt's position and says he contacted him to thank him for it. He considers Jumblatt to have taken the clearest stance, as he succinctly described the agreement as unilateral in just a few words. Berri says that Jumblatt has not lost his way and has taken excellent positions during this ordeal and war, from providing refuge to displaced persons to expressing his political views aimed at bridging the gaps and offering proposals and initiatives from Lebanon to Syria that preserve the security of both countries. Berri also commends all the positions that oppose the agreement, including those of the Muslim Scholars Association, the Islamic Group, and others. He believes that the primary objective for the Israelis is to sow discord in Lebanon or between Lebanon and Syria to reignite the Sunni-Shia war. However, he believes that this war or discord is unacceptable and that no one wants it.
A Danger to All
Berri considers the Israeli project a danger to all Arab countries, not just Lebanon. Lebanon must fortify itself with Arab, regional, and international support that can provide protection. A threat to Lebanon is a threat to all Arab states, and the occupation of its south poses a danger not only to Lebanon but also to Syria. Furthermore, all Israeli attempts are seen as aimed at creating discord among the Lebanese or between Lebanon and Syria. This is something the Lebanese and Syrians want to completely overcome, avoiding any Israeli trap. Israel seeks to distance itself from the conflict to avoid losses, while simultaneously inciting the Lebanese against each other, or exploiting divisions to expand its occupation and influence—a strategy it has also pursued in Syria. Netanyahu's statements about maintaining security zones in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria are prime examples of Israel's thinking, as is its control of Mount Hermon, which is seen as an attempt to expand into southern Syria or southern Lebanon.

Salam after the UAE decision: It embodies the strength of relations and renews confidence in Lebanon
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on the "X" platform: "On behalf of the Lebanese state and in my own name, I extend my deepest gratitude to His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan for the generous decision to allow UAE citizens to travel to their second home, Lebanon. This decision embodies the strength of the fraternal relations and the deep-rooted ties that bind our two countries. I have no doubt that this decision carries clear implications in renewing the UAE's confidence in Lebanon and its keenness to strengthen cooperation between us, in a way that achieves good and prosperity for our two brotherly peoples."

Jumblatt rejects the framework agreement... but calls for limiting weapons and ending Hezbollah's wars
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
Al-Jadeed reported that "former head of the Progressive Socialist Party, Walid Jumblatt, rejects the framework agreement signed between Lebanon and Israel, and has several reservations about it." However, Jumblatt assures those close to him that he "supports the current administration, the government, the principle of direct negotiations, the state's monopoly on weapons, and ending Hezbollah's wars."

Jumblatt: How sweet the May 17 Agreement is compared to today's agreement!
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026   (Google translation from Arabic)
Former Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt is sharing his memoirs, published by the French publishing house Stock, in a book titled "Un Destin au Levant – A Destiny from the Levant." After presenting a copy to former President Amine Gemayel, Gemayel contacted Jumblatt to thank him for the gift. During their conversation, Jumblatt reminded Gemayel of the May 17, 1983 agreement and the confrontation that ensued between them at the time, adding: "How sweet the May 17 Agreement is compared to today's agreement." Jumblatt also sent a copy of his memoirs to former President Michel Aoun through a mutual friend, Naji Khoury.

Bayram: The Resistance Will Remain as Long as the Occupation Remains
Al-Markaziya/June 29, 2026   (Google translation from Arabic)
Former Minister Mustafa Bayram, speaking at a memorial ceremony for martyrs in the town of Jbaa, asserted that the Lebanese government had "lowered its head" by signing what he termed "the agreement of humiliation and shame written by Benjamin Netanyahu." He emphasized that its role was limited to "the humiliating signature," while Iran "ceased the ceasefire and made Lebanon the first item in the agreement, not to be negotiated on its behalf, but to place it under a protective umbrella until the Lebanese negotiate the withdrawal of the occupation." However, the government rejected this because it "considered that Lebanon and Israel share a common enemy: the resistance." Bayram asked, "Where is the constitution? Where is Lebanese law?" He pointed out that "the constitution considers Israel the enemy and refers to the UN Charter, which guarantees the right of peoples to self-determination. Furthermore, the National Accord Document and the Arab Charter on Human Rights affirm the right to resist occupation, while Lebanese law criminalizes any form of dealings with Israel." He added that the government "has overturned the constitution, the law, and national consensus, criminalized resistance on its own land, and adopted a Zionist resolution that legitimizes the continued occupation and its aggressions." He affirmed that "the Zionist ink will fade, just as the humiliating signature will fade, and whoever ties themselves to the Zionist project will leave with it," emphasizing that the resistance "will not operate according to Israeli will," and that it still relies on two things: "its finger on the trigger, and that no occupation can remain on land where there is resistance," in addition to what he described as "the priority of the first clause in the Iranian-American understanding related to Lebanon's sovereignty and security." He considered what the government has done to be "a betrayal of the constitution, a blow to the Taif Agreement, national accord, and the rights of the people, and a coup against the sacrifices and interests of the people," deeming that a government that does not represent the pain and hopes of the Lebanese people is "a fallen and temporary authority." He added, "The constitution stipulates that the people are the source of all authority, and that the government is merely their representative. If the government betrays this representation and relinquishes sovereignty, the people will reclaim it and withdraw legitimacy from those who do not deserve it." Bayram concluded, "Everyone is transient and will pass away, but Lebanon will remain dear and honorable to all its loyal citizens from all sects and affiliations. Our strength lies in our unity, and our strength lies in our resistance."

Ihab Hamadeh: The Framework Agreement Violates the Constitution and the National Pact
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
MP Ihab Hamadeh, a member of the Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc, stated that "Lebanon without the resistance fighters and martyrs does not exist on the map," considering that "the current government is the last card being played by the Zionist-American project to circumvent the Iranian-American understanding." This came during a speech he delivered at the memorial service for the martyr Dr. Muhammad al-Bazal, held at the Husseiniya in the town of al-Bazaliya. He said, "The framework agreement being discussed is a framework that violates the constitution and the National Pact, and it places Lebanon on a new map that must be discussed from the ground up." He added, "The President of the Republic has now placed all of Lebanon's foundations on the operating table once again, and he must bear the consequences of this dissection for the new Lebanon." He continued, "This country, and indeed the Middle East, cannot function without its people. Lebanon is nothing without us, without the resistance fighters, without the martyrs, without the heroes, without the people of this country." He asserted that "the Israelis have failed for over 40 years, with their brute force, money, and arrogance, to achieve what they want, and today they are playing their last card in agreement with the United States of America through a Lebanese authority formed by Netanyahu and Trump."

Hajj Hassan: The Framework Agreement is a Project of Sedition
Al-Markazia/June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
MP Hussein Hajj Hassan, head of the Baalbek-Hermel Bloc, stated that "the framework agreement contains everything Israel wants, and offers Lebanon nothing but promises that will only be fulfilled when the Israelis are satisfied. This is surrender, humiliation, and shame." Speaking at a memorial service in the Husseiniya of the Bekaa town of Sbouba, he said, "The ambassador of the government in Washington signed a framework agreement with the enemy under American auspices. She does not represent all Lebanese in what she has done. This agreement is a document of surrender, and the vast majority of Lebanese reject surrender to the enemy and this humiliation and disgrace." He accused the government of "relinquishing its right to prosecute the enemy for its crimes through this agreement," and continued, "Shame on you! Thousands of martyrs and wounded, destroyed homes, and a number of army officers killed by the enemy—all of this has been erased with the stroke of a pen by you, those who claim sovereignty." He added: "This is a bad agreement, a surrender, a disgrace, a humiliation, and a disgrace you have brought upon yourselves, not us. We reject this humiliation you, the pillars of power, have accepted. You have pledged to disarm the resistance and brought in foreign military support to confront your own people. What you have done is a project of sedition. You have volunteered, on behalf of the Americans and Israelis, to instigate this sedition. Beware of sedition! But do not delude yourselves into thinking you can fulfill any of the pledges you made in this shameful agreement." He compared the Iranian and American approaches, saying: "The Iranians certainly supported Lebanon in the first clause with an unconditional ceasefire and an unconditional withdrawal, while you agreed to a framework agreement that imposes impossible conditions on Lebanon, thus ensuring the continuation of the occupation."

Statement from the Lebanese Renaissance Gathering: Yes to holding the leaders of the duo accountable for the decision to wage war and to recovering the looted funds
June 29, 2026  (Google translation from Arabic)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155652/
Saving Lebanon from destruction and its citizens from killing and displacement has become a priority. It is no longer acceptable to continue pursuing regional options or serving local political ambitions. Likewise, this disrespectful treatment of political leaders, regardless of their position, is unacceptable, as is the belittling, marginalization, and obstruction of constitutional institutions, which only serves to plunge us into the chaos some seem to desire. It is clear that the duo and their political and religious authorities are determined to hold Lebanon, the nation and its people, hostage to serve the Iranian strategy in the Middle East. While Iran has accepted the reality on the ground and signed a ceasefire agreement and is negotiating a political and security agreement with the United States, the leaders of the duo reject any understanding or political process. Negotiations are needed to stop the bloodshed, displacement, and destruction, as if Lebanon's fate is to remain a conduit to Israel, serving their regional ambitions and interests at the expense of the nation and its people.
We, in the Lebanese Renaissance Gathering, believe it is no longer acceptable to waste time and opportunities, nor to allow a faction linked to foreign powers to drag Lebanon into the arenas of war to achieve its historical, vengeful dreams. This is evident in their rhetoric, vocabulary, and positions, which include incitement and the stirring up of vengeful instincts.
We have heard, seen, and read many threats, clear in their meaning, structure, text, and objectives. However, these threats will not frighten us, for we understand that the stability of the nation and the protection of our people in all their diversity are our collective priority. Therefore, because we understand the depth of the ideology, culture, goals, ambitions, and affiliations of this duo, we called two years ago for international intervention to assist the Lebanese state in extending its authority and sovereignty over all Lebanese territory and disarming all illegal weapons. Today, we reiterate the necessity of appealing to the international community to help Lebanon overcome its predicament and rid itself of all... Militias and all weapons outside the legal framework, by force of law and international support...
1- No civil war or internal conflict, as threatened by the tools and symbols of the duo, as long as the decision of war and peace rests with the state.
2- No dialogue on disarmament.
3- No negotiation on any constitutional amendment that grants concessions to those who held the country hostage for forty years.
4- No acceptance of the continued presence of corrupt figures and militia leaders in power.
5- Yes to holding accountable the leaders of the duo who made the decision to go to war and to recovering the looted funds.
6- Yes to purging all institutions of corrupt individuals and mercenaries.
7- Yes to the establishment of a state of justice, equity, and the rule of law.
We are all Lebanese, and we all belong to the nation.

Said Ghattas: Peace is coming.
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155648/
Under the Cedar Tree, a Foundation for Peace: A statement from Said Ghattas, founder of Under the Cedar Tree, on the trilateral framework between Lebanon, Israel, and the United States.
June 29/2026
Less than a year ago, I launched my foundation to continue my lifelong fight for peace in Lebanon.
In 2000, because of what I believe was a misguided peace agreement brokered by outside interests, my family and I were forced to flee Lebanon. I left the battlefield, but I never left the fight.
Today, more people are beginning to understand what I have been saying for years: if we truly want lasting peace, we must finish the job.
The new agreement between Lebanon, Israel, and the United States is a step in the right direction. How do I know it moves us toward lasting peace? Because Hezbollah is angry. Hezbollah does not represent the interests of the Lebanese people. Peace is good for Lebanon, and Hezbollah will do everything it can to stand in its way.
While this agreement is an important step forward, we must learn from history and avoid repeating past mistakes. This time, we must do things differently. Now is the time for all Lebanese—regardless of background or where they live—to come together for the future of Lebanon and finish the job.
Over the past several months, my foundation has connected with Lebanese communities around the world. We have worked in New York City, Washington, D.C., Jerusalem, and along Israel's northern border. Our next stop is Lebanon.
The time has come.
Peace is coming.

Cancer is a malignant and devastating disease. Even after treatment ends, the body still struggles to repair the damage caused by radiation/chemotherapy. It's a very long process.
Ibtissam Keedy/Face Book/June 29/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155655/
For all the close friends of mine. I’m afraid that I have some very personal reasons for this post, I'm sad and mad. It is in the most difficult moments of life you realize who your real family, friends or people are that really have your back. People's true colors come out when the attention isn’t on them. Unfortunately, some friends are going to press "like", but not really read it because it takes time to read this statement and when they see that it is long, they skip it. WAKEUP- Now I look at those who take the time to read this post until the end ..... I think I will discover that 5 maybe 6 will. Cancer is very invasive and harmful, even after the end of treatment your recovering body is still struggling to restore the damage caused by radiation/chemotherapy. It is a very long process. (100% true). Please, in honor of a family member, a friend who died, or is still fighting cancer or even had cancer but beat it, Copy and paste (don’t just share) on your page. So I can find out who read it, please write "done" so we can see together the power of Unity!! To all those who have lost someone or are in the battle against cancer, here’s a hug for each and every one of you and you’re loved.
Heath to all

The “Resistance Axis” That Has Mastered the Obstruction of Lebanon’s Progress for Four Decades
Abdallah Khoury/Facebook/June 29, 2026
(Freely translated from Arabic, with some editorial adaptation, by Elias Bejjani, with the assistance of online translation tools)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155669/
I wished to examine a list circulated by the media that includes the vast majority of political parties and forces on the Lebanese scene. These groups have been categorized between those supporting the signing of an agreement between the State of Lebanon and the State of Israel, and those declaring relentless war until the “usurping entity” is thrown into the sea.
I will discuss four forces that stand at the forefront of the so-called resistance axis, which has, for four decades, mastered the prevention of Lebanon from advancing in its pioneering role in cultural and civilizational fields, causing its decline on virtually every level.
First: the supreme resistance force, the “Mullahs’ Party,” which serves as the principal benefactor of all those forces participating in what they describe as the duty of liberating Jerusalem and clipping the claws of the Zionist enemy. This is the party that settled underground yet failed to build a single shelter for its own community, leaving its people scattered and wandering through the streets.
Second: the auxiliary resistance force, Nabih Berri’s movement, which, if forced to choose between Iran’s party and Israel, would allegedly choose the latter without hesitation. This claim is based on numerous past statements attributed to its leader, including: “Iran’s party has killed more of our people than Israel has.”
Third: the resistance supporter whose commitment is sometimes suspended, Walid Beyk Jumblatt, who is currently preoccupied with religious authorities such as Sheikh al-Hijri in Suwayda and Sheikh Tarif in Israel, as well as with the responsibilities imposed upon him by his leadership role in safeguarding the respected Druze community.
Fourth: the most peculiar resistance supporter, described as a hybrid figure represented by an uncle and a son-in-law. According to the author, a vast gulf separates him from any moral form of resistance, given a history laden with dark episodes that contributed, alongside others, to the destruction of the Lebanese state.
As for the minor resistance supporters who complete the list, I will refrain from discussing them, as they amount to little more than algae feeding off the Persian resistance camp.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on 29-30 June/2026
Trump says Iran meeting to be held Tuesday in Doha, envoys Witkoff and Kushner to attend
Agencies/Published: 29 June ,2026
The United States said a high-level meeting on Iran would be held in Doha on Tuesday with President Donald Trump’s top envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner attending while technical talks would also continue on the sidelines. In a social media post on Monday, Trump said that Iran had requested a meeting and that it would take place in the Qatari capital without giving any details. Moments later, Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told Fox News that Witkoff and Kushner would attend the talks. “Special Envoy Witkoff and Jared Kushner will be flying to Doha for high-level meetings this week, as we continue to discuss the memorandum of understanding. On the sidelines of those high-level talks, will be the technical talks,” she said. “As far as we’re concerned, we’re holding up our end of the ceasefire. Violence will be met with violence,” Leavitt added.
Iran’s foreign ministry had earlier on Monday denied reports that Iranian and American technical teams will meet this week to discuss the implementation of the deal to end the Middle East war. The US and Iran signed a 14-point memorandum of understanding aimed at ending four months of conflict on June 17, under which both sides agreed to cease hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas typically transits. But tit-for-tat weekend strikes threatened to derail the fragile accord. A return to talks would follow several days of strikes and counterstrikes since an Iranian projectile hit a cargo vessel in the strait on Thursday, with both the US and Iran accusing each other of breaking the interim ceasefire. “There were attacks on commercial vessels that the United States of America, directed by the president, responded to, and that will continue to happen, but we hope we don’t see that. The president obviously wants to see the peace process play out,” Leavitt said on the “Fox & Friends” program.

Iran’s president says $6 billion of Iranian assets in Qatar to be released
Al Arabiya English/29 June ,2026
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said Monday that $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets would be released by Qatar as negotiations with the United States were challenged by attacks across this weekend. Pezeshkian is the highest-ranking official within Iran to reference the release of the funds held by Qatar, a key mediator in the negotiations with Pakistan. So far, US officials say no frozen Iranian assets have been released. “Based on the plans made, $6 billion out of the total $12 billion of Iranian resources in Qatar will be released and returned to the country, and necessary follow-ups are being carried out,” Pezeshkian was cited by the state-run IRNA news agency as saying. Iran launched drone and missile attacks targeting Bahrain and Kuwait on Sunday following new US airstrikes against the Islamic Republic, and threatened a “complete halt” in negotiations to end the war if Washington continues its attacks. A source with knowledge of the talks told Reuters on Monday that Iranian and US technical teams working on the implementation of a memorandum of understanding are set to meet in Doha in the coming days. Mediators have established communications channels to deescalate any incidents, and technical talks are set to continue, the source added. With agencies

Iran says no talks with US scheduled in coming days
Reuters/Updated: 29 June ,2026
No talks between Iran and the United States are scheduled in the coming days, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in a statement on Monday, adding that an Iranian technical delegation will visit Qatar this week, but has no relation to US officials visiting the country.
Tehran has not started negotiations for a final deal as these require the implementation of certain points of the MoU, which is Iran’s priority currently, Baghaei added. Read more: Trump says Iran meeting to be held Tuesda

De-mining of the Strait of Hormuz to be carried out only by Iran, deputy FM says
Reuters/29 June ,2026
The removal of mines from the Strait of Hormuz is to be carried out solely by Iran according to the Islamabad MoU between Tehran and Washington, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said in a post on X on Monday, in response to French President Macron's comments on the subject. Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that France and Oman are working together to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East and will cooperate with their partners on clearing mines from the Strait of Hormuz. The situation is sensitive and complex, we strongly advise France not to complicate it further with its provocations, Gharibabadi added.

Qatar advises temporary suspension of sailing and fishing, commercial shipping exempt
Reuters/29 June ,2026
Qatar advised on Monday the temporary suspension of sailing and fishing boats until further notice, but said commercial shipping and vessels subject to international conventions were exempt.
The transport ministry said the precautionary measure includes jet skis and all other maritime vessels. A spokesperson said commercial shipping was exempted. The ministry did not give a reason for the measure, but it comes a day after Qatar said one of its nationals was killed after sustaining injuries from shrapnel due to “military operations in the region” after his vessel went missing.

Gaza health officials say three killed in Israeli drone strike
AFP/29 June ,2026
Gaza health officials said an Israeli drone strike killed three civilians and injured several others on Monday, the latest violence to hit the Palestinian territory despite a ceasefire. Israel and Hamas trade near-daily accusations of truce violations and the Gaza Strip remains gripped by bloodshed as progress stalls on permanently ending their war. “Three people were killed and several injured when an Israeli drone struck a group of civilians,” Al-Aqsa hospital said in a statement. Gaza’s civil defence agency, which acts as a rescue force under Hamas, said the strike hit an area in Deir el-Balah in central Gaza. An Israeli military source confirmed the attack. “The IDF did carry out a strike targeting jihadi terrorists. The results of the strike are still being assessed,” the source told AFP. At least 1,041 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since the ceasefire took effect on October 10 last year, according to the territory’s health ministry, which operates under Hamas authority and whose figures are considered reliable by the United Nations. The Israeli army has reported six deaths in its ranks during the same period.Restrictions imposed on media outlets and limited access in Gaza prevent AFP from independently verifying tolls or freely covering the violence.

Syria slams Israeli incursions after violence in south
AFP/29 June ,2026
Syria’s foreign ministry on Monday condemned Israeli incursions and bombardment in the country’s south a day after violence near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights that state media and locals said caused residents to briefly flee. Tensions rose on Sunday in the village of Abidin in the Yarmuk Basin area in the southern province of Daraa after Israeli forces advanced into the area, with angry residents trying to block the road with stones to stop the patrol. State media and a local official said Israeli forces later responded with artillery fire, prompting residents to flee to nearby villages overnight. Syria’s foreign ministry in a statement condemned “the Israeli attacks represented by incursions into Syrian territory in Quneitra and Daraa provinces and the targeting of the region with artillery shelling,” slamming “a blatant violation of Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity.”After the December 2024 overthrow of Syria’s longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad, Israel sent troops into a UN-patrolled buffer zone that for decades separated Israeli and Syrian forces on the Golan, occupying what it now calls a “security zone” in southern Syria.It has also carried out repeated incursions deeper into Syrian territory, as well as bombings, and says it wants a demilitarized zone in the country’s south. Mahmud Mowaffaq, a local official in Abidin, told AFP that some residents had “blocked a road for an Israeli patrol that had tried to advance into the village” on Sunday for the first time. “Residents fled during the night because of the shelling near homes in the village, as Israeli forces deployed nearby,” he said, adding that after the troops withdrew, “residents returned on Monday morning.” An AFP photographer saw a resident inspecting an unexploded artillery shell near his home. According to local organization Sijil which monitors Israeli operations in Syria, Israeli forces have carried out around 300 operations or “violations” in Daraa and Quneitra provinces this month alone, including 70 incursions and 28 raids, sometimes detaining residents. The Israeli army said its soldiers on Saturday “eliminated several armed terrorists in the security zone in southern Syria.”Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said this month that his country planned to keep troops in Syria “for an unlimited period.”Despite persistent tensions, Israel and Syria’s new authorities have held several rounds of direct talks and have agreed to establish an intelligence-sharing mechanism as they edge towards a security agreement. Israel captured most of the Golan from Syria in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and later annexed the areas under its control, in a move not recognized by most of the international community.

Turkey ‘strongly condemns’ Israeli incursions in Syria
AFP/29 June ,2026
Turkey’s foreign ministry on Monday blasted Israeli incursions and fire in southern Syria, after tensions near the Golan Heights forced some local residents to flee.“We strongly condemn the Israeli attacks against Quneitra and Daraa, which violate the territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty of Syria,” a statement read. “These attacks, which trample on the lives and property of the Syrian people and make life increasingly difficult for civilians in the region, constitute a flagrant violation of international law.”

Iraq sets September 30 deadline for pro-Iran militias to disarm
Al Arabiya English/29 June ,2026
Iraq’s government has given pro-Iran armed groups in the country until September 30 to disarm, coinciding with the end of the US-led anti-extremist coalition’s mission, its spokesman said on Monday. The announcement comes ahead of a visit to the United States by new Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi, with Washington exerting pressure on Baghdad to ensure the factions turn in their weapons.“All the armed groups have been informed of a specific date that marks the end of this issue (of disarmament)... which is September 30, which also marks the end of the international coalition’s presence,” government spokesman Haidar al-Aboudi said in a weekly press conference.“After this date, all weapons outside the state framework will be subject to legal redress,” he added. Iraq is home to several powerful Iran-backed armed factions, which have seen their political and financial clout increase over the years. Many emerged in the wake of the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and gained further power and prominence during the fight against ISIS from 2014 onwards.They have long called for the withdrawal of American troops deployed within the anti-extremist coalition, and they have frequently hit bases hosting US troops.
During the Middle East war, they have intervened in support of Tehran, targeting US facilities in Iraq more than 600 times. They also hit targets in Gulf countries. Washington in turn launched its own attacks on the factions, before withholding cash payments for Iraqi oil revenues, which are largely at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York under an agreement reached following the invasion. In early May, Washington pledged to resume financial transfers to Iraq and security assistance once “concrete steps” had been taken against the groups. During a meeting with European ambassadors Monday, al-Zaidi “stressed that confining arms to the hands of the state is not merely a slogan, but a policy already being implemented,” according to his media office. “The government remains committed to this course, particularly as Coalition forces are scheduled to complete their withdrawal by September 30,” said al-Zaidi, who recently took office with the blessing of the United States.Powerful Iraqi politicians have also called for a state monopoly on weapons.While some armed groups announced they will cooperate to hand over weapons to the state, others remain adamant that the issue should not be discussed under US pressure. Iraq has long been a proxy battleground for Iran and the United States, with Baghdad trying to walk a fine line between its two key allies but mutual enemies. With AFP

UK’s long-awaited defense plan allocates £5 billion to drones
Reuters/30 June ,2026
Britain will unveil its long-delayed Defense Investment Plan on Tuesday, prioritizing £5 billion of investment in drones and a focus on autonomous systems, to try to modernize and build up its depleted armed forces at a time of rising threats. The blueprint faced last-minute wrangling after former defense minister John Healey resigned earlier this month with a scathing critique of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s inability to raise the finances needed to keep the country safe from threats.Starmer has since then said he will also quit, with his replacement likely to take office within weeks, making the DIP one of the prime minister’s final policy announcements.
Plan focuses on technology for modern warfare
His plan will focus on attack drones, autonomous systems and uncrewed ships and submarines, favoring technology over warships, to reflect the reality of modern warfare as seen in Ukraine, according to a statement released on Monday. “This game-changing investment will strengthen our Armed Forces,” Starmer said before a major speech on Tuesday when the plan will be published in full. He has promised to raise defense spending to 3 percent of national output in the next parliament, from the 2.6 percent it is expected to reach next year, after a defense review in 2025 said Britain needed to shift to “war-fighting readiness.” But defense chiefs have said there is still a £28 billion funding gap over the next four years, and the government statement did not provide details of how far the DIP would go to meeting the shortfall, closely watched by those in the industry.
Drone warfare
Britain’s new defense minister, Dan Jarvis, a former British Army Major, said uncrewed systems were defining modern warfare, and the DIP he has helped reshape in recent weeks would ensure soldiers get what they need faster. Ukraine uses 200,000 drones a month in its war against Russia, and technology innovations happen within weeks, not the years taken to develop the large platforms which have been the main feature of British security in the post-Cold War era. The nine-month delay in publishing the plan has stymied investment in what should be a boom industry, companies say, and has led to some private criticism abroad as to whether Britain was either willing or able to boost defense spending. Starmer will attend the NATO summit in Ankara from July 7 to 8, alongside US President Donald Trump and dozens of other leaders of alliance members, at a time when Europe is trying to come to terms with the US pivot away from protecting it. Earlier this year, Britain, which until World War Two had the largest navy in the world, was left exposed when it was unable to immediately deploy an advanced warship to Cyprus after its air base there was hit by an Iranian-made drone. The government had already said on Sunday it would scrap plans to replace its ageing destroyers and will instead procure at least six “Common Combat Vessels” to serve as control hubs for uncrewed systems, while Jarvis has also announced new high-speed boats for commandos.

The Latest LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on 29-30 June/2026
Paper Agreements Will Not Disarm Terrorists
Khaled Abu Toameh/Gatestone Institute./June 29, 2026
Unfortunately, like the Gaza initiative before it, the Lebanon agreement risks becoming another document that looks impressive on paper but proves impossible to implement because it rests on a false assumption: that terrorist organizations honor agreements and voluntarily disarm.
[Hamas's] leaders openly reject demands to disarm while insisting that the group's weapons are "non-negotiable."
The same reality now confronts Lebanon and Iran.
The problem is that Hezbollah, like Iran, has already made clear that it has no intention of allowing the agreement to succeed.
Like Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah believes that its weapons are sacred because they serve what it calls the "resistance" — or for Iran's regime, their survival. Diplomatic agreements signed by governments mean little to organizations that define themselves through permanent armed struggle.
The contradiction in current American policy further complicates matters. Within less than two weeks, the Trump administration helped produce two agreements that appear to move in opposite strategic directions.
This inconsistency cannot be ignored. One agreement attempts to close Hezbollah's financial pipeline. The other opens the financial pipeline of Hezbollah's primary patron.
One cannot realistically expect Lebanon to dry up Hezbollah's finances while simultaneously allowing Iran to refill them. Nor should anyone expect the Lebanese government to accomplish what it has repeatedly failed to do for many years — defeat a terrorist group such as Hezbollah.
Similarly, the Palestinian Authority has long claimed that it could eventually govern Gaza and replace Hamas. That claim has always lacked credibility. The Palestinian Authority is too weak to confront Hamas militarily, just as the Lebanese government lacks both the political consensus and military strength to disarm Hezbollah.
Words alone will not disarm Hezbollah. They have not disarmed Hamas or Iran. The failed experience of Gaza should serve as a warning rather than a model.
The lesson from all three — Gaza, Lebanon and Iran — is that terrorist organizations do not surrender their weapons because diplomats ask them to. They do not abandon their weapons because agreements are signed in Washington, Geneva, or elsewhere. Terrorist organizations survive through ideology, intimidation, military force, and financial support.
Until those realities are addressed, diplomatic agreements will remain little more than signatures on paper while Iran and its proxies continue rebuilding, rearming, and preparing for the next war.
Like the Gaza initiative before it, the agreement Washington has brokered between Israel and Lebanon risks becoming another document that looks impressive on paper but proves impossible to implement because it rests on a false assumption: that terrorist organizations honor agreements and voluntarily disarm. Pictured: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio (C, back) looks on as (L/R, front row) Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, State Department Chief of Staff Daniel Holler, and Lebanese Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh sign the framework agreement in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2026. (Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
For decades, Western diplomats and decision-makers have clung to one of the most dangerous illusions in the Middle East: the belief that Islamist terrorist organizations can be persuaded through negotiations and diplomatic agreements to surrender their weapons and abandon their jihad (holy war) against Israel.
Reality continues to prove that persuading terrorist regimes to give up their weapons is not the walk in the park they might have hoped.
More than seven months after US President Donald Trump unveiled his peace plan for the Gaza Strip, the Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas remains armed, entrenched, and firmly in control of large parts of the territory. Despite months of negotiations conducted by Trump's "Board of Peace," Hamas has refused to lay down its weapons or relinquish power. Instead, it continues to attach impossible conditions to any discussion of disarmament, foremost among them a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Similarly, in Iran's negotiations with the US, the ruling Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps regime demands a complete Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
Under the current circumstances, such moves on the part of Israel would pave the way for endless deadly massacres of Israelis.
Now Washington has brokered another ambitious agreement -- this time between Israel and Lebanon -- that seeks to restore Lebanese sovereignty by eventually disarming Hezbollah and dismantling its military infrastructure.
The agreement contains several welcome provisions and offers a potentially historic opportunity to end decades of hostility between Israel and Lebanon.
Unfortunately, like the Gaza initiative before it, the Lebanon agreement risks becoming another document that looks impressive on paper but proves impossible to implement because it rests on a false assumption: that terrorist organizations honor agreements and voluntarily disarm.
Hamas has already demonstrated the failure of that assumption. Hezbollah appears determined to prove it once again.
The failure of Trump's Gaza initiative should have served as an important lesson. Instead, Washington continues to negotiate as if Hamas were a rational political movement rather than a jihadist organization whose declared objective is Israel's destruction.
Seven months of diplomacy have produced no meaningful results. Hamas remains in power. It continues to recruit fighters, rebuild its military infrastructure, and prepare for future attacks against Israel. Its leaders openly reject demands to disarm while insisting that the group's weapons are "non-negotiable."
Hamas has even demonstrated that it retains sufficient control over the Gaza Strip to suppress internal opposition. On June 26, Hamas succeeded in foiling an uprising that was being organized against its rule. The organizers, Hamas opponents and critics living abroad, were hoping that tens of thousands of Palestinians would take to the streets that day to protest the terrorist group's continued rule. This uprising did not take place for a number of reasons, including tough Hamas security measures and ongoing support for the terrorist group.
If Hamas can still intimidate Gaza's population nearly three years after the October 7 massacre and more than seven months after Trump's peace initiative, it is difficult to argue that diplomatic pressure has significantly weakened the group.
The same reality now confronts Lebanon and Iran.
The framework agreement signed in Washington between Israel and Lebanon deserves recognition for several positive elements. It formally commits both countries to pursue peaceful relations, seeks to restore the authority of the Lebanese state, provides for a process aimed at dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure, and includes an important provision designed to prevent reconstruction funds from reaching Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups.
If implemented, these measures could help strengthen Lebanese sovereignty while reducing Iran's influence inside Lebanon.
The problem is that Hezbollah, like Iran, has already made clear that it has no intention of allowing the agreement to succeed.
Within hours of its signing, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem denounced the framework agreement as "humiliation and disgrace," declared it "null and void," and accused the Lebanese government of surrendering Lebanon's sovereignty. He rejected any linkage between Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Hezbollah's disarmament, and described such demands as crossing "red lines."
Instead, Qassem insisted that Lebanon adhere to the separate Memorandum of Understanding signed between the United States and Iran – a document that does not require Hezbollah to surrender its weapons.
Hezbollah's political representatives and allies quickly joined the campaign against the agreement.
Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri warned that the deal represented "incitement to civil war."
Hezbollah parliamentarian Mohammed Raad accused the Lebanese government of "complete submission to America and the Zionist enemy."
Even the Iran-backed Houthi militia in Yemen entered the debate. While calling on the Lebanese people to overthrow their government, it warned that the agreement would either trigger civil war in Lebanon or lead to Israeli occupation.
These reactions expose the central weakness of the agreement.
Hezbollah does not recognize the authority of the Lebanese government to determine its military future. Like Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah believes that its weapons are sacred because they serve what it calls the "resistance" — or for Iran's regime, their survival. Diplomatic agreements signed by governments mean little to organizations that define themselves through permanent armed struggle.
The contradiction in current American policy further complicates matters. Within less than two weeks, the Trump administration helped produce two agreements that appear to move in opposite strategic directions.
The agreement with Lebanon seeks to weaken Hezbollah by restoring Lebanese sovereignty, dismantling the terrorist organization's military infrastructure, and preventing reconstruction funds from reaching it.
The Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, however, provides extensive economic relief to the Iranian regime. It allows renewed Iranian oil exports, eases banking restrictions, and grants access to frozen Iranian assets. These measures may stabilize relations between Washington and Tehran, but they also strengthen the principal sponsor of Hezbollah.
This inconsistency cannot be ignored. One agreement attempts to close Hezbollah's financial pipeline. The other opens the financial pipeline of Hezbollah's primary patron.
According to the US Treasury Department, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force transferred more than $1 billion to Hezbollah since January 2025, through Lebanese financial networks and exchange houses. American officials have also identified smuggling and financing routes involving Turkey, Iraq, Dubai, and other regional hubs.
Without cutting off Iranian funding, Hezbollah will simply rebuild. Money finances salaries, recruitment, weapons procurement, tunnel construction, propaganda, political patronage, and military infrastructure. Destroying weapons depots accomplishes little if Tehran continues replenishing Hezbollah's resources.
One cannot realistically expect Lebanon to dry up Hezbollah's finances while simultaneously allowing Iran to refill them. Nor should anyone expect the Lebanese government to accomplish what it has repeatedly failed to do for many years — defeat a terrorist group such as Hezbollah.
Successive Lebanese governments have promised to assert state authority throughout the country. Yet Hezbollah has remained a state within a state, maintaining its own army, intelligence apparatus, communications network, financial system, and foreign policy.
Likewise, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has long claimed that it could eventually govern Gaza and replace Hamas. That claim has always lacked credibility. The PA is too weak to confront Hamas militarily, just as the Lebanese government lacks both the political consensus and military strength to disarm Hezbollah.
This disparity does not mean that the Israel-Lebanon agreement should be dismissed. On the contrary, it offers an opportunity to strengthen Lebanon's sovereignty, improve Israeli-Lebanese relations, and reduce the risk of another devastating war.
The agreement will succeed only if it is enforced. This condition means sustained American pressure on the Lebanese government to fulfill its obligations, strict monitoring of Hezbollah's activities, aggressive efforts to block Iranian financing, and clear consequences if Hezbollah continues to rebuild its military capabilities.
Words alone will not disarm Hezbollah. They have not disarmed Hamas or Iran. The failed experience of Gaza should serve as a warning rather than a model.
The lesson from all three — Gaza, Lebanon and Iran — is that terrorist organizations do not surrender their weapons because diplomats ask them to. They do not abandon their weapons because agreements are signed in Washington, Geneva, or elsewhere. Terrorist organizations survive through ideology, intimidation, military force, and financial support.
Until those realities are addressed, diplomatic agreements will remain little more than signatures on paper while Iran and its proxies continue rebuilding, rearming, and preparing for the next war.
*Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22657/paper-agreements-will-not-disarm-terrorists
Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on X (formerly Twitter)
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Escalation against neighbors, Iran’s strategic miscalculation in the Gulf
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Al Arabiya English/29 June ,2026
As tensions have once again escalated between Iran and the United States, with reported strikes and retaliatory actions, Iran has immediately targeted Gulf states, including Bahrain and Kuwait. These attacks have drawn sharp condemnation. There have also been reports of impacts and casualties in the broader area, including incidents affecting Qatar, further heightening concerns across the Gulf.
By striking these neighboring countries, Iran is shooting itself in the foot. The Gulf states – Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Oman – are not peripheral players but essential neighbors whose stability and cooperation are vital for Iran’s own long-term economic development and regional standing. Attacking sovereign nations that have no direct involvement in the core Iran-US disputes risks isolating Tehran further and undermining any prospects for recovery or reintegration into the global economy.
Self-inflicted damage to long-term interests
These are countries that will remain Iran’s neighbors for generations. Geography does not change. Economic interdependence, trade routes, and shared security challenges in the Gulf mean that alienating them harms Iran’s future more than it hurts its targets. Iran’s economy has long suffered under mismanagement, sanctions and isolation; constructive relations with Gulf neighbors could provide pathways for investment, energy cooperation, and market access. Instead, these strikes disrupt that potential. They threaten shipping, energy infrastructure, and the broader business environment that benefits everyone in the region, including Iranian interests.
Moreover, by targeting states uninvolved in the initial conflict, Iran paints itself as the aggressor in the eyes of the international community and the Arab world. These Gulf countries did not initiate hostilities against Iran. They have repeatedly called for de-escalation rather than escalation. Iran’s actions risk shifting regional and global perceptions dramatically, framing Tehran as an expansionist power willing to drag neighbors into conflicts not of their making.
In reality, Gulf states have been active peacemakers. Oman has a long history of quiet mediation between Iran and the United States. Qatar has played a crucial role in facilitating dialogue, hostage releases, and de-escalation efforts, even while facing its own challenges from spillover violence. Saudi Arabia and others in the GCC have pursued diplomatic channels, including reconciliation efforts with Iran in recent years, to reduce tensions and promote stability. Far from being belligerents, these states have invested significant diplomatic capital in trying to prevent wider war and keep lines of communication open.
Attacking them not only ignores their peacemaking efforts but actively sabotages the very environment needed for any lasting resolution. This behavior expands a bilateral Iran-US tension into a full regional conflagration, causing widespread suffering. Economies across the Gulf suffer from disrupted trade, higher insurance costs for shipping, volatile oil markets, and damage to infrastructure. Civilians bear the brunt through fear, displacement risks, and economic hardship. Public opinion in the Arab world is likely shifting against Iran as a result – people see their own countries’ stability threatened by actions that serve no defensive purpose.
The imperative of diplomacy and open waterways
The recent fragile memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the US and Iran highlights what is at stake. One key element involves ensuring the Strait of Hormuz remains open for commercial shipping – a vital artery for global energy supplies and Iran’s own oil exports. For any peace agreement to hold and progress to deeper nuclear negotiations, respect for this openness is essential. Iran cannot afford to threaten or disrupt this chokepoint without inviting further isolation and economic pain.
Iran fundamentally needs the Gulf states. It requires stable neighbors for economic development, secure trade routes, and political cooperation on issues ranging from water resources to countering extremism. Long-term prosperity for the Iranian people depends on good relations in the region, not perpetual confrontation. Violating the sovereignty of countries that are attempting to mediate and stay out of the fight is counterproductive. It projects weakness and recklessness rather than strength.
In conclusion, the Gulf states have been nothing but constructive – pursuing peace, mediation, and stability while avoiding unnecessary entanglement in the Iran-US conflict. Iran is shooting itself in the foot by targeting them. Such actions alienate potential partners, damage its international image, expand suffering across the region, and jeopardize any path back to negotiations. For Iran to advance economically, socially, and politically, it must respect the sovereignty of its Gulf neighbors, keep critical waterways like the Strait of Hormuz open, and embrace diplomacy over escalation.
Expanding tensions into a broader regional conflict serves no one’s interests – least of all Iran’s own. True strength lies in building relationships with those who will always be there, not in burning bridges with them.

Iran's 'Deal': What Happens After Trump?
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh/Gatestone Institute/June 29, 2026
The Iranian regime's strategy is clear: survive the pressure of President Donald J. Trump's second term by any means necessary, secure breathing room through negotiations, and position itself for a far more aggressive posture once his administration is over.
Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf -- Tehran's "new rational mind" -- who had just electronically signed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Vance, immediately went on television and called for the "liberation of Jerusalem (Quds)
Iran's officials are not bound by election cycles; their singular mission is regime preservation to bring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Even if Iran's new rulers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) temporarily say they will comply with everything in the agreement, they would view any restriction as temporary – and then wait for Trump to leave office.
Money has already started to flow again before even a single Iranian concession, especially the fake minuet of IAEA inspectors. Iran, in exchange for receiving billions of dollars, gave up precisely nothing – and the hapless US negotiators evidently agreed to that.
Post-Trump, Iran could impose tolls, "fees," and "protection payments" on ships transiting the Strait, harass shipping, and assert control over this critical chokepoint if no one has the will to stop them -- which is what Iran is probably counting on.
Why does virtually every commentator keep repeating that the Iranian people must change their regime? If even the mighty United States backs down from the task, why should anyone expect unarmed civilian protesters to do it for them? The regime mowed down more than 40,000 of its own citizens in January alone. That is precisely why the regime must be changed – the sooner the better. So long as the current regime remains in place, especially after being thoroughly enriched, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
Iran's regime, to secure the economic lifeline it needs, will probably say it agrees to any terms to outlast Trump. At the end of Trump's term, Iran's regime will be poised to reassert dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, extort regional neighbors, crush opposition at home and abroad, and race once again toward nuclear weapons breakout.
Who then will be willing to take it on?
Iran's officials are not bound by election cycles; their singular mission is regime preservation to bring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
The Iranian regime's strategy is clear: survive the pressure of President Donald J. Trump's second term by any means necessary, secure breathing room through negotiations, and position itself for a far more aggressive posture once his administration is over. Iran has long mastered the art of playing for time: it sees that American presidential terms are finite, while its own project is not. With Trump's decisive military actions having inflicted significant damage on Iranian capabilities and proxies, the regime finds itself economically crippled and militarily weakened, yet determined to drag out talks, extract concessions, and wait.
Last week, the U.S. and Iran signed an initial memorandum of understanding to end active hostilities, ease certain sanctions, facilitate reconstruction funds, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Trump's team highlighted commitments on nuclear inspections. Vice President JD Vance noted progress on access for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – to which, of course, Iran's regime has never granted real, anytime-anywhere, access, so essentially the achievement is empty.
Even so, almost immediately, tensions resurfaced. Iran's leaders threatened to reclose the Strait over alleged breaches, prompting sharp warnings from Trump.
Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf -- Tehran's "new rational mind" -- who had just electronically signed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Vance, immediately went on television and called for the "liberation of Jerusalem (Quds)" :
"We must uphold that honor, remain committed to that vision, and carry out that mission. A hundred Netanyahus are not even worth the shoelace of our martyred Imam."
He also wrote on X, concerning the very first point of the 14-point memorandum of understanding:
"They can never isolate any part of the pillars of resistance alone. The jihad efforts of Lebanon's brave warriors and the powerful diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran will guarantee the sovereignty and territorial integrity of dear Lebanon and will disrupt the crazy games and warmongering of the Israeli regime."
In short, the West can never separate Hezbollah in Lebanon --Iran's largest proxy and forward base right on Israel's border -- from Iran.
A few days after that - revealing the regime's confidence in extracting maximum gains at the diplomatic table even amid recent setbacks -- Ghalibaf declared :
"Everything we sought to achieve through military action, we obtained several times over through negotiation; it was not even comparable."
This pattern -- hard bargaining mixed with oscillating replies -- reflects a regime that publicly projects defiance while privately craving the financial relief that sanctions relief provides.
Iran's leaders know they cannot match Trump's strength in the near term. Unlike previous administrations, Trump, in both of his, terms has featured maximum pressure: economic pressure as well as military strikes that degraded Iran's missile arsenals, naval assets, and proxy networks.
The regime's economy is gasping: inflation has soared, foreign currency reserves are depleted, and paying soldiers and maintaining patronage networks grows harder by the day. As Trump has noted, the mullahs lack the funds to sustain their apparatus without external relief. They are at the table not out of goodwill, but for survival. They drag out negotiations, starting with maximalist demands, testing Western patience, and ultimately aiming for a deal that lifts sanctions without delivering irreversible curbs on their nuclear ambitions.
In 2015, under then President Barack Obama, Iran secured the JCPOA "nuclear deal" – a 10-year runway to acquire nuclear weapons by 2025. Iranian officials have already been boasting, as above, that diplomacy delivered more than war could have done. Trump himself, highlighting the regime's patient, long-term approach, noted that "Iran never won a war but never lost a negotiation." Iran's officials are not bound by election cycles; their singular mission is regime preservation to bring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Assume that a comprehensive deal materializes: robust inspections, enrichment limits, proxy restraints, and sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable compliance. The regime's track record suggests that the probability of honoring the terms would be zero. Iran has repeatedly violated past agreements, while proclaiming adherence, as it was clandestinely advancing its nuclear weapons program. Even if Iran's new rulers from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) temporarily say they will comply with everything in the agreement, they would view any restriction as temporary – and then wait for Trump to leave office.
Money has already started to flow again before even a single Iranian concession, especially the fake minuet of IAEA inspectors. Iran, in exchange for receiving billions of dollars, gave up precisely nothing – and the hapless US negotiators evidently agreed to that. Reconstruction pledges so far amount to more than $300 billion -- twice as much as the entire Marshall Plan for Europe, updated in today's dollars.
The real danger looms after Trump's term is up. Without his willingness to wield overwhelming force, his successors — whether Republican or Democrat — may well lack the resolve for decisive action. Iran has signaled as much through figures like Ghalibaf, who declared that "Hormuz will never return to pre-war status," and, after US agreement, would take permanent control of the Strait.
Post-Trump, Iran could impose tolls, "fees," and "protection payments" on ships transiting the Strait, harass shipping, and assert control over this critical chokepoint if no one has the will to stop them -- which is what Iran is probably counting on.
Regionally, the regime would continue to expand its influence through reviving its proxies. The recent conflict revealed vulnerabilities of the Gulf states, which Iran would no doubt continue to attack or threaten to attack. A restored Iran would intensify pressure on neighbors, rebuild alliances with proxy militias, and pursue vengeance against external opponents. Domestically, the regime would continue to crush dissent, probably even more brutally. Iran has already, once again, stepped up executing its dissidents, most likely as a warning not even to think of challenging the rule of the IRGC.
Why does virtually every commentator keep repeating that the Iranian people must change their regime? If even the mighty United States backs down from the task, why should anyone expect unarmed civilian protesters to do it for them? The regime mowed down more than 40,000 of its own citizens in January alone. That is precisely why the regime must be changed – the sooner the better. So long as the current regime remains in place, especially after being thoroughly enriched, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
Above all, the regime, drawing lessons from North Korea, Libya and Ukraine, would restore and accelerate its nuclear weapons program.
Iranian regime insiders prioritize survival. Western leaders, by contrast, focus on legacy headlines within four- or eight-year windows. Trump stands out as the great exception -- prioritizing American strength and long-term global security. Iran's patience is nevertheless its greatest asset. The regime has outlasted eight presidents, who used tactics spanning from Bush-era sanctions to Obama-era diplomacy -- why not one more?
If Iran's strategy succeeds, the world after Trump will look markedly different. A regime flush with cash, dominant in the Gulf, unrestrained in its nuclear pursuits, and vengeful towards anyone it perceives as a foe poses incalculable risks. Proxies will reignite conflicts, nuclear breakout time shrinks back to near zero, and other leaders may not have the same courage as Trump to confront it. Iran plans for the day when Trump's term is at an end and American pressure along with it. The stakes extend far beyond the Middle East -- to South America and ultimately the "Great Satan," the United States.
Iran's regime, to secure the economic lifeline it needs, will probably say it agrees to any terms to outlast Trump. At the end of Trump's term, Iran's regime will be poised to reassert dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, extort regional neighbors, crush opposition at home and abroad, and race once again toward nuclear weapons breakout.
Who then will be willing to take it on?
*Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a political scientist, Harvard-educated analyst, and board member of Harvard International Review. He has authored several books on the US foreign policy. He can be reached at dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu
*Follow Majid Rafizadeh on X (formerly Twitter)
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22655/iran-deal-what-happens-after-trump
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

The Transformation of Mount Annaya into the Monastery of the Transfiguration, then a Hermitage!
George Hayek/June 29/ 2026
(Freely translated from Arabic, with some editorial adaptation, by Elias Bejjani, with the assistance of online translation tools)
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155660/
Chasing a Dream upon the Ridge
Since their childhood, Daoud and Youssef used to climb the hill of Ruwaysat Annaya, where the view stretches from the sea in the west to the mountains of Laklouk, Al-Jreid, and Al-Meehal in the east. From up there, the villages suspended on the hillsides—such as Ehmej, Torzaya, Almat, and Ferhet—looked like paintings crafted by the hand of the Creator.
There, among the rocks of the hill and the ruins of an ancient temple, they found a sanctuary for their souls. They would gather stones to restore what had crumbled, place an icon of the Virgin Mary, light candles, burn incense, and offer prayers in a stillness broken only by the roaring wind and nature's hymns. Since those days, a single dream was born in their hearts: to establish a house of prayer upon this hill, where man could commune with God.
An Unexpected Blessing
However, the hill belonged to Sheikh Melhem, one of the prominent notables of Torzaya. He was known for his immense prestige and authority, so much so that people out of sheer reverence would exit his council walking backward. Nevertheless, the two young men decided to knock on his door, believing that God opens paths for those who walk in His will.
They arrived at the Sheikh’s council on the very day he was celebrating the birth of his firstborn son, Haidar. When his advisor, Hassan, informed him that two peasants from Ehmej were requesting an audience, the Sheikh smiled and said:
"Today is a day of joy. Whatever their request may be, grant them what they wish, and let it be a gift in honor of my son’s birth."
Hassan went out bearing the good news, and the Sheikh granted Daoud and Youssef the right to cultivate the land of Ruwaysat Annaya. No sooner had they left than they hung the icon of the Virgin Mary on a tree and knelt, thanking God for His grace.
The Awakening of a Sacred Vision
They spent two years planting the hill with mulberry trees and grapevines until it transformed into a green paradise, where cypress and pine trees embraced the breeze like silent guardians praising the Creator.
According to the laws of those days, a peasant could claim ownership of land they brought to life or built a dwelling upon. Thus, their dreams began to grow. Daoud gathered some young men from Ehmej and told them:
"God only calls courageous hearts—those capable of leaving behind the noise of the world to enter the depths of His presence. Let us build a house of prayer in this place, to be a beacon for everyone who seeks the face of the Lord."
A number of young men were deeply moved by his words, but the ultimate obstacle remained: How could they convince Sheikh Melhem to sell the land?
A Miracle of Faith
Weeks later, the Sheikh's young son, Haidar, fell gravely ill with a severe fever. Doctors were summoned from Beirut and traditional healers were brought in, but the illness worsened until the child was on the brink of death. It was then that the advisor, Hassan, remembered Youssef's words and informed the Sheikh of what he had proposed.
The Sheikh summoned the two young men and said to them firmly:
"If my son is healed, you shall have everything you ask for. But if you fail, I will strip you of everything you own."
Daoud and Youssef entered the child’s room, knelt beside his bed, and lifted a simple prayer filled with faith:
"Lord Jesus, You are the true physician of souls and bodies. If it is Your will, grant this child health, and let everything be for the glory of Your name alone."
As soon as the prayer ended, the little boy opened his eyes, his face cleared, and he began to cry out for water. Life had returned to him right before the eyes of his astonished father.
The Birth of a Sanctuary
Sheikh Melhem's eyes welled with tears, and he said in a humbled voice:
"The land is yours as I promised, and I shall add to it half a kantar of olive oil every year."
Daoud smiled and replied, "It was not we who did this, but God alone, for He is the Healer and the Almighty."
Thus, the two young men returned to Ruwaysat Annaya. They restored the ancient temple and built a small dwelling beside it. It was first known as the Monastery of the Transfiguration, before later bearing the name of Saints Peter and Paul to become a hermitage for ascetics.
From that very spot, one of the holiest chapters in the history of Annaya began—a place that, years later, would welcome a humble monk named Charbel, who through his asceticism and prayers would transform it into a beacon whose light radiates to the entire world.
(Dramatically adapted)

A Review of the Book: “Ain Ebel, May 5, 1920: The Anniversary of the Great Sacrifice for Lebanon”By Colonel Charbel Barakat
June 29/2026
Introduction: Deconstructing the Conventional Narrative
In this bold historical and documentary study, Colonel Charbel Barakat pierces through the common, romanticized veneer of the events that followed World War I in the Levant (1918–1920). The research does not treat the massacre of the southern village of “Ain Ebel” as an isolated local incident. Instead, it connects the tragedy to the strings of the “Great Game” and the covert regional and international alliances being orchestrated behind Prince Faisal’s back, which ultimately pushed the entire region into a bloody confrontation.
Main Themes of the Research
1. Ain Ebel: A Symbol of the Lebanese Choice and Historical Unity
· A Vibrant Village: The research highlights Ain Ebel as a dynamic and productive Christian village in “Bilad al-Bishara” (Southern Lebanon) that historically served as a vital commercial hub.
· Deep Historical Roots and National Partnership: The author evokes the era of Sheikh Nassif al-Nassar (the Shiite leader of Jabal Amel) and his cavalry, who drew the borders of Southern Lebanon. He underscores how the people of Ain Ebel loved Sheikh Nassif and fought alongside him, even naming their children after him as a testament to their shared destiny and coexistence.
· A Decisive Stance on “Greater Lebanon”: When the American King-Crane Commission conducted its plebiscite, the people of Ain Ebel were among the first to demand integration into the state of “Greater Lebanon” and the restoration of the annexed districts. They firmly rejected alternative projects—whether annexation to Palestine under British protection or dissolution into the Arab Kingdom in Damascus.
2. The Ottoman Infiltration of the Damascus Government
· The Influx of “Unionist” Officers: The research reveals that the true threat to Prince Faisal’s project came not from external adversaries, but from the military elite surrounding him. These officers—remnants of the Ottoman army and graduates of Istanbul’s military academies—lacked a genuine “Syrian national conscience.” Their absolute loyalty belonged to the Sublime Porte and the Turanian ideology of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP).
· Youssef al-Azma as an Instrument of Infiltration: The analysis focuses on the Minister of War, Youssef al-Azma. As a Turkmen officer and the direct military aide to Enver Pasha (one of the ruling triumvirate who brought down the Empire and caused the Great Famine of Mount Lebanon), al-Azma acted as an instrument to execute a latent Ottoman agenda aimed at preventing Allied stability in the region at any cost.
3. The Bolshevik-Kemalist Axis: A Funded Distraction Strategy
The research provides a unique contribution by exposing the international geopolitics of 1920:
· Bolshevik Anxiety: The Bolsheviks (led by Lenin) were fighting a brutal civil war against the “White Army.” Their greatest fear was that Britain and France would establish a foothold in Armenia and the Caucasus, opening a southern choking front against Soviet Russia.
· Russian Gold and Turkish Weapons: The interests of the Bolsheviks aligned perfectly with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the remnants of Ottoman intelligence (the Special Organization). Consequently, the Russians injected massive amounts of money, gold, and military hardware to stoke chaos and ignite rebellions and armed factions across Syria, Iraq, and Palestine.
· The Tactics of Attrition: The insistence of Youssef al-Azma and his hardline faction on military confrontation with the French—and their rejection of diplomacy—was not an innocent act of military martyrdom. Rather, it was a calculated, well-funded diversionary mission designed to bog down French and British armies in the sands of the Levant, preventing them from supporting anti-Bolshevik fronts in the North.
4. The Ain Ebel Massacre (May 5, 1920) as a Product of Engineered Chaos
· Unleashing the Militias: Under the cover of the “Wadi Hujair Conference,” leadership elements tied to Damascus (such as Prince Mahmoud al-Faour) unleashed armed gangs (led by Sadiq Hamza and Adham Khanjar) to terrorize villages, extort protection taxes (khawat), and impose the Kingdom’s flag by force.
· Resilience and Tragedy: Ain Ebel refused to bow to militia rule and defended its neighboring villages. On May 5, 1920, more than 3,000 armed men attacked the village. After nine hours of fierce resistance, the attackers resorted to a “ruse,” raising Qurans and requesting a ceasefire. Once they entered the village, they unleashed a wave of killing, looting, and burning, displacing the inhabitants into Palestine.
· Widespread Condemnation: The research notes the noble stance of the leader of Jabal Amel, Kamel Bey al-Assad, who expressed the profound depth of this historical tragedy by telling a survivor from the village: “Ain Ebel has indeed lost its children, but the Shiites have lost their honor.”
Historical Conclusion Reached by the Research
Colonel Charbel Barakat’s research concludes with a pivotal and striking result that reframes the modern history of the region:
The Conclusion: The collapse of the Faisalite era at the Battle of Maysalun (July 1920), and the preceding massacres and rampant chaos such as the “Ain Ebel Massacre,” were not the result of an “unequal but noble national heroic struggle.” Instead, they were the inevitable outcome of a
systematic infiltration and exploitation campaign led by Ottoman officers (like Youssef al-Azma) and funded by Russian Bolshevik money.
The security and stability of the peoples of the Levant were deliberately sacrificed. The opportunity to establish a peaceful, stable, and constitutional federal “Syrian Kingdom” was sabotaged, transforming the region instead into a “theater of distraction and burnt bridges” to serve the geopolitical interests of Ankara and Moscow.
This historical sin laid the groundwork for a “culture of military coups” with foreign roots and marginalized political pragmatism. This opened the floodgates to all subsequent catastrophes: from the loss of Palestine and the Lebanese civil wars to the current fragmentation driven by Iranian expansion and the revived Turkish ambitions in northern Syria. The innocent people of Ain Ebel paid the very first price for this fateful international game.

Dilemmes sécuritaires et dilemmes de souveraineté
Charles Chartouni/ ici beyrouth/29 juin 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155660/
Dilemmes sécuritaires et dilemmes de souveraineté
Les négociations qui ont eu lieu à Washington reflètent les ambiguïtés d’une république et d’un pays qui n’osent même plus dire leur nom. L’ennui avec la diplomatie libanaise tient à son anonymat, elle est muette sur ses lettres de créance et son discours se définit au point d’intersection des stratégies de puissance qui définissent la trame de la vie politique dans un pays sans repères. On ne voit pas comment on peut mener des négociations à l’extérieur en l’absence de consensus minimaux à l’intérieur. Les négociateurs abordent les questions diplomatiques sur la base des différends qui ont miné ce pays pendant des décennies.
La question même de la souveraineté est controversée dans la mesure où le présumé négociateur libanais ne sait même pas au nom de qui il parle. Dans le passé récent, nous avions affaire aux hypothèques du tandem palestino-gauchiste, celles de la Syrie alaouite et baathiste, et à ce stade nous avons affaire à celles du régime islamiste iranien et de leurs prolongements domestiques. On finit par se poser la question de la titulature de cette diplomatie, au nom de qui parle-t-elle ? Le Liban ne peut plus se positionner à partir des zones d’indétermination indéfiniment mutantes et des définitions concurrentes des acteurs politiques en lice. L’accident de la photo diplomatique est emblématique de la crise endémique de légitimité et de ses incidences sur la souveraineté libanaise. Le message est manifeste, il est interdit à ce pays de parler en son nom propre, son existence hypothétiquement nationale est intérimaire et assortie de conditionnalités contradictoires et changeantes.
La question préjudicielle concerne l’aptitude du Liban à parler en son propre nom. Apparemment, ce droit lui est contesté en raison de la politique de puissance iranienne qui s’arroge des prérogatives de souveraineté sans aucune autre forme de procès. L’ennui est que cette usurpation de fait se fait avaliser par une majorité de la communauté chiite pilotée par le duo et secondée par des alliances transversales. Cette crise de représentation se fait doubler par la double trajectoire diplomatique américano-iranienne et libano-israélienne. La diplomatie libanaise se transforme en diplomatie des passerelles, ignorant ainsi où elle doit se situer.
Autrement, la négociation s’effectue avec Israël, dont l’État libanais méconnaît la légitimité et dont les territoires ont servi de plateformes d’agression à son encontre. Les prémisses des négociations actuelles professent une volonté de normalisation entre les deux pays qui devrait être actée par un accord de paix rendu aléatoire. Le Liban parle à demi-mot et n’ose pas avancer dans une démarche décisive vers la paix, alors que la pérennisation des hostilités est non seulement destructrice mais remet en question la viabilité du pays. Les Libanais sont en effet divisés sur des enjeux statutaires, de souveraineté et de mise en œuvre des accords sécuritaires négociés.
Toute la controverse autour des enjeux de l’extraterritorialité, du monopole étatique de la violence, de l’interventionnisme iranien, du désarmement du Hezbollah et de ses satellites palestiniens et de leurs répercussions sur les mécanismes et les finalités des négociations fragilise des assises étatiques longuement éprouvées. Elle remet ainsi en cause une paix civile subissant les contrecoups de la politique de subversion iranienne. La question du retrait israélien est invraisemblable en l’absence des engagements formels de l’État libanais à l’endroit du désarmement, de la mise à terme des extraterritorialités politiques et militaires et de la reconnaissance de l’État d’Israël.
On ne voit pas comment des accords sécuritaires peuvent tenir en l’absence d’un partenariat effectif entre les États du Liban et d’Israël. La paix à demi-mot n’existe pas et les accords bâclés du passé récent ont fait long feu. Le Liban ne peut pas se contenter de déclarations d’intention douteuses doublées d’engagement erratique sur le terrain. Or, sans engagement de fait du côté de la communauté chiite, nous sommes renvoyés aux aléas des guerres régionales déclenchées après le 7 octobre 2023 et aux reconfigurations géostratégiques qui peuvent en résulter. Il faudrait bien que le Liban puisse se soustraire à la politique de puissance iranienne afin de recouvrer l’autonomie politique et diplomatique dont il est entièrement dépourvu.
La gymnastique des paroles creuses et de la diplomatie de parade ne mènera à rien. Soit le Liban a l’intention et le pouvoir de négocier des accords de fin de guerre et de mener à terme des négociations en vue d’un traité de paix, soit il se met sur la voie de la désintégration au profit d’une géostratégie régionale en pleine combustion. Les accords sécuritaires étriqués n’ont pas plus leur place dans un contexte comme le nôtre, car ils ne sont que des prête-noms à des guerres reportées. On gagnerait à ne pas s’attarder dans des positions ambivalentes car elles n’ont jamais servi à rien d'autre qu'à préparer des guerres en perspective. Le fascisme chiite est dans une posture putschiste, tant par ses déclarations d’intention que par la poursuite de la guerre au Sud-Liban au nom de la politique de subversion du régime islamiste iranien. Tant que ces dilemmes cruciaux ne seront pas résolus, le Liban est dans une dynamique de décomposition irrémissible.
La signature de l’accord-cadre par les États du Liban et d’Israël souligne l’importance de l’action diplomatique menée par le département d’État sous la direction du secrétaire Marco Rubio. L’action déterminante du département d’État a vaincu toutes les pesanteurs qui ont court-circuité les démarches diplomatiques en vue de finaliser des accords sécuritaires. Ceux-ci serviront de prélude à la signature d’un traité de paix qui s’inscrirait dans le continuum des accords abrahamiques. Ce fait diplomatique pose un jalon de toute importance dans la direction d’une paix qui mettra fin à toutes les guerres du passé et à celles de l’avenir. C’est la paix retrouvée qui placera le Liban sur la voie des réformes systémiques, brisera les verrouillages de la république oligarchique et sapera ses assises géopolitiques et institutionnelles.

Security Dilemmas and Sovereignty Dilemmas
Dr. Charles Chartouni/Jun e 29/2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/06/155660/
( translation from French)
The negotiations that took place in Washington reflect the ambiguities of a republic and a country that no longer even dare to say their name. The trouble with Lebanese diplomacy stems from its anonymity; it remains silent on its credentials, and its discourse is defined at the intersection of power strategies that map out the fabric of political life in a country devoid of landmarks. It is impossible to see how external negotiations can be conducted in the absence of a minimal consensus at home. Negotiators approach diplomatic issues on the basis of the disputes that have undermined this country for decades.
The very question of sovereignty is controversial to the extent that the presumed Lebanese negotiator does not even know on whose behalf he speaks. In the recent past, we dealt with the encumbrances of the Palestinian-Leftist tandem, those of Alawite and Ba'athist Syria, and at this stage, we are dealing with those of the Iranian Islamist regime and their domestic extensions. One ends up questioning the title of this diplomacy: on whose behalf does it speak? Lebanon can no longer position itself based on indefinitely mutating zones of indeterminacy and the competing definitions of rival political actors. The mishap surrounding the diplomatic photograph is emblematic of the endemic crisis of legitimacy and its impact on Lebanese sovereignty. The message is manifest: this country is forbidden from speaking in its own name; its hypothetically national existence is interim and subject to contradictory, changing conditionalities.
The preliminary question concerns Lebanon's ability to speak in its own name. Apparently, this right is contested due to Iran’s power politics, which arrogates sovereignty prerogatives to itself without any further process. The trouble is that this de facto usurpation is being endorsed by a majority of the Shia community, driven by the duo and supported by cross-cutting alliances. This representation crisis is further complicated by a dual diplomatic trajectory: the US-Iranian track and the Lebanese-Israeli track. Lebanese diplomacy is transforming into a diplomacy of conduits, entirely losing track of where it ought to stand.
Otherwise, negotiations are carried out with Israel, whose legitimacy the Lebanese state fails to recognize and whose territories have served as platforms for aggression against it. The premises of the current negotiations profess a desire for normalization between the two countries, which should be recorded through a peace agreement made highly uncertain. Lebanon speaks half-heartedly and does not dare to make a decisive move toward peace, whereas the perpetuation of hostilities is not only destructive but challenges the very viability of the country. Indeed, the Lebanese are divided over structural stakes, sovereignty, and the implementation of negotiated security agreements.
The entire controversy surrounding the stakes of extraterritoriality, the state monopoly on violence, Iranian interventionism, the disarmament of Hezbollah and its Palestinian satellites, and their repercussions on the mechanisms and goals of negotiations weakens state foundations that have long been tested. It thus threatens a civil peace that bears the brunt of Iran's subversive policy. The prospect of an Israeli withdrawal is implausible in the absence of formal commitments by the Lebanese state regarding disarmament, ending political and military extraterritorialities, and recognizing the State of Israel.
It is impossible to see how security agreements can hold in the absence of an effective partnership between the states of Lebanon and Israel. Peace by half-measures does not exist, and the botched agreements of the recent past have run their course. Lebanon cannot be content with dubious declarations of intent coupled with erratic commitment on the ground. Yet, without a de facto commitment from the Shia community, we are sent back to the vagaries of the regional wars triggered after October 7, 2023, and the geostrategic reconfigurations that may result from them. Lebanon must extricate itself from Iranian power politics to recover the political and diplomatic autonomy of which it is entirely deprived.
The gymnastics of empty words and showcase diplomacy will lead nowhere. Either Lebanon has the intention and the power to negotiate war-ending agreements and conclude negotiations for a peace treaty, or it sets itself on the path of disintegration to the benefit of a regional geostrategy currently in flames. Narrow security agreements no longer have a place in a context like ours, for they are merely proxies for deferred wars. We would do well not to linger in ambivalent positions, as they have never served any purpose other than preparing for prospective wars. Shia fascism is in a coup-like posture, both through its declarations of intent and by continuing the war in South Lebanon on behalf of the Iranian Islamist regime’s subversive policy. As long as these crucial dilemmas remain unresolved, Lebanon is locked in a dynamic of irreversible decomposition.
The signing of the framework agreement by the states of Lebanon and Israel highlights the importance of the diplomatic action led by the State Department under the leadership of Secretary Marco Rubio. The decisive action of the State Department overcame all the resistance that short-circuited diplomatic efforts to finalize security agreements. These will serve as a prelude to the signing of a peace treaty that would fit into the continuum of the Abraham Accords. This diplomatic milestone sets a highly significant marker toward a peace that will end all wars of the past and the future. It is a rediscovered peace that will place Lebanon on the path of systemic reforms, break the locks of the oligarchic republic, and undermine its geopolitical and institutional foundations.

The agreement Hezbollah feared and Lebanon needed
Makram Rabah/Al Arabiya English/29 June ,2026
For decades, Lebanon has found itself trapped in a cycle that has become painfully familiar. Every international initiative has been dismissed by one political camp or another as a conspiracy against the country, every proposal aimed at strengthening the Lebanese state has been portrayed as a foreign attempt to undermine “the resistance,” and every effort to establish the state’s exclusive authority over its own territory has been framed as a surrender to external pressure. Yet this narrative has always rested on a fundamental contradiction.
The greatest threat to Lebanon’s sovereignty has never been the repeated attempts by the international community to reinforce state institutions; rather, it has been the systematic weakening of those institutions by allowing an armed organization, accountable to no Lebanese constitutional authority, to monopolize the country’s most consequential decisions regarding war, peace, and foreign policy.
The preliminary framework now under discussion between Lebanon, Israel, and the United States represents a significant departure from previous ceasefire arrangements because it does not simply seek to postpone the next round of fighting. Instead, it attempts to address the underlying political reality that has made every ceasefire temporary: the continued existence of a military force operating outside the authority of the Lebanese state.
Unlike previous understandings that focused almost exclusively on halting hostilities, this framework places the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty at the very center of the process. The sequence outlined in the agreement is neither arbitrary nor punitive. It reflects a basic principle that governs every functioning state in the world: security cannot be divided between official institutions and private armies, nor can sovereignty exist where the state does not possess the exclusive authority to enforce it.
For this reason, the agreement deserves to be understood not as a diplomatic victory for one side over another, but as an opportunity for Lebanon itself. The document repeatedly emphasizes the role of the Lebanese Armed Forces as the sole legitimate security institution responsible for extending state authority throughout Lebanese territory, while simultaneously committing Israel to a phased military withdrawal that corresponds with verifiable progress on the ground. This reciprocal approach is particularly important because it recognizes that neither side can reasonably be expected to move unconditionally. Instead, it establishes a framework in which confidence is built through measurable actions rather than political slogans, allowing both security and sovereignty to reinforce one another instead of existing in perpetual contradiction.
Much has already been written about the role of the United States in facilitating these negotiations, but what deserves greater attention is the remarkable consistency with which successive American efforts – and particularly the current Trump administration – have insisted that Lebanon’s recovery can only occur through the strengthening of its national institutions rather than through alternative political arrangements. Far from attempting to bypass the Lebanese state, Washington has repeatedly invested diplomatic capital in preserving it, empowering the Lebanese Armed Forces, supporting constitutional institutions, and creating the political conditions necessary for Lebanon to recover economically and regain the confidence of both regional and international partners. This is not an effort to impose foreign sovereignty upon Lebanon; it is an effort to restore Lebanese sovereignty to Lebanon itself.
The same logic also explains Israel’s position within the framework. While many Lebanese understandably remain skeptical of Israeli intentions after decades of conflict, it is equally clear that Israel’s stated objective is no longer the indefinite occupation of Lebanese territory but rather the removal of the military threat posed by Hezbollah’s independent arsenal. The agreement explicitly links Israeli redeployment to verified implementation by the Lebanese state, reflecting an understanding that long-term security cannot be achieved through permanent military presence alone. A stable Lebanese state exercising full authority over its own territory ultimately serves Israel’s security interests far more effectively than the continuation of a fragmented political order in which Hezbollah alone retains the power to determine when another war begins.
This brings us to the central question that Lebanon has postponed for more than two decades. Hezbollah’s weapons can no longer be defended as a temporary necessity or a strategic asset. Whatever arguments may once have been advanced to justify the existence of an autonomous military organization have been overtaken by events. Lebanon has endured repeated wars, unprecedented economic collapse, international isolation, and the destruction of entire communities while remaining unable to exercise meaningful sovereignty over its own territory. The movement that once claimed to defend Lebanon has instead become the principal obstacle preventing Lebanon from becoming a normal state capable of protecting all of its citizens equally under the authority of a single national institution.
Ironically, the greatest victims of this political and military strategy have been Lebanon’s Shia community itself. For years, Lebanese Shias were promised that Hezbollah’s growing military capabilities would provide security, dignity, and political empowerment. Instead, they have disproportionately borne the human, economic, and social costs of successive wars, international sanctions, displacement, and destruction. Entire towns across southern Lebanon have paid an unbearable price for strategic decisions over which ordinary citizens exercised no democratic control. A generation that deserved investment, development, and economic opportunity has instead inherited recurring conflict and perpetual uncertainty.
None of this suggests that Lebanon’s security concerns are imaginary or that peace should be built upon naïveté. Serious agreements are not based upon trust alone but upon reciprocal obligations, verification mechanisms, and institutions capable of enforcing their commitments. That is precisely why the current framework deserves careful consideration. Rather than asking Lebanon to abandon its sovereignty, it offers a realistic path toward finally recovering it. Rather than demanding unilateral concessions, it establishes reciprocal responsibilities designed to create conditions under which both Lebanon and Israel can eventually move beyond permanent confrontation.
Ultimately, the framework presents Lebanon with a choice that extends far beyond its relationship with Israel. It asks whether Lebanon wishes to continue existing as a state whose most consequential decisions remain subject to the calculations of an armed organization closely aligned with Iran, or whether it is finally prepared to reclaim the fundamental principle upon which every sovereign republic is built: that the state alone possesses the legitimate authority to defend its borders, conduct its foreign policy, and decide questions of war and peace.
History does not often present nations with opportunities to correct structural mistakes that have defined entire generations. This agreement is not perfect, nor could any agreement emerging from decades of conflict ever be. Yet perfection has never been Lebanon’s greatest obstacle. The country’s tragedy has instead been its repeated inability to seize imperfect opportunities that nevertheless offered a path toward rebuilding the state.
Today, the international community, the United States, and even Israel have made clear that they are prepared to support Lebanon if Lebanon is finally prepared to support itself. The question is no longer whether the world is willing to help Lebanon succeed. The question is whether Lebanon is finally willing to become the sovereign state that its people have deserved all along.

How do we present the "Framework Agreement" to the chorus of accusations of treason?
Nabil Boumonsef/Al-Nahar Al-Arabi/June 29, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
The June 26, 2026 agreement, dubbed the "Framework Agreement," signed by the Lebanese and Israeli delegations at the US State Department, has been defined from all legal perspectives and from the standpoint of the constitutional powers of the President of the Republic and the government in authorizing the negotiating delegation to negotiate and conclude the agreement. However, this agreement is distinguished from all its predecessors in the history of agreements signed with the Hebrew state by the constant need for a realistic definition with stark details. Those concerned in the Lebanese authority, and perhaps better still, the Cabinet as a whole when it convenes to formally approve the "Framework Agreement," must define again and tirelessly, in the face of the clamor of those who incite sedition and threaten civil war, followers of the inherited tribal pattern of treason, intimidation, and fear, or those who go along with them and follow them, whatever their base motives may be, which lack the substance of statesmen's stances... define this agreement according to the most severe realistic requirement in a public opinion trial of those who have ruined Lebanon and returned it to the Middle Ages in deed, not in word. This agreement is not at all typical, but rather a de facto agreement imposed by two devastating wars. The first version of its negotiation models was the November 27, 2024 agreement, which the Shiite duo team reveres despite its coercive obligations because its "leader," President Nabih Berri, was the de facto negotiating party in it, separate from the government and the state at that time. He also conceded at that time to the state's exclusive right to weapons. The last framework agreement is the second, more recent version after a second, more devastating war in the name of supporting Iran. Lebanon was under no obligation, in any way, to enter negotiations with Israel in the first place, were it not for a faction affiliated with Iran in its founding, funding, arming, and ideological and religious doctrine. This faction, directly commanded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, maintains bases in the southern suburbs of Beirut and in various other locations, both secret and public, known and unknown, in southern Lebanon. This faction, through its weapons and direct allegiance to Tehran, effectively nullified the Armistice Agreement, all UN resolutions pertaining to Lebanon, the Taif Agreement, and all sovereign decisions aimed at extending Lebanese state sovereignty and enforcing the principle that the Lebanese state alone, without dispute, possesses the right to bear arms and to decide on matters of war and peace.
Lebanon was not forced into negotiations; rather, it was compelled to do so by two horrific wars that obliterated all remaining vestiges of a recovering or recovering Lebanon. These wars claimed the lives of thousands of young Lebanese Shiites, primarily, and others secondarily. They also inflicted unparalleled destruction on southern Lebanon, exceeding the devastation wrought by all the wars and invasions Lebanon has witnessed since the inception of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These wars plunged Lebanon back into a catastrophic state of strategic imbalance, forcing it to confront negotiations as the only remaining option to escape this inferno. Those who are desperately clinging to the Trump-Iranian regime understanding and glorifying the Iranian-American deal, in an unprecedented display of political hypocrisy that celebrates an agreement between a foreign power and the "Great Satan," while condemning the Lebanese state for accepting a necessary and unavoidable agreement under the conditions of this brutal war, are now stoking fears of a manufactured sectarian strife through accusations of treason and the vilest of insults against the state. This realistic definition should serve as a mandatory introduction to any definition of the framework agreement and any other developments related to its repercussions, as well as the escalating depravity stemming from the ongoing scare tactics and the cacophony of rhetoric that characterizes their approach... Further research is needed.

"Thank you, loyal Iran!" For what?
Jean Al-Faghali/Nidaa Al-Watan/June 29, 2026 (Google translation from Arabic)
Let's approach this calmly. Why do we say "thank you" to a person or country? Because that person or country has done a favor for the one who responds with gratitude. This is the universally accepted definition of gratitude. In the case at hand, "Thank you, Iran," let's examine the reasons for this gratitude and whether it is genuine, or simply the gratitude of a servant to his master. Iran has never defended Lebanon to deserve such thanks, and this is not mere rhetoric, but a proven fact supported by evidence. When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, and we are now marking its 44th anniversary, Iran did not fire a single missile at Israel. During Operation Grapes of Wrath in April 1996, Iran did not intervene in the war on the side of Lebanon or Hezbollah, and it did not fire a single missile at Israel. In 2006, Iran embroiled Lebanon in the July War. On the instructions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers, leading to a 33-day war that resulted in enormous losses. This prompted the late Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, to acknowledge Iran's involvement, famously saying, "If I had known." On October 8, 2023, Hezbollah, at Iran's behest, became involved in supporting Gaza. This war continued until November 27, 2024, and Iran did not fire a single missile at Israel, despite Hezbollah's support for Hamas. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Lebanon joined forces with Iran on March 2nd, seeking revenge for the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. When Iran retaliated against Israel, it wasn't out of concern for Lebanon, but because Israel had bombed it. It is clear from all these wars, from 1982 to 2026, that Iran never intervened, not even with a single bullet or missile, to support Lebanon. So, what is the point of these banners proclaiming "Thank you, loyal Iran"? What kind of "thanks" is this to those who embroiled Lebanon in wars without lifting a finger? This is where the discussion should begin, a discussion that should lead to holding Iran accountable, not thanking it.


Selected Face Book & X tweets on 29 June/2026