English LCCC Newsbulletin For Lebanese, Lebanese Related, Global News & Editorials
For September 21/2026
Compiled & Prepared by: Elias Bejjani
#elias_bejjani_news

The Bulletin's Link on the lccc Site
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/aaaanewsfor2026/english.september21.26.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
If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me
Mark 08/34-38/09,01: "Jesus called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’"

Titles For The English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 20-21/2026
Elias Bejjani: Debunking Jean Aziz’s article on the American “Just Security” website affiliated with the Democrats.. Aziz, speaking for Joseph Aoun, markets a forgery of the Framework Agreement to cover Hezbollah’s occupation.. A reading of the original text versus the narrative of the Mullas’ palace advisor/Elias Bejjani/September 19, 2026
Statement of Condemnation and Denunciation of the Unjust Verdict Against Journalist Maria Maalouf/Elias Bejjani/September 18, 2027
Major Israeli Escalation in the South: Explosions, Airstrikes, and Incursion into Deir Mimas
Escalation Continues: Raids, Violent Explosions, Sweeping Operations in the South, and Incursion into Deir Mimas
Hezbollah: Defending the Narrative or Facing a Crisis of Discourse?/Mustafa Fahs/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
Israel Links Southern Lebanon Withdrawal to Stronger Lebanese Army/Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
UN Peacekeeping Chief in Lebanon Says Smooth Transition Is Critical Before Pullout
Lebanese Army receives 70 containers of ammunition under US aid program
Who will fill the gap after UNIFIL? Lebanon and Israel remain divided
UN peacekeeping chief in Lebanon says smooth transition is critical before pull-out
Qassem: No balance with enemy but we must resist regardless of cost
Patriarch Al-Rahi: South Lebanon is Lebanese land, not a bargaining chip
US Embassy Commemorates Victims of Awkar Attack
Israeli Explosions Rock Al-Mansouri in Southern Lebanon

Titles For The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 20-21/2026
Trump: Something Big Could Happen Very Soon Regarding Iran
Iranian Military: US Preparing to Resume Combat Operations
Ghalibaf: Strait of Hormuz to Remain Closed Until Tehran’s Conditions Are Met
Iran’s GDP Drops by Over 10% During the War
Washington and Tehran Exchange Threats of Military Escalation; Trump Cuts Weekend Break Short; Mediation Efforts Underway
Araghchi Heads to New York; Trump’s Threats Precede Potential Meeting
Iranian Pressure" Complicates Handover of Factional Weapons in Iraq; Al-Arabiya Sources: Government and Factions Exchange Proposals on Terms and Mechanisms for Surrendering Arms
Russian Document Reveals Cooperation with Iran to Bypass Sanctions; Plan Covers Energy, Nuclear Program, Aviation, and Finance Sectors
French Plan to Secure Navigation in Hormuz for Six Months... Macron in New York... Three Pivotal Meetings on the Energy Crisis
Zelenskyy Reveals Upcoming Meeting with Trump... "Could Change a Lot"
Guterres to Al Arabiya: We Strongly Condemn Houthi Attacks on Saudi Arabia; UN Secretary-General Discusses Navigation, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and the Two-State Solution
Extensive Israeli Restrictions in the West Bank Coinciding with Yom Kippur; Palestinian Killed by Occupation Fire in Jenin and Body Detained; Armed Attack Kills Israeli
Washington Moves to Impose Sweeping Sanctions on the International Criminal Court
Israel looks beyond seven fronts as attention turns to Iran
Italy to ban veils in schools, limit foreign students per class, Meloni says

Titles For The Latest English LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 20-21/2026
The Muslim Brotherhood: Follow the Money/Ahmed Charai/Gatestone Institute/September 20, 2026
The Hamas Guarantor Problem: Turkey and Qatar/Pierre Rehov/Gatestone Institute/September 20, 2026
How Peace Happens/Jamal Al-Kashki/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
The Houthis...Now, Here/Mishary Dhayidi/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
When Fukuyama Met Gaddafi/Jumah Boukleb/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
Riyadh–Cairo: Charting the Maps of the Future/Emile Ameen/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
If Hope Is Gone, Slow Extinction Looms for Middle East Christians/Alberto M. Fernandez/National Catholic Registary/September 20/ 2026

Latest English LCCC Lebanese & Lebanese Related News & Editorials published on September 20-21/2026
Elias Bejjani: Debunking Jean Aziz’s article on the American “Just Security” website affiliated with the Democrats.. Aziz, speaking for Joseph Aoun, markets a forgery of the Framework Agreement to cover Hezbollah’s occupation.. A reading of the original text versus the narrative of the Mullas’ palace advisor
Elias Bejjani/September 19, 2026
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/09/157644/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aueSVQk9oUQ
Aziz does not analyze the Framework Agreement; he rewrites it to serve the narrative of the continuation of Hezbollah’s occupation, and turns the terms of the agreement upside down. Below is a clause-by-clause exposure of the manipulation:
1- The lie of the pilot zones and the Israeli withdrawal
What does the agreement actually say? Articles 2 and 3 are the heart of the agreement: “Commit to a reciprocal and graduated path, according to a clear sequence and specific conditions, under which the Lebanese Armed Forces will extend the effective authority of the state over all Lebanese territory, after verification of the disarmament of non-state armed groups and the dismantling of their infrastructure, which would allow the Israel Defense Forces to gradually redeploy outside Lebanese territory.”
“The Lebanese Armed Forces shall gradually assume full and effective security responsibility in pilot zones, which constitute the mechanism through which the phased and verified redeployment of Israeli forces will be implemented, in parallel with the deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces… and upon verification of the successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and the dismantling of their infrastructure in these areas, the Lebanese Armed Forces shall assume responsibility…” The logic is clear and strict: no withdrawal except after complete cleansing and its verification. The Lebanese Army does not deploy into a vacuum, but must prove that it has disarmed Hezbollah and dismantled its tunnels and depots. Only then does Israel withdraw, and reconstruction and the return of civilians begin.
What does Jean Aziz write?
He turns the verse completely upside down and says: “Israel demands that the Lebanese Army prove effective control over areas already handed over… while the Lebanese position is that the Army cannot fully deploy in territories still occupied by Israeli forces.” This is blatant forgery. The agreement never said that the army deploys first in occupied land. It said the opposite: the army disarms in its own area that it already controls, under American supervision, then the United States verifies the cleansing, then Israel withdraws. Aziz turns the clear security condition into a “trap” and a “contradiction that threatens political logic,” to justify the failure of the Lebanese state to disarm. More dangerously, he deliberately ignores the phrase “after its complete cleansing of Hezbollah” which is the essence of Article 3. He wants a free, unconditional Israeli withdrawal, so that Hezbollah returns to the same points in army uniform.
2- The lie of the monopoly of arms – from an irreversible commitment to a social welfare program
The agreement – Articles 4, 6 and 9: “The Government of the Lebanese Republic reaffirms its firm and irreversible commitment to restore and exercise its full sovereignty… re-establishing the state’s monopoly on the use of force, achieving full and verified disarmament of all non-state armed groups, and ensuring that these groups do not assume any military or security role, and do not possess any armed capabilities anywhere on Lebanese territory.” “The Government of the Lebanese Republic alone possesses the exclusive sovereign authority to make decisions of war and peace… any claim by any state or non-governmental entity to exercise a military or security role is considered illegal” “Implementation of a strict performance-based program… any new American aid will be strictly conditional on achieving specific and verifiable stages”…. This is not disarmament in the south only, but in all of Lebanon, and forever.
What does Aziz write?
He turns this sovereign commitment into a DDR process – disarmament, demobilization and reintegration in the Lebanese-militia style. He says: “The Lebanese state cannot ask communities to support disarmament while Israeli forces are still present… A fighter who leaves an armed organization needs a reliable civilian future… Communities that relied on institutions linked to Hezbollah need services…”
Here is the biggest manipulation: The agreement considers Hezbollah an illegal militia that must be dismantled legally and militarily. Aziz considers it an oppressed community that needs political, social, economic and employment guarantees. He does not demand disarmament, but a price for disarmament, and links it to reconstruction which Article 11 explicitly prevents from reaching Hezbollah.
3- The lie of America’s role – from guarantor of verification to unconditional funder
The agreement makes America the verification policeman, not a naive funder. Articles 9, 10 and 11 are clear: not one dollar before verification, and preventing reconstruction funds from reaching Hezbollah.
Aziz demands the exact opposite: “Trump’s pledge should now turn… into sustainable military assistance, training and institutional support commensurate with the scale of what is asked of the army… Israel should not be allowed to turn withdrawal into a deferred reward… Washington helped draft the agreement… and its role cannot end with the signing of the framework.” He wants America to pressure Israel to withdraw first, and to finance the army, municipalities and reconstruction immediately, while Hezbollah’s weapons remain. This is a literal opposite of the text of the agreement which says aid is conditional on results.
4- The lie justifying Hezbollah’s weapons
Article 5 says: “The Government of the State of Israel affirms that its military operations in Lebanon came exclusively as a result of attacks, threats and hostile intentions emanating from non-state armed groups, especially Hezbollah… The Government of Israel declares that it harbors no territorial ambitions or claims in Lebanon.” Aziz revives Hezbollah’s narrative literally: “For a long time, Hezbollah has justified its possession of an arsenal… with the argument that the state is incapable of protecting Lebanese territory… If the Lebanese state wants to replace the logic of armed resistance, it must prove that state institutions are capable of achieving security results…”
Aziz legitimizes the pretext for weapons instead of refuting it, and makes the Israeli withdrawal a condition for convincing the Shiite environment, while the agreement says the opposite: disarming Hezbollah is a condition for removing the need for any Israeli presence.
Conclusion
Jean Aziz’s article is not an analysis, but a defense memo for the jihadist, terrorist, Iranian and criminal Hezbollah written by the advisor to President Joseph Aoun, and on an American website affiliated with the Democrats to pass a message to Washington – President Trump’s adminstration- that says: Do not pressure us to disarm, pressure Israel to withdraw. The tripartite agreement signed by Lebanon says: complete disarmament, in all of Lebanon, irreversible, verified by America, then gradual Israeli withdrawal, then reconstruction without Hezbollah. Aziz’s-which is Aoun -Berri- Hezbollah narrative says: complete and immediate Israeli withdrawal, then generous unconditional American support, then perhaps we will think about a functional dismantling of Hezbollah’s weapons with social and political guarantees.
This is forgery itself. And it explains why the Rome negotiations on the pilot zones faltered: because the official Lebanese side, on the advice of Aziz and his ilk, is trying to sell Washington an agreement it did not sign, and hide an agreement it did sign.
The mask of president Joseph Aoun has fallen, revealing his true Iranized and mullah-ized nature. He is merely a “scarecrow and a figurehead” in Baabda Palace, implementing the decrees of Hezbollah, Berri, and Iran, who imposed on him a government of advisors — such as the acrobat Jean Aziz — over whom he has no authority and who are completely subordinate to Hezbollah, Berri and, of course, to their Persian mullah masters.
What is required: the resignation or dismissal of Joseph Aoun, nothing more and nothing less.
The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist
Author’s Email: Phoenicia@hotmail.com

Statement of Condemnation and Denunciation of the Unjust Verdict Against Journalist Maria Maalouf
Elias Bejjani/September 18, 2027
https://eliasbejjaninews.com/2026/09/157613/
In a new disgraceful precedent confirming the extent of the degradation and hijacking of judicial institutions in Lebanon, the so-called “Permanent Military Court” in Beirut issued an invalid and unjust in absentia ruling sentencing prominent journalist and activist Maria Maalouf, who resides in the United States of America, to 15 years of hard labor under loose and fabricated charges such as “national treason” and violating the laws boycotting Israel, against the backdrop of her sovereign views and courageous stances opposing Iranian hegemony and demanding peace.
In the strongest terms, this oppressive and politicized decision is condemned and denounced, while emphasizing the following legal and rights-based constants:
The Nullity and Illegitimacy of the Court: The Military Court in Lebanon is an exceptional, unconstitutional court that lost its judicial character since the ominous era of the Syrian occupation, and transformed completely since 2005 into an oppressive tool in the hands of the Iranian occupation represented by the terrorist Hezbollah militia, entirely controlled by the dominant apparatus (the Shiite dualism: the Amal Movement and Hezbollah) and constantly working to terrorize Lebanon’s free people and muzzle free expression.
The Absence of Legal Effect: This verdict issued in absentia against a journalist living outside the borders of militia authority, in a state governed by the human rights charter, is a verdict void of legal and rights-based validity, and represents a documented crime against freedom of opinion and expression, and a malicious use of the judiciary as a claw to implement occupation agendas and intellectual and political inquisitions.
The Responsibility of the Political Authority: We hold President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and the Lebanese government fully and historically responsible for the continuation of this judicial farce. The executive authority’s failure thus far to close the Military Court, and more dangerously, the inability to rein it in and prevent it from issuing unjust rulings against every free-thinking voice that rejects Hezbollah’s occupation and calls for peace, represents a implicit partnership in the horrific collapse of the rule of law.
Accordingly, we demand the following:
The immediate and final closure of the “Military Court” and the removal of its lawless authority over civilians and opinion writers.
The annulment and invalidation of all invalid and oppressive rulings that have been and are being issued by this hijacked-will court.
The opening of an investigation and judicial and professional prosecution of all judges who chaired this court, who were nothing more than cheap instruments to execute the orders and plots of the Syrian and Iranian occupations.
Peace with Israel, and the overthrow of Lebanon’s arena being left open for the merchants of the alleged “resistance” lie and the arms of the occupation, have today become more than ever an urgent existential and national necessity to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty and kidnapped identity.
Backgroung
Accused of Treason… Maria Maalouf Faces 15 Years in Prison
Janoubia/September 17, 2027 (Translated from Arabic by AI)
The Permanent Military Court in Beirut issued an in absentia ruling sentencing media figure Maria Maalouf to 15 years of hard labor in a case filed by lawyer Ghassan Mawla, acting on behalf of the Committee of Representatives of Released Prisoners and a number of journalists, before the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office. According to the ruling, Maalouf was convicted of crimes related to ‘national treason,’ calling for foreign aggression aimed at ‘displacing and killing Lebanese, violating sovereignty, and destroying the state,’ in addition to violating laws related to contact and normalization with Israel. The verdict was issued against the backdrop of the lawsuit filed against her before the military judiciary, with the decision handed down in absentia due to her failure to attend the trial sessions.
The author, Elias Bejjani, is a Lebanese expatriate activist

Major Israeli Escalation in the South: Explosions, Airstrikes, and Incursion into Deir Mimas
Janoubia/ September 20, 2026
Southern Lebanon witnessed a significant field escalation today, marked by a series of airstrikes, artillery shelling, and violent explosions. These events coincided with Israeli ground movements and incursions into several border towns, constituting a fresh violation of the ceasefire understanding.
Explosions Rock the South
A series of Israeli-triggered explosions were recorded in Al-Mansouri, Beit Yahoun, Majdal Zoun, Tayr Harfa, and Yahmar Al-Shaqif. Massive blasts shook the area—most notably in Yahmar Al-Shaqif and Kfar Tebnit—with their impact felt as far away as Nabatieh, Zahrani, and the villages of Marjeyoun. Artillery shelling struck the outskirts of Baraachit, Hadatha, Beit Yahoun, and Aita al-Jabal, while Wadi Zibqin, Wadi al-Salouqi, and Wadi al-Hujair were targeted, alongside the outskirts of Zoutar al-Sharqiya and Khallet Mifdoun.
Airstrikes on Nabatieh
Israeli warplanes launched two consecutive airstrikes on the Al-Deir neighborhood in Nabatieh al-Fawqa, coinciding with a strike targeting the vicinity of the Ali al-Tahir hills. Strikes were also carried out in two waves on Al-Mansouri, as well as on Al-Qantara and Bani Hayyan in the Marjeyoun District.
Subsequently, Israeli forces conducted sweeping operations using heavy machine guns in the vicinity of Arnoun and Zoutar al-Sharqiya, coinciding with military movements at several border points. Tank Incursion into Deir Mimas
In a notable field development, an Israeli force comprising three Merkava tanks advanced toward Deir Mimas this morning; they blocked the town's entrance and obstructed local traffic for some time. Reports indicate that the force searched several homes and destroyed utility poles along the roadside before continuing its movements in the area.
Burning of Orchards and Farms
According to circulating reports, Israeli forces also set fire to olive groves and citrus orchards in the vicinity of Majdal Zoun and Buyut al-Sayyad, using munitions believed to be white phosphorus, while shelling, demolition operations, and sweeping maneuvers continued across several southern towns.

Escalation Continues: Raids, Violent Explosions, Sweeping Operations in the South, and Incursion into Deir Mimas
Al-Markaziya/ September 20, 2026
The Israeli army carried out a series of controlled detonations in the town of Al-Mansouri in southern Lebanon. Reports also noted an Israeli demolition operation on the outskirts of Baraachit, while Khallet Mifdoun—located between the towns of Zoutar Al-Sharqiya and Mifdoun—was subjected to intermittent artillery shelling. This evening, the Israeli army conducted violent detonations in the town of Beit Yahoun, near the town of Konin; this coincided with artillery shelling targeting the town of Beit Lif in the Bint Jbeil district. A massive explosion was also carried out in the town of Yahmar Al-Shaqif, creating a thunderous blast that reverberated across the Nabatieh and Zahrani regions. Additionally, Israeli warplanes conducted airstrikes targeting the town of Al-Mansouri in two separate waves. Warplanes launched a raid on the Al-Deir neighborhood in Nabatieh Al-Fawqa, followed less than five minutes later by a second raid on the same neighborhood; simultaneously, an airstrike targeted the area surrounding the Ali Al-Tahir hills. In the afternoon, the Israeli army conducted a sweep operation using heavy machine guns in the vicinity of Arnoun and Zoutar Al-Sharqiyah. Warplanes also launched raids on the towns of Al-Qantara and Bani Hayyan in the Marjeyoun district, while the Israeli army targeted Wadi Zibqin in the Tyre district with artillery fire. Loud explosions were heard in the south this afternoon; it was later determined that they resulted from concentrated artillery shelling on the town of Yahmar Al-Shaqif. At the same time, the Israeli army targeted the town of Al-Khiam with four artillery shells and carried out a massive demolition operation in the town of Majdal Zoun. Earlier in the day, the town had been subjected to a series of Israeli explosions coinciding with a sweep operation in the area. Afternoon shelling also targeted the valley of Zibqin. Earlier that morning, an Israeli force comprising three Merkava tanks had advanced toward the town of Deir Mimas, blocking the town's entrance and obstructing the movement of residents entering and leaving for a period of time. During the incursion, the force searched several homes and smashed telephone poles along the roadside before continuing its movements in the area. This incursion occurs amidst ongoing Israeli violations of the border and the ceasefire agreement. Furthermore, Israeli forces set fire to olive groves and citrus orchards in the vicinity of Majdal Zoun and Buyut Al-Sayyad by firing phosphorus shells. Four 240mm artillery shells struck the outskirts of the town of Hadatha, near the town of Haris in the Bint Jbeil district. Artillery fire also targeted the town of Beit Yahoun—towards Baraachit—and the town of Al-Mansouri. Additionally, an Israeli-triggered explosion occurred in the town of Tayr Harfa, and artillery shelling targeted the woodlands of Ayta al-Jabal, also in the Bint Jbeil district. Earlier at dawn, Israeli forces shelled Wadi al-Salouqi and Wadi al-Hujair and carried out successive explosions starting at midnight in Al-Mansouri and the outskirts of Buyut al-Sayyad. Reports also indicated a massive explosion in Kafr Tibnit that shook the villages of Marjeyoun. At midnight, Israeli artillery shelling targeted the outskirts of the town of Zoutar al-Sharqiya, near Mifdoun.

Hezbollah: Defending the Narrative or Facing a Crisis of Discourse?
Mustafa Fahs/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
There is nothing unusual about a member of parliament raising their voice, nor about heated exchanges between parliamentary blocs. The real problem arises when raising one's voice becomes a substitute for dialogue, or when defending an opinion turns into an attempt to shield it from the questions imposed by reality. What emerged in the speeches of some Hezbollah MPs during the confidence renewal session for Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's government deserves close attention. The party is not merely confronting its political opponents; it is also facing questions coming from within the very community that bore the consequences of the war: What was the purpose of the war? What did the South lose? Who holds the power to decide on war and peace? And can what was once presented as a guarantee for protecting the land still fulfill that role now that the towns and villages of southern Lebanon face a threatened geography, prolonged displacement, and a society paying mounting costs?
This is where the narrative faces its dilemma. Political narratives do not collapse because their opponents criticize them. They unravel when the gap between their promises and the reality experienced by their audience becomes too wide. When explaining the consequences becomes more difficult than defending intentions, discourse shifts from interpreting reality to protecting the narrative from which it derives its legitimacy. One of the pillars of Hezbollah's discourse has been the equation that weapons protect the land, embodied in the slogan "We Protect and We Build," and the belief that the resistance prevents Israel from imposing its will through a "balance of deterrence."
Yet the war has elevated the debate to another level. The question is no longer simply whether weapons can deter; it is whether they can protect people, geography, and the continuity of society. This is a political, social, and ethical question concerning the meaning of power and its purpose. Weapons are merely a means. The land is the space where people live. The state is the framework through which power is transformed into sovereignty. Society is the ultimate objective that power is supposed to protect.
Geography is not merely an area on a map. It is the home, the school, the marketplace, the cemetery, the collective memory, and the space within which society endures. Losing it therefore means more than losing territory; it means endangering people, identity, and stability.
Ironically, arguments minimizing the importance of geography tend to become more prevalent precisely when geography becomes more vulnerable to loss. States do not fight over land because it belongs to the past; they fight over it because it remains the essence of sovereignty, security, and demography.
In this context, any variation in political performance within the Shiite Duo deserves observation, without rushing to conclude that a strategic disagreement exists. Differences in tone and approaches toward the government and state institutions may simply reflect differing ways of managing the current phase or prioritizing objectives.But the post-war period is not the same as what came before. Here lies Hezbollah's responsibility for its choices, not because it embodies resistance in itself, but because it is a political and military actor that exercised significant influence over decisions related to the war and its consequences.
Explaining the motivations behind those choices is no longer sufficient. What is required is an accounting of their outcomes, a reassessment of where calculations were correct and where they failed, and whether the cost of those decisions has become greater than the ability to justify them. The discussion must therefore be redefined. Resistance is not a party, a weapon, or a particular group, nor is it the property of any political organization. In its national sense, resistance is a responsibility shared by the Lebanese state and society, aimed at protecting land, people, and sovereignty. Its decisions and tools should be part of a national and institutional debate. This is where the responsibility of the Shiite intellectual and political elite begins. Their role is not to protect Hezbollah from criticism, nor to reduce the entire community to the party's choices. Rather, it is to restore society's right to generate its own political questions: about the state, war and peace, weapons, the future of the South, and the relationship between resistance and sovereignty. They must distinguish between resistance as a national value and the management of resistance as a political choice that can be right or wrong.
Respect for the idea of resistance must not become an excuse to absolve decision-makers of responsibility. Nor should society be asked to bear the cost of decisions it did not make and then remain silent in the name of unity. Social cohesion does not mean shielding decisions from accountability.
The public that endured the war does not need more shouting; it needs answers. And an elite willing to scrutinize political choices can transform loss into an opportunity to rebuild the relationship between society and the state.
The new phase does not require a discourse that asks society to protect the narrative; it requires a narrative that protects society. It does not require a monopoly over resistance; it requires reclaiming its national meaning. And it does not require justifying losses; it requires a critical review that prevents their repetition.The real crisis, therefore, does not begin when a party loses a rhetorical battle in parliament. It begins when yesterday's discourse can no longer explain today's reality. At that point, the question is no longer whether the issue is one of defending the narrative or facing a crisis of discourse. The deeper question becomes: Can the narrative evolve before the crisis of discourse turns into a crisis of trust?

Israel Links Southern Lebanon Withdrawal to Stronger Lebanese Army
Caroline Akoum/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
From protecting northern Israeli communities to disarming Hezbollah and ensuring that the Lebanese army can assume responsibility for security, Israel has set a series of conditions for the future of its occupation of southern Lebanon. Although Israel says it has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, statements by its officials in recent months have offered no clear timetable for withdrawal, instead linking it to a succession of security and political conditions.
From protecting the north to a “security zone”
Amid repeated Israeli statements focusing on maintaining the occupation of southern Lebanon, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on June 21 that the Israeli military would continue operating there. He said troops deployed in the “security zone” would not withdraw and would retain freedom of action to eliminate threats. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar later said Israel had no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, while stressing that it would not withdraw from the “security zone,” citing the need to protect Israeli citizens from Hezbollah attacks. Katz was more explicit in rejecting any imminent withdrawal. On June 24, he said the Israeli military will not withdraw from the security zone, even if the US demands it. The following day, the language shifted from security necessity to an open-ended timeline. Katz said Israeli forces would remain in security zones in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza "without any time limit."
Disarming Hezbollah as a condition
At the end of June, Katz sought to reconcile Israel’s denial of territorial ambitions with its continued military control, insisting that Israel would not withdraw by a single millimeter before Hezbollah was disarmed. Days later came his most direct statement. After US President Donald Trump raised the possibility of an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, Katz responded: “We did not ask permission from any party to enter Lebanon and we do not need permission to stay in Lebanon."
A new condition: Strengthening the Lebanese army
The latest US statement introduced another criterion for the future of Israel’s presence. US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said on Saturday that the Israeli military will remain in southern Lebanon until the Lebanese army “is strong enough to be the securing force.”
Israeli objectives extend beyond withdrawal
Retired Lebanese Army Maj. Gen. Abdul Rahman Chehaitli said Israel’s objectives went beyond maintaining a military presence in the south. They included reaching “a military and security agreement between the two countries and abolishing everything that defines Israel as an enemy,” eventually establishing relations “like those between any two states,” in addition, of course, to disarming Hezbollah. In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, Chehaitli said Israel was seeking to establish a joint border committee to monitor violations, followed by economic agreements. Its most important objective, he said, was a meeting between the Lebanese and Israeli presidents. He viewed Israel’s pressure on the Lebanese state as serving that goal. Chehaitli rejected linking an Israeli withdrawal to strengthening the Lebanese army, arguing that Israel itself was obstructing efforts to secure the support the army needed. He cited the Paris conference, which ended without final decisions.The Lebanese army, including its officers and troops, was “fully prepared to carry out its duties,” he said.
The army and Hezbollah’s weapons
Chehaitli said Israel wanted the Lebanese army to act as an “advance detachment,” confronting Hezbollah first before Israeli forces took over — a role he said the army “will not perform.”The natural sequence, he said, was that “once Israel says it has completed its military operations in Lebanon, the Lebanese army can then carry out its mission.” In other words, an Israeli withdrawal would allow the Lebanese state and its army to assume their responsibilities fully. Addressing Hezbollah’s refusal to surrender its weapons and Israel’s use of the issue as justification for continuing the occupation, Chehaitli said Israel had previously tied its withdrawal to the Lebanese government adopting decisions establishing the state’s exclusive control over weapons. “That has happened,” he said. “Parliament granted the government confidence for the third time, including the Shiite component and Hezbollah in particular, which did not withhold confidence from it and therefore did not reject its decisions.”After an Israeli withdrawal, Chehaitli said, the government could implement its decisions throughout Lebanon “regardless of whether Hezbollah explicitly agrees.”Israel’s continued presence made the task of the state and army more difficult, he added. “The occupation is the obstacle preventing the state from implementing its decisions and assuming its full responsibilities.”
Two Israeli soldiers were wounded
The statements came as Israeli attacks continued at varying levels of intensity in recent days. Nabatieh came under a barrage of strikes on Saturday. Israeli warplanes carried out two rounds of strikes on the Old Square neighborhood in Nabatieh al-Fawqa before launching a third strike that targeted emergency teams from the Islamic Risala Scout Association and the Bayt al-Talaba ambulance service as they headed to the site of the earlier attacks. Members of both teams escaped unharmed, and no casualties were reported. In Khiam, the Israeli military carried out a large demolition operation in the morning, coinciding with a powerful explosion in the Mansouri area. Israeli warplanes also launched a series of strikes on Mansouri and Kfar Tebnit and bombed Wadi al-Salouqi. Israeli artillery shelled the outskirts of the towns of Haddatha, Haris and Mayfadoun at dawn as part of a field escalation affecting several areas of southern Lebanon.Later in the afternoon, the Israeli military said two soldiers were wounded when an explosive device detonated inside what Israel calls its “security zone” in southern Lebanon. It accused Hezbollah of planting the device and announced a series of strikes on sites across several parts of the south. The Israeli military said its targets included observation posts and facilities it said had been used to prepare operations against its forces. It also confirmed that its troops remained deployed inside what it describes as the “security zone” in southern Lebanon and said it would continue acting against what it considers threats to its forces and Israeli residents.

UN Peacekeeping Chief in Lebanon Says Smooth Transition Is Critical Before Pullout
Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
The head of United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon said on Saturday it was critical to ensure other UN agencies and Lebanese troops could assume the tasks carried out by the force before it begins withdrawing at the end of this year.
Major General Diodato Abagnara of Italy spoke to Reuters in southern Lebanon at a position operated by the UN peacekeeping force known as UNIFIL, which has been monitoring hostilities in southern Lebanon for nearly 50 years. Since a new war erupted between Israel and Iran-backed Lebanese armed ‌group Hezbollah in ‌March, the force has also provided security escorts for humanitarian aid ‌convoys ⁠to residents in a ⁠small cluster of predominantly Christian southern Lebanese towns now encircled by Israeli troops. Residents in much of the rest of southern Lebanon have been forcibly displaced by Israeli strikes and evacuation orders. The UN Security Council has ordered UNIFIL to begin withdrawing at the end of 2026, triggering concerns over whether aid deliveries can continue and how the force can transfer its positions to Lebanese troops. “There are other United Nations entities here in the south, and so what is ⁠very important for us (is) to conduct a very smooth transition to ‌different entities, or for the future of a new ‌mission,” Abagnara told Reuters. He said UNIFIL was already working with the UN’s country team to ensure ‌humanitarian assistance in Israeli-occupied areas and information sharing with the Lebanese army about “sensitive areas (and) how ‌they can manage this situation.”Abagnara acknowledged that it could be “very difficult” to hand over some of UNIFIL's posts to Lebanese troops given that more than half lie within areas now controlled by Israeli troops.
ISRAEL DEMOLISHES TOWN NEAR UN POST
Diplomats worry UNIFIL’s departure will mean an end to the UN's "eyes and ‌ears" in southern Lebanon. Abagnara spoke to Reuters at a position overlooking Mansouri, a town where Israeli forces have been carrying out demolitions ⁠since ordering residents ⁠to leave in June, despite a ceasefire. Reuters reporters could see excavators in the town knocking down trees and multi-storey homes. Abagnara described demolitions as “another violation” of UN Security Council resolutions on Lebanon. Israel's military has said it is destroying Hezbollah infrastructure across southern Lebanon. As a US-backed plan for Lebanon's army to disarm Hezbollah and take control of southern Lebanon has stalled, a diplomatic scramble is underway to address the vacuum that will be left by UNIFIL’s withdrawal. Lebanon wants an extension. Other countries have discussed a new multinational mission, though it remains unclear what kind of mandate it would have. Abagnara said an extension would be “a great honor” but that without a new Security Council decision, his force would need to stop operating at the end of the year.
“It's not a long time," he said. "The presence of United Nations in the South is very, very essential. And according to me, more now than ever.”

Lebanese Army receives 70 containers of ammunition under US aid program
LBCI/September 20, 2026
The Lebanese Army announced that it received 70 containers of various types of ammunition at Beirut Port as part of U.S. military assistance programs. The Army said the shipment comes as part of continued U.S. support aimed at strengthening its capabilities amid growing responsibilities and challenges across Lebanon.

Who will fill the gap after UNIFIL? Lebanon and Israel remain divided
LBCI/September 20, 2026
The uncertainty over the nature of the European mission is not the only reason its discussion in Cabinet was delayed. The political deadlock over the future of the international presence in southern Lebanon is also a factor, as efforts to find an alternative to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) remain stalled. According to informed sources who spoke to LBCI, Israel opposes the presence of any new U.N. or European force and is seeking to establish a direct field-level relationship between itself and the Lebanese army after UNIFIL’s mission ends. Lebanon rejects this option, fearing that the south could become a direct confrontation zone without an international umbrella or a mechanism to guarantee stability. mAgainst this backdrop, President Joseph Aoun has maintained ongoing contacts with U.S. officials in an effort to prevent an international vacuum in the south. According to the information, Lebanon is not vetoing any country or entity that could head or participate in a committee tasked with verifying the implementation of the pilot zones. However, it insists that the United States continue to oversee any future mechanism. Amid this complexity, controversy emerged over the European Union’s Common Security and Defence Policy mission after it was understood to potentially be an alternative to UNIFIL. Government sources told LBCI that comments by Foreign Minister Youssef Rajji as he entered the Cabinet session on the matter were understood differently from what he intended, linking two separate tracks. The proposed European mission is not a military force and will not deploy troops in southern Lebanon. It also does not replace UNIFIL or the envisaged international force. Its role is advisory and training-focused, aimed at providing logistical and technical support to the Lebanese army and Internal Security Forces to strengthen their ability to extend state authority. According to LBCI information, a European delegation visited Lebanon this week as part of preparations for the mission, while another delegation is expected to arrive in mid-October. Details of the mission and its operating mechanisms remain under discussion with Lebanon. As for the fifth item on the Cabinet agenda concerning the mission, government sources told LBCI that it was not withdrawn but postponed for two weeks because of the issue that arose over it. During this period, the Defense and Interior ministries will prepare a list of the needs of the army and security forces, along with the required training programs. In other words, Europe is considering a mission to support Lebanon’s state institutions, not to fill the potential vacuum left by UNIFIL. As for an international alternative in the south, it remains caught between Israel’s opposition to any new force and Lebanon’s refusal to face Israel alone on the ground.

UN peacekeeping chief in Lebanon says smooth transition is critical before pull-out
LBCI/September 20, 2026
The head of United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon said on Saturday it was critical to ‌ensure other U.N. agencies and Lebanese troops could assume the tasks carried out by the force before it begins withdrawing at the end of this year. Major General Diodato Abagnara of Italy spoke to Reuters in southern Lebanon at a position operated by the U.N. peacekeeping force known as UNIFIL, which has been monitoring hostilities in southern Lebanon for nearly 50 years. Since a new war erupted between Israel and Hezbollah in March, the force has also provided security escorts for humanitarian ⁠aid convoys to residents in a small cluster of predominantly Christian southern Lebanese towns now encircled by Israeli troops. Residents in much of the rest of southern Lebanon have been forcibly displaced by Israeli strikes and evacuation orders. The U.N. Security Council has ordered UNIFIL to begin withdrawing at the end of 2026, triggering concerns over whether aid deliveries can continue and how the force can transfer its positions to Lebanese troops. “There are other United Nations entities here in the south, and so what is very important for us (is) to conduct a very smooth transition to different entities, or for the future of a new mission,” Abagnara told Reuters. He said UNIFIL was already working with the U.N.’s country team to ensure humanitarian assistance in Israeli-occupied areas and information sharing with the Lebanese army about “sensitive areas (and) how they can ‌manage ⁠this situation.” Abagnara acknowledged that it could be “very difficult” to hand over some of UNIFIL's posts to Lebanese troops given that more than half lie within areas now controlled by Israeli troops. Diplomats worry UNIFIL’s departure will mean an end to the U.N.'s "eyes and ears" in southern Lebanon. Abagnara spoke to Reuters at a position overlooking Mansouri, a town where Israeli forces have been carrying out demolitions since ordering residents to leave in June, ⁠despite a ceasefire. Reuters reporters could see excavators in the town knocking down trees and multi-storey homes.Abagnara described demolitions as “another violation” of U.N. Security Council resolutions on Lebanon. Israel's military has said it is destroying Hezbollah infrastructure across southern Lebanon. Abagnara said ⁠an extension would be “a great honor” but that without a new Security Council decision, his force would need to stop operating at the end of the year. “It's not a long time," he said. "The presence of United Nations in the South is very, very essential. And according to me, more now than ever.”

Qassem: No balance with enemy but we must resist regardless of cost
Naharnet/September 20, 2026
Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem has stressed that "resistance is the only path to liberating the land and all other ways are a waste of time.""We have directly experienced the path of resistance in Lebanon and found that it liberates both the land and the people," said Qassem during a ceremony organized by a Pakistani students organization. Admitting that "there is absolutely no military balance with the enemy," Qassem added: "We know that we are the rightful owners of the cause and the land and we must resist regardless of the cost."He emphasized that "even if the situation in Lebanon drags on for days or months, we are victorious because we have stood firm and prevented the enemy from achieving its objectives."

Patriarch Al-Rahi: South Lebanon is Lebanese land, not a bargaining chip
LBCI/September 20, 2026
Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rahi said Sunday that south Lebanon “is not a bargaining chip, but Lebanese land,” stressing that its residents have the right to security, stability and life. Speaking during a memorial Mass for the martyrs of the Lebanese Resistance, al-Rahi called for an end to attacks and for Lebanon’s land and rights to be protected. On negotiations, al-Rahi voiced support for any serious political and diplomatic process that protects Lebanon, prevents war and secures withdrawal, sovereignty, rights and stability.
He also called for statesmen who put the country above personal positions, a society that rejects incitement, responsible media that does not turn disagreements into hostility, and an education that does not pass the hatreds of the past on to younger generations.

US Embassy Commemorates Victims of Awkar Attack
Al-Markaziya/September 20, 2026
The US Embassy in Lebanon marked the 42nd anniversary on Sunday of the attack that targeted its headquarters in Awkar in 1984. In a statement, the embassy said: "On this anniversary, we remember and honor our American and Lebanese colleagues who lost their lives, and we stand with their families and all those affected by this tragic attack."It added that the memory of the victims "will remain in our hearts and minds."

Israeli Explosions Rock Al-Mansouri in Southern Lebanon
Riyadh/AlArabiya.net/September 20, 2026
Israeli explosions shook the town of Al-Mansouri in southern Lebanon on Sunday evening, marking the latest escalation in the border region. This coincides with ongoing demolition and demolition-by-explosion operations carried out by Israeli forces in several southern towns.
An Al-Arabiya/Al-Hadath correspondent reported that the Israeli army carried out a series of explosions in Al-Mansouri, with no immediate reports of casualties resulting from the blasts. This occurred as Israeli forces continued demolition and demolition-by-explosion operations targeting facilities and homes in Al-Mansouri, while Israeli artillery has been targeting infrastructure and residential neighborhoods in the town for days. Days earlier, the Israeli army had announced the destruction of underground infrastructure—allegedly belonging to Hezbollah—in the Tal Ali al-Taher area, noting that the dismantled tunnels and facilities extended over two kilometers and contained weapons, missiles, and military installations, according to the Israeli account. Israel also announced its readiness to continue targeting Hezbollah positions in new areas, affirming that its forces would remain in zones designated as part of the "security zone" in southern Lebanon to prevent the group from rebuilding its capabilities or re-establishing a presence there. These developments occur despite the ceasefire that took effect in June following US-brokered understandings between Israel and Lebanon, and amidst ongoing disputes regarding the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the deployment of the Lebanese Army, and the disarmament of Hezbollah. An initial ceasefire agreement had come into force on April 16 for a ten-day period prior to the subsequent understandings reached in June, though fighting and tensions persisted intermittently leading up to the June 19 ceasefire. Since then, the intensity of confrontations has subsided compared to the period of open warfare; however, Israeli airstrikes and military operations have not ceased, and demolition and targeting activities have continued in parts of southern Lebanon. In a related development, UN Secretary-General António Guterres praised the role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), telling Al Arabiya that the force had played a "very positive role." UNIFIL operates in southern Lebanon under a Security Council mandate linked to the implementation of Resolution 1701, monitoring the cessation of hostilities, supporting the Lebanese Army, and facilitating the delivery of humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, international and regional parties are currently exploring options regarding the security presence in southern Lebanon following the conclusion of UNIFIL's mission, against the backdrop of persistent border tensions and stalled implementation of understandings concerning the Israeli withdrawal and the disarmament of armed groups.

The Latest English LCCC Miscellaneous Reports And News published on September 20-21/2026
Trump: Something Big Could Happen Very Soon Regarding Iran
Riyadh – AlArabiya.net / September 20, 2026
Amid escalating tensions and mutual threats between the US and Iran, US President Donald Trump stated that "something big could happen very soon regarding Iran." Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, Trump added, "I am in the process of making a decision regarding Iran." He noted that the options currently on the table include obliterating Iran, letting it "rot" economically, or reaching a deal. Furthermore, he issued fresh warnings to Iranian authorities, hinting at the "possibility of blowing up all of Iran," and told Iranian officials, "They had better behave." Despite this threat, Trump indicated he would be open to meeting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in New York on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meetings next Tuesday. Regarding the Houthis in Yemen, he noted that the US administration is in constant contact with the group, which has agreed not to target US interests or vessels. These remarks followed warnings from Iranian forces regarding a "US plan" to resume war and launch attacks on Iranian territory. The Joint Combat Command of the Iranian Armed Forces stated earlier today that Tehran had received intelligence indicating the US was preparing to resume combat operations. The comments also came after reports that Trump cut short his vacation at Camp David yesterday evening to return to Washington, amid media speculation about potential strikes against the Houthis.

Iranian Military: US Preparing to Resume Combat Operations
Ghalibaf: Strait of Hormuz to Remain Closed Until Tehran’s Conditions Are Met
Tehran: *Asharq Al-Awsat* / September 20, 2026
In a statement issued today (Sunday) and reported by Iranian state media, the Joint Combat Command of the Iranian Armed Forces announced that Tehran had received intelligence indicating the United States is preparing to resume combat operations with the support of certain regional states. The Command added that any US attack would trigger sustained strikes against American bases and interests in the region. It also warned regional nations supporting a US attack on Iran that they would be considered parties to the conflict, according to Reuters. Earlier today, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated that Iran would not reopen the Strait of Hormuz until its conditions are met and US obligations are fulfilled. The Fars news agency—affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard—quoted Ghalibaf as saying that Iran must "fight and negotiate simultaneously." He added that Tehran would employ military force to deter its enemies and diplomacy to consolidate its battlefield gains when the time is right, Reuters reported. Meanwhile, Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said on Saturday that Iran had conveyed its conditions to mediators regarding the resumption of negotiations aimed at ending the war with the United States. In remarks to the media, Rezaei explained that these conditions include ending the war on all fronts, unfreezing Iranian assets, and lifting the naval blockade. He added that consultations with Qatari and Pakistani mediators are ongoing and that Tehran is awaiting a response from US President Donald Trump, according to Reuters. Trump cut short a planned weekend at Camp David, returning to Washington on Saturday evening. The US State Department warned citizens in the Middle East of a "potential for unexpected escalation" and advised Americans outside the region to "seriously reconsider travel to or through the area."

Iran’s GDP Drops by Over 10% During the War
London/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20, 2026
Iran’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) contracted by 10.1 percent year-on-year during the first quarter of the Persian calendar—a period marked by Israeli and US bombardment of the country—according to official figures released today (Sunday). During this period, spanning from late March to late June, GDP fell by "10.1 percent, including the oil sector," according to the Statistical Center of Iran (an official body); the country's economy relies heavily on hydrocarbon exports.

Washington and Tehran Exchange Threats of Military Escalation; Trump Cuts Weekend Break Short; Mediation Efforts Underway
Capitals/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20, 2026
Amid escalating tensions and mutual threats between the US and Iran, US President Donald Trump stated that "something big could happen very soon regarding Iran." Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, Trump added, "I am in the process of making a decision regarding Iran." He outlined the options currently on the table: obliterating Iran, letting it rot economically, or reaching a deal and agreement. Trump issued fresh warnings to Iranian authorities, hinting at the "possibility of blowing up all of Iran," and told Iranian officials: "You had better behave." Despite this threat, Trump indicated that he "would be open to the idea of ​​meeting Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in New York" on the sidelines of the upcoming United Nations meetings on Tuesday. Trump cut short his weekend at Camp David on Saturday evening, returning unexpectedly to the White House amidst escalating tensions in the Middle East. His administration offered no explanation for his failure to return on Sunday from Camp David, as originally scheduled. On Saturday, the U.S. State Department issued a security alert warning of the potential for an unexpected escalation in the Middle East and advising Americans to exercise heightened caution regarding possible flight cancellations and airspace closures. Meanwhile, Iran announced on Sunday that it possessed information indicating the United States and its allies were preparing to launch a major new attack against it, warning against such a move, which would further heighten anxiety in a region already experiencing severe tension. Iran’s military central command stated via state media that any new attack would prompt it to continuously target U.S. bases and interests. It added that it would consider Washington’s regional allies as parties to the conflict; however, the military command did not provide details regarding the intelligence it claimed to have received concerning an imminent U.S. attack. Iran reiterated that it would not open the Strait of Hormuz until its conditions are met and the United States fulfills its obligations. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated that Iran must both fight and negotiate simultaneously, adding that Tehran would use military force to deter its enemies and diplomacy to consolidate its battlefield gains when the time is right. Ghalibaf continued by saying that "the faction advocating for war and rejecting any diplomatic path is driving the country toward attrition and an endless war," emphasizing that authorities "do not want a war without end or to keep Iran in a state of permanent crisis." Conversely, however, he noted that "the faction calling for surrender is dragging the country into handing over its resources and national dignity to the enemy." The IRNA news agency quoted Ghalibaf as saying: "Unless these conditions are met, the legitimate rights of the Iranian people are recognized, and U.S. obligations are fulfilled, there will be no window for returning to previous negotiation terms or reopening the Strait of Hormuz." Ghalibaf added: "Messages have been conveyed, and our conditions clearly explained to the other side via intermediaries." This follows remarks made by Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, revealing that Tehran had conveyed its preconditions for resuming talks to Washington through Qatari intermediaries. Rezaei stated that Tehran’s conditions include ending the war on all fronts, releasing frozen Iranian assets, and lifting the naval blockade. The Iranian Foreign Ministry announced that Pakistan’s Interior Minister, Mohsin Naqvi—whose government is mediating to end the conflict—is visiting Tehran for talks aimed at halting the war. Additionally, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Mohammad Ishaq Dar, discussed the regional situation on Saturday with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi; Dar emphasized the importance of uninterrupted energy supplies and the safe, rapid passage of vessels, particularly given the repercussions for developing nations and global supply chains. He stressed that dialogue and diplomacy remain the only viable means to ensure peace and stability in the region. For its part, Turkey hinted at new efforts to halt the war; Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan stated that his country is working with other nations to draft new proposals aimed at steering Tehran and Washington toward an agreement to end the conflict. Speaking to the Turkish channel NTV, Fidan added that "Turkey and other nations are putting forward proposals and making every possible effort to bring negotiations between the United States and Iran to a successful conclusion." Nevertheless, there are no signs on the horizon that the United States and Iran are prepared to make significant concessions to end the fighting as the conflict enters its seventh month. The scope of the conflict continues to widen, encompassing other regional crises and further fueling tensions in global energy markets. Meanwhile, the US blockade on Iranian ports prevents Iran from selling its oil, contributing to major economic difficulties within the country. Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), stated on Saturday that U.S. forces continue to work to keep the Strait of Hormuz "open and safe" for commercial shipping, noting the facilitated passage of over a billion barrels of crude oil through the strait in the past two months. Cooper added that U.S. forces have assisted in the passage of more than 2,000 commercial vessels, confirming that key shipping lanes are free of mines and that thousands of ships continue to use this vital waterway. He explained that the United States is working with partners to increase traffic through the strait, pointing out that the volume of oil and cargo shipments over the last two weeks reached its highest level in six months. Meanwhile, Washington continues to intensify economic pressure on Tehran. Cooper stated that the United States is enforcing a strict blockade on Iranian oil exports, adding that—by his account—Iran has been unable to export a single barrel of oil under these U.S. measures.

Araghchi Heads to New York; Trump’s Threats Precede Potential Meeting
Riyadh/AlArabiya.net/September 20, 2026
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi departed Tehran on Sunday evening for New York to attend the UN General Assembly meetings. According to the Tasnim news agency, he is scheduled to make a brief stopover in the Qatari capital, Doha, before continuing his journey to the United States. Araghchi’s trip comes amidst escalating tensions between Iran and the U.S. and coincides with mixed signals from U.S. President Donald Trump; while Trump has ramped up his rhetoric against Tehran, he has simultaneously kept the door open for a potential meeting with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. In an interview with Fox News, Trump stated he is in a "decision-making mode" regarding Iran, weighing options that range from maintaining economic pressure to striking a deal, while warning that Iran could face destruction if no agreement is reached. Despite the escalatory tone, Trump expressed openness to meeting Pezeshkian during the UN General Assembly sessions in New York this week, as the Iranian president and his foreign minister prepare to arrive in the city for the international body's meetings. For its part, Tehran—through Pezeshkian—has previously stated that it is not closing the door to a negotiated solution, though it has conditioned the resumption of the diplomatic track on the U.S. returning to its commitments under the interim understanding signed in June. The Iranian President affirmed that his country would respond immediately if Washington resumed fulfilling its obligations, noting that war serves no party's interests and that Tehran remains open to a negotiated solution, according to Reuters. On September 12, Pezeshkian stated that previous diplomatic efforts via Pakistan and Oman had not failed due to Tehran, emphasizing his country's readiness for dialogue should Washington honor its commitments. Iranian forces had previously warned of the potential for renewed hostilities and attacks on Iranian territory; meanwhile, the Joint Combat Command of the Iranian Armed Forces issued a statement on Sunday indicating that Tehran had received intelligence suggesting the United States was preparing to resume combat operations. This warning follows an earlier statement today by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, confirming that his country had conveyed its conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to the US side via intermediaries. The chief Iranian negotiator stated, "Unless these conditions are met, the legitimate rights of the Iranian people are recognized, and US obligations are fulfilled, there will be no opening for a return to previous negotiation terms or the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz," as reported by IRNA. Earlier, Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, had also asserted that there would be no return to negotiations unless his country's seven conditions were met. In a related development, mediation efforts continue in an attempt to bring Tehran and Washington back to the negotiating table. Iran had conveyed—via Qatari intermediaries—conditions for returning to talks, including ending the war on all fronts, releasing frozen Iranian funds, and lifting the naval blockade, according to Reuters. Washington also granted entry to the United States for Pezeshkian, Araghchi, and key members of the Iranian delegation to attend General Assembly meetings—despite the ongoing war between the two nations—in a move coinciding with intermittent diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, as reported by the Associated Press. As New York prepares to welcome the Iranian delegation for the General Assembly meetings, the U.S.-Iran track remains open to various possibilities, amidst persistent military threats on one hand and a continued commitment to the prospect of negotiation on the other. Araghchi’s arrival in New York comes at a time when any potential meeting between Trump and Pezeshkian remains contingent upon the evolution of negotiations and the stances adopted by both sides in the coming days.

Iranian Pressure" Complicates Handover of Factional Weapons in Iraq; Al-Arabiya Sources: Government and Factions Exchange Proposals on Terms and Mechanisms for Surrendering Arms
Riyadh/AlArabiya.net/September 20, 2026
The issue of consolidating arms under state control in Iraq has entered a more sensitive phase amidst Iranian pressure regarding the future of weapons held by factions close to Tehran. This coincides with ongoing negotiations between the government and these factions concerning the mechanisms and conditions for the handover process. Sources told Al-Arabiya on Sunday that the committee overseeing arms consolidation had received a document from the factions outlining a set of demands regarding the surrender of their weapons, while the Iraqi government, in turn, presented several points to the factions regarding state control of arms. The sources have not yet disclosed details of the demands or the points exchanged, nor whether the Iranian pressure directly influenced the content of the factions' document. These developments unfold against a backdrop of division regarding the mechanism for handling these weapons. Iraqi reports had previously indicated that some factions close to Iran expressed a willingness to discuss "regulating" the weapons but held reservations about surrendering them entirely, whereas the government insists on the principle of placing all arms under state control. The issue is also linked to tensions between Tehran and Washington and the scheduled end of the International Coalition's mission in Iraq on September 30, as some factions have tied their actions regarding weaponry to the withdrawal of foreign forces. Conversely, Baghdad has faced US pressure to take concrete measures regarding the factions and weapons operating outside state authority. In the latest official statement, Qasim al-Araji, the Iraqi Prime Minister’s National Security Advisor, denied on Friday the existence of a specific timeframe for the committee tasked with inventorying weapons to complete its work, emphasizing that anyone found in possession of illegal weapons after the committee concludes its mission will face legal action.

Russian Document Reveals Cooperation with Iran to Bypass Sanctions; Plan Covers Energy, Nuclear Program, Aviation, and Finance Sectors
London-Moscow/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20, 2026
An official Russian document has revealed an expansive plan prepared by Moscow to deepen cooperation with Iran across several vital sectors—including energy, the nuclear program, aviation, transport, and finance. The plan entails establishing alternative financial channels and utilizing national currencies for transactions—measures that the US network Fox News reported are aimed, among other things, at circumventing US sanctions imposed on both nations. The document details a plan—drafted in September 2024 for the 2024–2026 period—that includes projects to bolster nuclear cooperation with Tehran, explore the feasibility of manufacturing components and spare parts for Russian aircraft within Iran, and implement joint projects in the oil and gas sectors. According to the document, Moscow and Tehran have devised a comprehensive program to deepen collaboration in finance, nuclear energy, the broader energy sector, aviation, and transport. The program encompasses the creation of alternative financial channels and increased reliance on national currencies for trade, alongside enhanced nuclear cooperation; the plan stipulates that the Russian company Rosatom will continue operating Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant and developing projects in the oil and gas sectors. Regarding aviation, the document addresses the potential for producing spare parts and components for Russian aircraft inside Iran, a move set to expand the scope of industrial cooperation between the two countries. The proposed cooperation is not limited to energy and industry; the document reveals plans regarding transport and infrastructure, including a proposal to construct a railway line extending from Iran’s border with the Republic of Azerbaijan to ports on the Arabian Gulf. It remains unclear which of these projects are currently underway, or whether the ongoing war and regional and international developments have led to modifications in the plans outlined in the document. While Russia has long maintained close ties with Iran, cooperation between the two nations has intensified significantly since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. US reports have alleged Iranian support for Russia through the supply of drones—a claim Iranian authorities have categorically denied. Amid continued US pressure on Tehran, contacts between Moscow and Iran have also strengthened, with reports indicating that Russia is assisting Tehran in cruise missile manufacturing. These moves coincide with Washington’s continued intensification of economic pressure on Iran, making financial and commercial cooperation between Moscow and Tehran a subject of growing interest—particularly regarding the search for transaction mechanisms that bypass channels subject to US sanctions. As part of efforts to consolidate bilateral ties, Russia and Iran signed a 20-year "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership" treaty last year, which includes a provision for automatic renewal. The treaty comprises 47 articles covering a wide range of areas, including diplomatic, military, and security cooperation, counter-terrorism, technology, cybersecurity, and environmental issues. The treaty affirms, in part, respect for each party's sovereignty and a commitment not to use either country's territory for activities detrimental to the other—reflecting the desire of Moscow and Tehran to establish a long-term institutional framework for their growing relations.

French Plan to Secure Navigation in Hormuz for Six Months... Macron in New York... Three Pivotal Meetings on the Energy Crisis
Paris: Michel Abou-Najm/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20, 2026
French President Emmanuel Macron is bringing a multitude of issues to New York for his final participation in the UN General Assembly’s traditional "Leaders' Week"—held during the last week of September—at a time when Paris holds the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council.
Macron is also scheduled to hold numerous meetings with his counterparts; however, three stand out as particularly crucial due to their link to the energy crisis and its repercussions. These are meetings with US President Donald Trump, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and several Gulf leaders attending the summit. Macron may well be the only Western leader to meet with Pezeshkian; despite the tension overshadowing French-Iranian relations, communication—both via telephone and in-person meetings—has never ceased between the two sides. Macron arrives in New York bearing a specific proposal—though its chances of success are impossible to predict in advance, given the stances of the two key players regarding the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and the broader regional conflict: the United States and Iran. While Paris has not overlooked the Houthi control over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, the Yemeni Red Sea coast, and several strategic islands in the area, its sources indicate a desire to focus specifically on the "Hormuz" file—effectively decoupling it from other contentious aspects of the broader Iran dossier. In other words, Paris wants navigation in the Strait of Hormuz to be treated as a standalone issue, separate from other matters such as Iran’s nuclear program, Tehran’s missile and ballistic capabilities, and its regional interventions. From Paris’s perspective, the pressing issue today concerns energy and the flow of oil and gas supplies to global markets—a matter of critical importance to all parties, including the United States; consequently, linking it to other issues would only exacerbate the situation. Viewed in this light, one can appreciate the significance of the three meetings Macron is set to hold on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
A six-month "transition" phase
Paris seeks to persuade the relevant parties to accept the liberalization of safe navigation in the Strait of Hormuz for a "temporary transitional" period of six months. It believes this goal can only be achieved through two parallel conditions: first, that the United States "ease" the strict naval blockade it has imposed on Iranian ports—a blockade accompanied by the targeting of Iranian vessels attempting to breach it. The second condition entails a "clear" Iranian pledge not to target tankers passing through the Strait using any military means. In other words, France is calling for a "freeze" on the multifaceted—military and economic—war currently underway between Washington and Tehran, the cost of which is being borne by a large number of nations worldwide. Concurrently, Paris is working to convene a G7 meeting in the coming weeks—France holds the group's presidency this year—dedicated to the issue of energy. Speaking at a press conference last Friday, Macron stated that the objective is to "strengthen cooperation and avoid unnecessary tension among the group's members and our key partners, or to discuss options such as potentially tapping into strategic reserves or lifting restrictions, as we did a few months ago." While the energy crisis is negatively affecting the majority of the world's economies, its escalation is causing deep concern in France—particularly as it evokes memories of the clashes and fires that accompanied the turbulent "Blue Vests" protests of 2018 and 2019, which were sparked by rising energy prices. Indeed, energy prices are currently hitting record highs, with some predicting that the price of a liter of gasoline could reach three euros. The government is grappling with a difficult financial situation; state debt has surpassed the €3,500 billion mark, and it is struggling to formulate the 2027 budget while seeking to achieve spending savings of €54 billion. All of this deprives it of the capacity to intervene forcefully to alleviate the burden of prices on citizens. Consequently, Macron convened an emergency meeting on Saturday with political party leaders and candidates for the upcoming presidential election to explain the reality of the situation and brief them on his efforts to contain the escalating crisis. Paris makes no predictions regarding the potential success of this initiative—its fate awaits the upcoming meetings in New York—yet an assessment of the positions held by the two parties involved leaves little room for optimism. The Iranian side asserts that it has conveyed its well-known conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to Washington via intermediaries; according to Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, these conditions include ending the war on all fronts, releasing Iran’s frozen assets abroad, lifting the naval blockade imposed on the country, and recognizing the legitimate rights of the Iranian people.
According to the IRNA news agency, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf—Speaker of the Parliament and chief negotiator—stated that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be reopened unless Washington first fulfills all of Tehran’s conditions. Ghalibaf added, "Messages have been conveyed, and our conditions clearly explained to the other party through intermediaries." In other words, Tehran wants Washington to reaffirm and abide by the understanding reached by both parties—brokered by Pakistan and Qatar—last June, an agreement from which Trump subsequently withdrew. While Iran has put forward demands, Washington does not appear ready to accede to them. Although President Trump’s statements can shift from day to day, he has returned to threatening to "destroy" Iran. He told the news site *Axios* over the weekend that he faces a "decision" regarding Iran, asking: "Do I destroy them or not? It’s a crucial decision, and with me, anything is possible." Recently, he has consistently maintained that any conflict would only occur after the midterm elections scheduled for this coming November. Many analysts believe he will not resort to "intense" warfare in the interim, as doing so would drive up energy prices in the United States and diminish the chances of Republican candidates succeeding. Currently, a state of stagnation defines the situation between Tehran and Washington; nevertheless, mediation efforts continue—such as the visit of Pakistani Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi to the Iranian capital. Furthermore, New York is set to witness an intensification of high-level diplomatic contacts, which could potentially open a small window—however narrow—in the current impasse.

Zelenskyy Reveals Upcoming Meeting with Trump... "Could Change a Lot"
Riyadh/AlArabiya.net/September 20, 2026
Amid escalating military strikes between Moscow and Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced on Sunday that he had agreed with his American counterpart, Donald Trump, to hold a meeting in New York following a phone call between them. Zelenskyy noted a "diplomatic momentum" in efforts to end the war, stating in a post on the "X" platform that the meeting with Trump "could change a lot." He added that the conversation covered several issues, noting that he thanked the US President for the visit of his envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to Kyiv, where they witnessed the situation in Ukraine firsthand.
The Ukrainian President also stated that "the path to peace is our top priority," pointing to ideas regarding steps to de-escalate and address "fundamental security issues," including energy security, food security, and the protection of human lives. He added, "We are working with the US team, and we are ready to take very serious steps." Zelenskyy also expressed his gratitude to Trump for signing a bill introduced by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham into law, noting that "everyone agrees on the necessity of achieving peace." On Friday, Trump had signed the bill—known as the "Lindsey Graham Act"—which imposes new sanctions aimed at pressuring Russia over its war in Ukraine, following its passage by Congress. There has been no comment yet from the US President regarding these developments, which come as Washington seeks to push for new talks between the two sides. The announcement of the anticipated meeting between Trump and Zelenskyy comes as Washington intensifies contacts with Moscow and Kyiv in an effort to revive the diplomatic track aimed at ending the war. US envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had previously held talks with Zelenskyy in Kyiv as part of US efforts to advance negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. This diplomatic push coincided with an escalation on the ground; on Sunday, Ukraine launched a massive drone attack on Moscow and other Russian regions, coinciding with the final day of Russia's parliamentary elections. Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin described the assault as the largest of its kind on the capital, stating that over 1,600 drones had been intercepted since Saturday, including approximately 450 heading toward Moscow. In response, Moscow vowed to intensify its strikes on Ukraine, with the Russian Ministry of Defense declaring that its armed forces would continue to target what it termed "military objectives" in Kyiv using high-precision weapons.

Guterres to Al Arabiya: We Strongly Condemn Houthi Attacks on Saudi Arabia; UN Secretary-General Discusses Navigation, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, and the Two-State Solution
Riyadh/AlArabiya.net/September 20, 2026
UN Secretary-General António Guterres reaffirmed on Sunday his strong condemnation of attacks launched by the Houthis against infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. In an exclusive interview with Al Arabiya and Al Hadath, he emphasized the necessity of ensuring freedom of navigation and respect for international law regarding straits and maritime corridors. Guterres stated that the United Nations "strongly condemns" Houthi attacks on the Kingdom's infrastructure, asserting that attacks targeting Saudi vessels are "completely unacceptable." These remarks follow a recent escalation; Saudi Arabia announced the interception of a ballistic missile launched by the Houthis toward Riyadh, while the Coalition reported other attempts to target civilian sites in Saudi cities. The Houthis have also claimed responsibility for attacks on Saudi facilities. On Saturday, Guterres met with the Secretary-General of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Jasem Mohamed Albudaiwi, on the sidelines of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly in New York. Both sides condemned the Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and the targeting of civilian facilities, warning of the repercussions for regional security and stability. Regarding maritime corridors, Guterres stressed to Al Arabiya that freedom of navigation "must be guaranteed," affirming that state sovereignty over maritime straits does not override the principles and rules established by international law. This stance gains significance amidst the tensions affecting key maritime corridors in the region, particularly the Bab al-Mandab Strait, the Red Sea, and the Strait of Hormuz. The Secretary-General had previously affirmed that navigation rights and freedoms are not merely theoretical principles but integral parts of international law, noting their link to international peace and security and the flow of food, energy, and essential goods. He also called for an end to attacks on commercial vessels and civilian infrastructure, and for respect for the law of the sea. Regarding the Palestinian issue, Guterres told Al Arabiya that it is crucial to move forward with the peace plan for Gaza, as the UN continues to call for the full implementation of the conflict-ending plan endorsed by the Security Council in Resolution 2803 of 2025. He also emphasized that occupation and settlement activities constitute obstacles to achieving a two-state solution. In June, Guterres had reiterated that, from the UN's perspective, the two-state solution represents the path toward a just and lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
Guterres also addressed developments in Syria, telling Al Arabiya that the country has made "significant progress recently." His statement follows an announcement by the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs confirming that Syria has achieved "important progress" in its transition process, while simultaneously highlighting persistent challenges regarding institution-building, political participation, transitional justice, recovery, and reconstruction. As for Lebanon, Guterres praised the role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), telling Al Arabiya that it has played a "very positive role." UNIFIL operates in southern Lebanon under a UN mandate to monitor the situation and support the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701, while the United Nations consistently emphasizes the importance of respecting Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Extensive Israeli Restrictions in the West Bank Coinciding with Yom Kippur; Palestinian Killed by Occupation Fire in Jenin and Body Detained; Armed Attack Kills Israeli
Tel Aviv/Nazir Majalli | Asharq Al-Awsat/ September 20, 2026
Already in a state of high readiness, the Israeli army has tightened measures in the West Bank and raised the alert level across various fronts to the highest tier—designated as "on the brink of war"—due to the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, which begins Sunday evening and ends Monday evening. Israeli forces set up two military checkpoints at the entrances to villages in the Bethlehem governorate and raided a town in the eastern part of the governorate. The Palestinian news agency (WAFA) quoted a security source as saying that "occupation forces set up a military checkpoint at the main entrance to the village of Battir, west of Bethlehem, and another at the entrance to the village of Wadi Fukin, stopping citizens' vehicles and obstructing their movement." Hebrew media outlets quoted army command sources as saying that forces had been reinforced in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank, while a military official stated that the army maintains the readiness to transition very quickly "from a ceasefire to the resumption of fighting," including a confrontation with Iran. On Sunday, a Palestinian was killed by Israeli forces near the Haddad Tourist Village, east of the city of Jenin in the northern West Bank. The Palestinian news agency quoted local sources as saying that "occupation forces opened fire on a vehicle, resulting in the death of a young man and the injury of another; his body remains detained." It noted that "those forces prevented Palestine Red Crescent crews from approaching the site." Additionally, on Sunday, settlers burned a vehicle, assaulted citizens, and attempted to kidnap a child during a raid on the "Safa" area in the town of Beit Ummar, north of Hebron.
Ongoing Raids in Jerusalem
Following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the Western Wall (Al-Buraq Wall) area in the Old City of occupied Jerusalem on Saturday evening, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also stormed the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque on Sunday evening under the protection of Israeli occupation forces. The Jerusalem Governorate stated that Ben-Gvir entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque under heavy security guard by occupation police and performed Talmudic rituals in the eastern area of ​​the mosque. The Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs expressed its condemnation and categorical denunciation of the storming of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque by the extremist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, accompanied by a number of settlers and under heavy protection from occupation forces. It emphasized that these repeated incursions and provocative actions constitute a flagrant violation of the sanctity of the holiest Islamic site and a malicious attempt to impose a new reality and alter the historical and legal status quo at Al-Aqsa Mosque. The Ministry stated that the continuation of these systematic violations fuels anger among Muslims worldwide and demonstrates a disregard for international laws and conventions that guarantee respect for worshippers and the protection of holy sites. It called upon the international community, human rights organizations, and Arab and Islamic nations to shoulder their responsibilities and intervene immediately to pressure the occupation authorities to halt these violations and the ongoing encroachments on the occupied capital and its Islamic and Christian holy sites. The Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs affirmed that the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque—in its entirety, spanning 144 dunams—is the exclusive right of Muslims alone and is not subject to division or shared control. Earlier, the Jerusalem Governorate stated in a release issued Saturday night that the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, had stormed the Al-Buraq Wall area in the Old City of occupied Jerusalem to participate in the final "Selichot" ceremony on the eve of Yom Kippur, amidst heavy security deployment and large crowds of settlers.
Closure of the Ibrahimi Mosque
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs condemned the Israeli occupation forces' decision to close the Ibrahimi Mosque to Muslim worshippers—citing Jewish holidays—and for forcing the mosque’s custodians and staff to evacuate the premises from 2:00 PM today until 10:00 PM tomorrow, Monday. In a statement issued Sunday evening, the Ministry emphasized that the situation at the Ibrahimi Mosque is extremely serious; it constitutes a blatant provocation to Muslim sentiments and an assault on freedom of worship as well as the mosque's religious and historical status, amidst ongoing occupation measures targeting worshippers and mosque staff. The Ministry noted that occupation forces "continue to ban the call to prayer at the Ibrahimi Mosque for the ninetieth consecutive day under flimsy pretexts, while restricting Muslim access to the site; conversely, they grant settlers free rein to fully encroach upon the mosque during Jewish holidays, holding their prayers and celebrations within its corridors and courtyards."
Attack Kills Israeli
In a related development, an Israeli was shot dead on Sunday in an armed attack in the occupied West Bank, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli military announced the arrest of the perpetrator and the killing of a Palestinian who had carried out a separate attack. The military stated that the suspect was arrested "after fleeing to a hospital" in Ramallah for treatment, having been shot by a soldier who arrived at the scene minutes after the shooting occurred. Eyewitnesses reported that the Israeli army raided a hospital in the Al-Masayef neighborhood of Ramallah, arrested a person receiving treatment there, and confiscated a vehicle parked outside. In a statement issued by his office, Netanyahu condemned the "deadly attack" and noted that "our forces are continuing to pursue the terrorist who carried out the deadly attack" near the Neve Tzuf settlement, northwest of Ramallah in the central West Bank. Netanyahu added, "I have ordered security forces to take action in the West Bank... to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens." An Israeli military official viewed the armed operation carried out in the central West Bank on Sunday as proof of the urgent need for high-alert measures; however, he refrained from explaining how such an attack—resulting in the death of a Jewish settler—could occur while the army was on such high alert. He added, "Our enemies are accustomed to seizing the opportunity of Jewish holidays to carry out attacks against us. Yom Kippur—a day when we fast for 14 hours, daily life comes to a standstill, and most of us are immersed in prayer—is a preferred time for them to launch attacks, as happened during the October 1973 war and the October 2023 war." He stated that "preparations for this high-alert status lasted about a month, beginning before the Jewish New Year and concluding with deliberations led by the head of the army's Operations Directorate, with the participation of representatives from the Shin Bet (Israel's internal security agency), the police, and the Prison Service." According to the Israeli public broadcaster (Kan 11), a military official stated that this year's preparations were "more stringent" than last year's, with a particular focus on "protecting borders and cities." He added that additional forces had been deployed to reinforce troops stationed in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank, while units still undergoing training were also placed on alert. A senior Israeli officer described the readiness level as "operational preparedness required in light of a known operational gap," referring to the need to be ready for a potential surprise attack during the holiday.
Pardon for Israeli Medic
Separately, Israeli President Isaac Herzog issued a pardon on Saturday evening for the military medic who shot and killed—at close range—a critically wounded Palestinian attacker. The Palestinian had previously stabbed a soldier in the occupied West Bank, an incident that had deeply divided Israeli society about a decade ago. Elor Azaria was convicted of manslaughter in 2017 and released after serving two-thirds of his 18-month sentence—a case that had garnered widespread attention in Israel. In his first interview following his release, Azaria stated, "I would have acted in exactly the same way, because that is what I was supposed to do." Azaria had approached the Palestinian, Abdel Fattah al-Sharif, as he lay unarmed and critically wounded on the ground after stabbing a soldier in the city of Hebron. A mobile phone video captured the moment Azaria shot al-Sharif in the head. The President's office stated that the pardon was granted based on a recommendation from Defense Minister Israel Katz. The statement cited the passage of time and the spirit of the approaching Yom Kippur holiday as factors considered in the decision.

Washington Moves to Impose Sweeping Sanctions on the International Criminal Court
Riyadh – AlArabiya.net/September 20, 2026
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing to impose broad sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC). This marks a new escalation in the confrontation between Washington and the Court, stemming from the ICC's investigations and the arrest warrants it has issued against Israeli officials. According to a report published by *The Wall Street Journal* on Sunday, the anticipated measures will go beyond the sanctions previously targeting specific Court officials and judges, extending instead to the institution itself and most dealings with it. The newspaper reported that the sanctions would prohibit most transactions with the ICC; however, the restrictions would take effect after a grace period of six to seven months, allowing entities that deal with the Court time to adjust their affairs before the measures become enforceable. Targeting the institution itself—should the plan be implemented as described in the report—would significantly expand the scope of U.S. pressure compared to earlier measures that focused on specific individuals. According to *The Wall Street Journal*, these sweeping sanctions could hinder the Court’s access to the U.S. dollar and the financial system, while making it increasingly difficult for institutions and companies—wary of incurring U.S. penalties—to engage with the Court. The U.S. administration has not yet officially announced the final details of the new measures or a timeline for their issuance. This potential move is a continuation of the approach the Trump administration has taken toward the Court in recent times. U.S. Treasury Department data indicates the existence of an active sanctions program linked to the ICC, alongside licenses and procedures that define permissible transactions and exceptions to the restrictions. In the most recently announced measure, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on August 18 targeting court officials—including Court President Tomoko Akane and Judge Alapini-Gansou—while simultaneously issuing a license to allow the winding down of certain transactions involving the sanctioned individuals. Tensions between Washington and the Court escalated after the latter issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—charges both Israeli officials have denied. Although neither the United States nor Israel is a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the Court bases part of its jurisdiction regarding Palestinian territories on the State of Palestine’s membership—a point that has remained a source of dispute and objection for Washington and Israel. The Trump administration maintains that the Court’s actions against U.S. citizens and allies constitute an overreach of its jurisdiction and a threat to American sovereignty, whereas the Court asserts that it is an independent judicial institution operating under the Rome Statute. European nations and other supporters of the Court have pledged to defend its independence and operations. Should Washington enact the new sanctions, the confrontation would shift from targeting specific individuals within the Court to imposing broader financial and institutional restrictions on the institution itself, accompanied by a transition period of up to seven months before a ban on most transactions with the Court takes effect.

Israel looks beyond seven fronts as attention turns to Iran
LBCI/September 20, 2026
Israel has placed itself at the center of preparations for any potential confrontation with Iran or the Houthis.With U.S. President Donald Trump returning to the White House and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shortening his stay in the United States, where he is attending the U.N. General Assembly, Israel’s military establishment announced that it was fully prepared to shift from defense to offense on the fronts involving Iran, Syria, Gaza and Lebanon. Israeli security agencies assessed that Hezbollah was preparing to return to its previous rules of engagement, according to the report. After hours of discussions Saturday, Israel’s security establishment said it had not received intelligence indicating the possibility of an attack on Israel from any of the seven fronts where fighting is taking place.At the same time, the Northern Command said fighting in Lebanon was continuing and that preparations were underway for a potential confrontation with Iran, an option Netanyahu has again threatened. An Israeli official summed up the security picture by warning that despite threats across multiple fronts, intelligence and security attention remains focused on Iran. The official said the mission of the Mossad and Military Intelligence Directorate is to bring down the Iranian regime, adding that such an outcome is becoming increasingly close.

Italy to ban veils in schools, limit foreign students per class, Meloni says
LBCI/September 20, 2026
Italy is preparing to ban face coverings in schools and to cap the number of foreign students per class, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said on Sunday as she played up her right-wing ‌credentials at a youth event organised by her party. Italy is among the European countries most exposed to migrant arrivals because of its central Mediterranean location, making migration a hot-button issue and a major challenge for successive governments. The integration of migrants, particularly those from Muslim-majority countries, remains contentious in Italian politics ⁠and society. Debates over religious symbols, cultural integration, citizenship rules and immigration policy frequently polarize public opinion. "A measure will soon be presented to a Cabinet meeting to legally establish a maximum number of foreign students per class. It also requires parents of foreign students facing serious difficulties integrating into the school system to learn Italian and bans burqas and niqabs in schools," Meloni told an annual gathering of the youth wing of her Brothers of Italy party.

The Latest LCCC analysis & editorials from miscellaneous sources published on September 20-21/2026
The Muslim Brotherhood: Follow the Money
Ahmed Charai/Gatestone Institute/September 20, 2026
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22868/muslim-brotherhood-money
How extensive are the transnational financial networks connecting Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, front organizations and designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas?
[O]n September 1, the Justice Department announced that the FBI had seized more than $560,000 in cryptocurrency intended for Hamas while disrupting fundraising and recruitment infrastructure.
What have we not yet found?
The objective is straightforward: follow the money. Who raises it? Who receives it? Which charities transfer it? Which businesses and financial intermediaries move it? Where are the common directors, donors and beneficiaries? Where does the money cross jurisdictions? Most importantly, where does it ultimately end?
The same questions deserve to be asked inside the United States
There may be organizations and networks today that remain legal, dispersed and apparently disconnected until financial relationships, common intermediaries or organizational connections reveal a larger architecture.
President Trump should give Gorka, Dahdouh and the broader counterterrorism team a larger mandate to help coordinate this effort across the U.S. government and with America's partners abroad.
Follow the money. Map the networks. Establish the evidence. Expose illicit finance. Cut the financial lifelines. That is where the next phase of the fight should begin.
How extensive are the transnational financial networks connecting Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, front organizations and designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas? Follow the money. Map the networks. Establish the evidence. Expose illicit finance. Cut the financial lifelines. That is where the next phase of the fight should begin. Pictured: The logo of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Words can kill. Washington knows that radical narratives can prepare the ground for radical action. But ideology alone does not sustain organizations, build international networks or finance operations. They need money. And recent actions by the U.S. government raise a question that deserves much greater attention: How extensive are the transnational financial networks connecting Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, front organizations and designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas?
This is no longer a theoretical question. The evidence is beginning to emerge. In June, the Justice Department charged a San Diego resident with allegedly raising approximately $600,000 through purported humanitarian campaigns and diverting part of those funds toward Hamas. The allegations remain to be proven in court. In July, the U.S. Treasury said it had exposed a "multi-layered" structure in which Muslim Brotherhood affiliates and Hamas-directed front organizations operated transnational fundraising channels, using charitable facades and underground banking networks to move and disguise funds across jurisdictions. Then, on September 1, the Justice Department announced that the FBI had seized more than $560,000 in cryptocurrency intended for Hamas while disrupting fundraising and recruitment infrastructure.
These cases lead to a fundamental question: What have we not yet found?
The Trump administration has already moved from debate to action, designating specific Muslim Brotherhood branches and targeting financial networks that U.S. authorities say connect Brotherhood affiliates with Hamas. But designation should not be the end of the strategy. It should be the beginning.
At the National Security Council, Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism, and Nancy Dahdouh, Director for Counterterrorism, Global Jihadi Movement–Sunni Threats, have worked directly on this challenge. They know the subject, have helped make the case inside the administration, and have contributed to moving the issue from debate to concrete action.
The challenge now is to build on the progress already achieved and develop a coordinated strategy capable of identifying and disrupting the broader financial architecture behind these transnational networks. Treasury, State Department, Justice, the FBI and the intelligence community already possess formidable authorities and capabilities. The NSC can play an essential role in ensuring that these capabilities become part of a coherent strategy against networks that recognize neither bureaucratic boundaries nor national borders.
If the networks are transnational, the response must also be transnational. Washington should deepen cooperation with trusted governments, intelligence services and financial authorities in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. The objective is straightforward: follow the money. Who raises it? Who receives it? Which charities transfer it? Which businesses and financial intermediaries move it? Where are the common directors, donors and beneficiaries? Where does the money cross jurisdictions? Most importantly, where does it ultimately end?
The same questions deserve to be asked inside the United States. America's charitable and nonprofit system provides extraordinary freedom to raise money for religious, humanitarian and social purposes. Federal authorities should examine, where evidence warrants it, whether anyone is exploiting those protections, nonprofit status or charitable fundraising to conceal financial flows that ultimately benefit designated terrorist organizations. The issue is not religion. The issue is conduct, money and evidence.
Treasury has already provided reasons to look deeper. It has described charitable facades, underground financial networks, intermediaries and cross-border structures associated with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood affiliates. The next phase therefore should not simply be another list of designations. It should be an effort to map the architecture.
That means identifying organizations that may appear unrelated but share financial intermediaries, directors, donors, beneficiaries or foreign partners. It means examining the ultimate destination of funds rather than stopping at their declared humanitarian purpose. And it means connecting information held by different American agencies with intelligence and financial information available to trusted foreign governments.
This is where American power is unique. The international role of the dollar, the reach of the American financial system, Treasury's sanctions authorities, American intelligence capabilities and Washington's relationships with governments around the world provide the United States with extraordinary instruments to expose illicit financial networks wherever the necessary legal jurisdiction exists.
There may be organizations and networks today that remain legal, dispersed and apparently disconnected until financial relationships, common intermediaries or organizational connections reveal a larger architecture. We should not assume those connections exist. But neither should we wait for another attack to discover them. We should find out whether they exist through methodical investigation and evidence.
October 7 demonstrated again the consequences of underestimating networks, intentions and capabilities. Washington now has an opportunity to move upstream. President Trump should give Gorka, Dahdouh and the broader counterterrorism team a larger mandate to help coordinate this effort across the U.S. government and with America's partners abroad.
The principle is not complicated. Words matter. Networks matter. But organizations cannot survive without resources.
Follow the money. Map the networks. Establish the evidence. Expose illicit finance. Cut the financial lifelines. That is where the next phase of the fight should begin.
**Ahmed Charai is the Chairman and CEO of World Herald Tribune, Inc., and the publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune, TV Abraham, and Radio Abraham. He serves on the boards of several prominent institutions, including the Atlantic Council, the Center for the National Interest, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and the International Crisis Group. He is also an International Councilor and a member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
*This article was originally published in the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune. It is reprinted here by the kind permission of the author.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. 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 Hamas Guarantor Problem: Turkey and Qatar
Pierre Rehov/Gatestone Institute/September 20, 2026
Every peace agreement rests on an assumption that the powers charged with enforcing it want it enforced.
The current roadmap for the future of Gaza is organized around the principle of one authority, one law and one weapon. Its purpose is to strip armed factions such as Hamas of their weapons, install a single Palestinian administration and prevent Hamas from reconstituting its military machine. Whether these goals can be achieved depends less on the drafting than on those who will certify compliance.
A guarantor inside that architecture is effectively a judge who confirms or denies compliance, arbitrates disputes and applies pressure to whichever party breaks its word. The relevant question is what pressure Turkey and Qatar are likely to apply to Hamas.
"Qatar is at the top of funding terrorism worldwide.... Even more than Iran." — Udi Levy, former senior official of Israel's Mossad spy agency who dealt with economic warfare against terrorist organizations, YNet, April 18, 2024.
"Qatar has adopted an extremely smart strategy based on the Muslim Brotherhood doctrine, which believes in gaining influence initially through financial means in order to create sympathy for them and alignment with their views... With Israel, the strategy was to develop economic, intelligence, and political relations without evolving into full diplomatic relations... It is easy to be captivated by the money, the grandeur, and the charm." — Udi Levy, YNet, April 2, 2025.
Supporters of Turkey's inclusion as a guarantor on the Board of Peace appear to regard its closeness to Hamas as an asset. They argue that a government able to speak directly to Hamas is better placed to extract concessions from it. The argument holds only if one chooses not to look at what Erdogan has built at home.
Since 2016, Turkey's government has closed more than 1,500 foundations and associations and replaced thousands of judges and prosecutors with loyalists. Ekrem Imamoglu, the mayor of Istanbul and Erdogan's most plausible challenger, was arrested in March 2025, days before his nomination as the opposition's presidential candidate, and was later charged with 142 offenses carrying a possible sentence of more than two thousand years in prison. A government that runs its own courts this way is an odd candidate for a supposedly disinterested judgment of somebody else's compliance.
Erdogan -- who has also threatened Greece and Cyprus by announcing that "Turkey will not allow violations of its rights or what belongs to it" -- has never condemned the Hamas massacre.
People who support terrorism rather than prosecute it are not likely to conclude that violence does not pay.
Verification is worth exactly as much as the verifier, and Ankara has already demonstrated what it prefers to leave out. On March 22, 2026, [Ibrahim Kalin, director of Turkey's National Intelligence Organization] hosted a delegation from Hamas's political bureau in Istanbul. The published summaries of that meeting covered Israeli military operations and the rejection of any "deal" in Gaza. Disarming Hamas, the central provision of the American framework, went unmentioned. The omission is the entire problem in miniature.
What the Gaza roadmap requires goes well beyond photographs of surrendered rifles and staged ceremonies before cameras of the international media. The roadmap requires the dismantling of a complete military ecosystem: command structures, logistics, financing, recruitment, weapons manufacturing, intelligence networks and the tunnels beneath Gaza's neighborhoods, schools and hospitals. Washington estimates seven to eight months for a process that will generate a dispute at every stage.
When inspectors disagree over concealed weapons or continued terrorist activity, someone has to make the decision. When Hamas declares itself compliant and Israeli intelligence concludes otherwise, someone has to choose which account to certify. Turkey has spent years demonstrating which way it leans.
Israel has also told the Board of Peace that it objects to Qatari and Turkish participation in verifying the roadmap's stages. An American official answered that both countries have been essential partners in holding the ceasefire together. That is a defensible claim about mediation, but quite a different claim from the one the roadmap actually advances, which is that Turkey can be trusted to certify the disarmament of a terrorist organization it has spent 15 years protecting.
The plan's drafters have insisted that the framework will rest on verification rather than trust. Applied to at least two of the proposed verifiers, Turkey and Qatar, this standard should be sufficient to remove them from the panel. The first contested phase will reveal whether either country even intends to comply with the requirement, or if they see their positions as outlasting the Trump Administration to make sure that Hamas will not disarm.
For over 20 years, the governments of Turkish President (and former Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan have functioned as Hamas's principal political protectors. Days after the October 7, 2023 massacre, he told his parliamentary group that Hamas is "a group of mujahideen defending their lands."
Every peace agreement rests on an assumption that the powers charged with enforcing it want it enforced. The 15-point roadmap announced on July 30 by the US-led Board of Peace asks the world to extend that assumption to four guarantor states -- Egypt, Qatar, the United States and Turkey -- which together are to supervise the transfer of civilian and security authority in Gaza from Hamas to a committee of Palestinian technocrats.
Turkey's and Qatar's presence on that list is unfathomable. For over 20 years, the governments of Turkish President (and former Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan have functioned as Hamas's principal political protectors. Their records have drawn less scrutiny than the plan their countries are now expected to police.
The current roadmap for the future of Gaza is organized around the principle of one authority, one law and one weapon. Its purpose is to strip armed factions such as Hamas of their weapons, install a single Palestinian administration and prevent Hamas from reconstituting its military machine. Whether these goals can be achieved depends less on the drafting than on those who will certify compliance.
Under the plan, an International Verification Committee composed of Board of Peace representatives, the guarantor states and the stabilization force will determine, phase by phase, whether each side has met its obligations. Israeli withdrawals from Gaza are conditional against certified stages of decommissioning. A guarantor inside that architecture is effectively a judge who confirms or denies compliance, arbitrates disputes and applies pressure to whichever party breaks its word. The relevant question is what pressure Turkey and Qatar are likely to apply to Hamas.
Qatar, the longtime benefactor not just of Hamas but of virtually every Islamic terror organization -- from al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, to the Muslim Brotherhood's Arab Spring attempted takeover of the Middle East, to the Taliban -- through financing as well as through its Al Jazeera media empire. Qatar has already spent more than $400 billion in recent years on efforts to further the Muslim Brotherhood's openly stated objectives:
"That Islam and its Movement become a part of the homeland it lives in... their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers...."
"Qatar is at the top of funding terrorism worldwide... Even more than Iran,"
according to Udi Levy, a former senior official of Israel's Mossad spy agency who dealt with economic warfare against terrorist organizations.
Also, according to Levy,
"Qatar has adopted an extremely smart strategy based on the Muslim Brotherhood doctrine, which believes in gaining influence initially through financial means in order to create sympathy for them and alignment with their views... With Israel, the strategy was to develop economic, intelligence, and political relations without evolving into full diplomatic relations... It is easy to be captivated by the money, the grandeur, and the charm."
As for Turkey, recent months supply an answer. Khalil al-Hayya was elected head of Hamas's political bureau on July 20. Within a day, Ibrahim Kalin, director of Turkey's National Intelligence Organization, telephoned to congratulate him and to reiterate Turkey's support for the Palestinian people. Nine days later, Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan hosted al-Hayya and his delegation in Ankara, congratulated him on his election and expressed appreciation for the role Hamas has played in the peace process. Neither exchange was discreet. Both were publicized through Turkey's state news agency -- which apparently was the point. The relationship survived October 7 and would survive the negotiations over Gaza's future. Fidan himself sits on the "executive committee" created by the Trump administration to implement its plan.
This pattern for Turkey predates the war. Hamas, at the direct invitation of the Turkish government, established a presence in Turkey in 2011, and the group's senior figures have found a warm shelter there ever since. The late Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was granted Turkish citizenship in 2020; his deputy, Saleh al-Arouri, received a Turkish passport. Turkey has never designated Hamas as a terrorist organization, which the United States and the European Union have done; instead, the Turkish government claims that Hamas is a Palestinian constituency whose leaders must be spoken to.
Hospitality is only part of the record. The US Treasury has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Hamas financial networks operating from Turkish soil in under two years, the most recent on July 23, when it designated a Turkey-based money exchange, as well as its owners, for moving hundreds of thousands of dollars for Hamas while running underground banking services for a Swedish organized-crime network. In March, the US Treasury blocked three Turkish charities channeling funds to Hamas-controlled organizations in Gaza.
Supporters of Turkey's inclusion as a guarantor on the Board of Peace appear to regard its closeness to Hamas as an asset. They argue that a government able to speak directly to Hamas is better placed to extract concessions from it. The argument holds only if one chooses not to look at what Erdogan has built at home. Freedom House now rates Turkey "not free," with a score of 32 out of 100.
Since 2016, Turkey's government has closed more than 1,500 foundations and associations and replaced thousands of judges and prosecutors with loyalists. Ekrem Imamoglu, the mayor of Istanbul and Erdogan's most plausible challenger, was arrested in March 2025, days before his nomination as the opposition's presidential candidate, and was later charged with 142 offenses carrying a possible sentence of more than two thousand years in prison. A government that runs its own courts this way is an odd candidate for a supposedly disinterested judgment of somebody else's compliance.
Turkey's foreign policy has followed the domestic one. Erdogan presents Turkey as the natural leader of the Sunni world and invokes the Ottoman past as its title deed. To a standing ovation, and evidently referring to the Ottoman Empire's rule over Jerusalem from 1516 to 1917, Erdogan told the Turkish parliament in 2020 that Jerusalem is "our city, a city from us."
Days after the October 7, 2023 massacre, he told his parliamentary group that Hamas is "a group of mujahideen defending their lands." He has since placed Israel's prime minister alongside Hitler and Mussolini. Erdogan -- who has also threatened Greece and Cyprus by announcing that "Turkey will not allow violations of its rights or what belongs to it" -- has never condemned the Hamas massacre.
People who support terrorism rather than prosecute it are not likely to conclude that violence does not pay.
The consequences are operational, not rhetorical. Verification is worth exactly as much as the verifier, and Ankara has already demonstrated what it prefers to leave out. On March 22, 2026, Kalin hosted a delegation from Hamas's political bureau in Istanbul. The published summaries of that meeting covered Israeli military operations and the rejection of any "deal" in Gaza. Disarming Hamas, the central provision of the American framework, went unmentioned. The omission is the entire problem in miniature.
What the Gaza roadmap requires goes well beyond photographs of surrendered rifles and staged ceremonies before cameras of the international media. The roadmap requires the dismantling of a complete military ecosystem: command structures, logistics, financing, recruitment, weapons manufacturing, intelligence networks and the tunnels beneath Gaza's neighborhoods, schools and hospitals. Washington estimates seven to eight months for a process that will generate a dispute at every stage.
When inspectors disagree over concealed weapons or continued terrorist activity, someone has to make the decision. When Hamas declares itself compliant and Israeli intelligence concludes otherwise, someone has to choose which account to certify. Turkey has spent years demonstrating which way it leans.
Israel has said as much -- repeatedly and without effect. Jerusalem refused Turkish troops in the International Stabilization Force in October 2025, and the initial deployment approved by the security cabinet in July plans to draw instead on Kosovo, Albania and Morocco. Israel has also told the Board of Peace that it objects to Qatari and Turkish participation in verifying the roadmap's stages. An American official answered that both countries have been essential partners in holding the ceasefire together. That is a defensible claim about mediation, but quite a different claim from the one the roadmap actually advances, which is that Turkey can be trusted to certify the disarmament of a terrorist organization it has spent 15 years protecting.
Regional participation and regional neutrality are separate things, but the plan treats them as one. No settlement in Gaza can be imposed by Israel and the United States alone, and the presence of Arab and Muslim states, such as the United Arab Emirates or Bahrain, in the architecture is a genuine strength. Turkey's influence over Hamas is real. The open question is its standing to sit in judgment on Hamas -- and nothing in the past two years has done anything to settle that.
The plan's drafters have insisted that the framework will rest on verification rather than trust. Applied to at least two of the proposed verifiers, Turkey and Qatar, this standard should be sufficient to remove them from the panel. The first contested phase will reveal whether either country even intends to comply with the requirement, or if they see their positions as outlasting the Trump Administration to make sure that Hamas will not disarm.
**Pierre Rehov, who holds a law degree from Paris-Assas, is a French reporter, novelist and documentary filmmaker. He is the author of six novels, including "Beyond Red Lines", "The Third Testament" and "Red Eden", translated from French. His latest essay on the aftermath of the October 7 massacre " 7 octobre - La riposte " became a bestseller in France. As a filmmaker, he has produced and directed 17 documentaries, many photographed at high risk in Middle Eastern war zones, and focusing on terrorism, media bias, and the persecution of Christians. His latest documentary, "Pogrom(s)" highlights the context of ancient Jew hatred within Muslim civilization as the main force behind the October 7 massacre.
© 2026 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.

How Peace Happens
Jamal Al-Kashki/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
Had it not been for the invention of a return to a “glorious” past, all these senseless wars would never have occurred.
The civilized world assumed that with the end of the Second World War, the era of conquest, annexation, and major catastrophes would end as well. But that is not what happened in reality.
The Middle East, as both a direct and indirect consequence, has witnessed dozens of wars; some would say hundreds.
One of the flaws of modern wars is that they produce neither a clear victor nor a clear loser. They begin with great fury, only to quickly turn into prolonged wars of attrition that exhaust nations and peoples alike, while opening the door to new conflicts.
This is true of the war revolving around the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on the global economy, as well as the war between two kindred nations: Russia and Ukraine.
There are also heated wars of words, such as the one between the United States and Canada over trade, tariffs, and the exchange of goods, and another with Europe over the Danish island of Greenland. These are separate from disputes over straits, seas, waterways, trade routes, changing maps, and the redrawing of spheres of influence.
Are we witnessing a silent world war? The answer, confidently, is yes.
Europe, the world’s largest united bloc, is facing a deep structural crisis as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war. It also faces the specter of fractures within NATO. The United States, the alliance’s principal backer, which long paid the largest share and served as the protective shield and security umbrella for eighty years, has begun stepping back from that role.
According to its national security doctrine, “America First” has become the dominant slogan, trade wars have become the prevailing reality, and Europe’s abandonment in the face of energy crises has become an ongoing drama visible on television news screens.
The issue does not seem purely economic or military. The entire world is recalculating its positions. Old alliances are no longer as solid as they once appeared, interests are taking precedence over slogans, and major powers are moving in multiple directions in search of new footholds in a rapidly changing world.
The Middle East, undoubtedly the stage for multiple complex conflicts, faces both direct and indirect consequences. Whenever it seeks a path toward a just peace in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, it encounters the Israeli obstacle, an obstacle rooted in a single idea: perpetual war leading ultimately to a Greater Israel, according to the maps repeatedly presented by Benjamin Netanyahu during the turbulent years of the past decade.
Meanwhile, the West Bank and Gaza continue to come under fire, settlements expand across the West Bank, and realities on the ground continue to change, making the prospect of peace more difficult with each passing day.
Netanyahu’s philosophy reveals a profound structural flaw: a flaw in the issue of proxies and in the development of a larger Middle Eastern war. Each side declares that it is resisting the other, yet the outcome often ends up expanding the scope of conflict, prolonging its duration, and providing Israel with additional justifications and opportunities to reshape the region in line with its far-reaching interests.
There is, perhaps, one opportunity, distant yet not impossible: the emergence of a multipolar world. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has spoken of the necessity of a multipolar international order.
Until such an order takes shape, this period of global fluidity must be managed with wisdom and restraint to prevent a catastrophic war. Reason must become the defining principle of the coming era, or humanity may find itself rushing toward one of its final moments, final in every sense. Amid this gray landscape, the Arab world, led by its major and influential states, must think differently. It must wage, through that new perspective, a struggle for survival in the undoubtedly emerging multipolar order.
The challenge is not for Arabs to choose between one pole and another, nor to become instruments in the rivalry of great powers. Rather, it is to acquire, for the first time, a genuine ability to maneuver among these poles and to transform their geographic, economic, and political weight into an independent bargaining power.
The world taking shape before us will not make room for those who wait passively on the margins of the map. Those who seek peace must possess the tools to secure it, and those who seek to protect their interests must know how to navigate the new balance of power.
Perhaps this is the Arab world's rare opportunity amid all this turmoil: to transform multipolarity from a threat looming over the region into a space for movement, maneuver, and the pursuit of interests. Only then can peace become possible.
And perhaps it could have been possible from the very beginning, had the world not continued searching for the future with the tools of the past.

The Houthis...Now, Here
Mishary Dhayidi/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
“Now, Here... or the Eastern Mediterranean Once Again.” This is the title of a politically charged, deeply human and poignant novel by the late Abdulrahman Munif. It is an apt title to invoke today, amid the Houthi's eruption and turmoil across the land and waters of western and southern Arabia.
The Houthis' various attacks on vessels, particularly Saudi vessels, at sea, as well as on civilian and non-civilian sites in Saudi Arabia, are a clear expression of Iran's intentions, using the Houthi movement, obsessed as it is with historical grievances and ideological doctrines. All of this is well known. I mention it only as a prelude to the question: what now? We are in the midst of an Iranian assault on the Gulf states, foremost among them Saudi Arabia, and a direct threat to every dimension and meaning of security. In my view, this threat at least matches, if not exceeds, the threat Saddam Hussein once posed to the security of the Gulf as a whole when he invaded Kuwait in the summer of 1990.
At that time, the world came together.
Yes, history cannot repeat itself in exactly the same form or circumstances. But there can be no illusion about the existential nature of the danger today. Its manifestations differ from the threats posed by Saddam at the time, but I would argue that the danger is greater today because the Houthis and the Iraqi militias rely on Iranian strategic depth and on networks of support extending across the region and the world. There are also media platforms that promote the narratives of Iran and its Yemeni and Iraqi affiliates. The responsibility, therefore, is to place the threat at its true level, then understand it, examine it, and scrutinize every aspect of it. Then comes the question of the objective: is it to eliminate the Houthi threat, or merely to put it into a state of dormancy and sedation? Among other things, this means repairing Yemen's soil and preparing it for the planting of something sound; building a single narrative that encompasses all factions of the Yemeni front opposed to the Houthis; and speaking to the world with one Gulf voice. I understand how difficult it is to ease all of this once one gets into the details and begins forming teams with the necessary intellectual and political capacity, and so on. But there is no alternative if we are to free the present and safeguard the future. The Houthi movement is an ideological and political network connected to a larger alliance and world beyond itself: the Iranian alliance. That alliance, in turn, belongs to a much larger sphere called political Islam, encompassing the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda, and perhaps the Sururis as well, according to Muhammad Hamid Al-Ahmari's approach. This entire mix is itself part of a global revolutionary, anarchic and subversive movement. Within that movement are the far left and the new communist youth movements in America and the West, and these movements stand behind a new generation of young politicians in America. Therefore, this world must be confronted with a countervailing world. This is a generational struggle, a struggle for life and enduring awareness, requiring sustained and generous intellectual effort. It is not a series of passing media or diplomatic campaigns, however loud their clamor may be.Yes, we have been engaged in an intermittent war with the Houthis for roughly 16 years. But I think that is long enough to have learned what we need to know and to move toward the chapter's happy ending.
Now... and here once again... and for the last time.

When Fukuyama Met Gaddafi
Jumah Boukleb/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man was published in 1992, causing an exceptional stir across political and media circles at the time. Its author, an American of Japanese descent, was then an obscure academic professor. He would later become a prominent figure on the international political and intellectual scene, among the leading thinkers associated with the neoconservatives. The Iraq War, however, proved to be a decisive turning point that led to his break with them and his embrace of liberalism. In recent days, Fukuyama's name has once again been circulating in international media circles following the publication of his book In the Realm of the Last Man, an autobiography. I read it, only to discover that the realm in question is walled off, accessible only to specialists in political and philosophical thought. I found very little of what I had expected from an autobiography. What I found was a different kind of life story, one that is essentially a life told through ideas. For this very reason, the non-specialist reader may find it difficult to follow the intellectual and philosophical debates presented throughout the book among thinkers of different political and philosophical orientations.
These lines are not intended as a review of the book, nor do I intend to become immersed in a discussion of the issues it raises. But as a Libyan reader, I was particularly interested in the author's account of meetings with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his son, Saif al-Islam, during two visits he made to Libya in 2006 and 2007. He had been invited by a British-American public relations firm that had been hired to polish the regime's image in Western circles, so that its leader would appear to be a political thinker rather than the authoritarian ruler and dictator he was generally portrayed as in the American and Western media. This was followed by invitations to a number of well-known American, British and European political thinkers to visit Libya, meet Gaddafi and engage in dialogue with him. Francis Fukuyama was among them.
At their first meeting, in the desert city of Sabha, the capital of the south, Gaddafi caught the American thinker off guard with a smile, reminding him that they belonged to the same club, as both were authors of famous books. He was, of course, referring to his own Green Book, and told Fukuyama that meeting him was a valuable opportunity. In his notes, Fukuyama described Gaddafi as an intelligent man, but said that his education was no different from that of any military officer. He gave as an example a discussion they had about the mechanisms through which wealth is created. Gaddafi surprised his guest by putting forward a view that ran counter to the most basic principles of economics. He insisted that wealth was not created or produced through work, production and innovation, but rather that it was "taken," in the most direct and literal sense: stolen and seized.
This view does not seem surprising when one considers the Colonel's own record of seizing power, confiscating property and nationalizing economic sectors throughout his years in power. It was as though he was projecting his own logic of "taking" what did not belong to him onto his understanding of wealth creation as a whole. His naivety on the subject surprised the American academic and led him into a deeper discussion, in which he cited the mechanisms that had enabled a wealthy American such as Bill Gates to build his fortune.
What was particularly strange was that Gaddafi's stubbornness suddenly disappeared. He became convinced by Fukuyama's argument and acknowledged that wealth could indeed be created rather than seized or stolen. According to the Colonel, however, that acknowledgment applied only to the possibility of creating wealth in Western countries. Fukuyama says that after returning to America, he received a call from one of the officials at the public relations firm, who told him that in the following days Colonel Gaddafi had delivered a speech in which he acknowledged that very point.
The discussion was not limited to the creation of wealth. It inevitably extended to the Colonel's Green Book. Gaddafi went to considerable lengths to persuade Fukuyama of his theory of popular democracy, based on people's congresses, which he presented as a "third theory." Fukuyama, however, writes in his book that the Colonel's book was nothing more than a crude device for justifying his authoritarian rule and despotism.
Part of the chapter was also devoted to Fukuyama's meeting with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, focusing particularly on his studies at the London School of Economics, where he pursued a doctoral degree. The author noted the financial scandals that later surrounded that degree, which came to light following the outbreak of the Libyan uprising in February 2011. Fukuyama revealed that he had received an offer from the consulting firm behind the invitation to serve as a reader and reviewer of Saif al-Islam's dissertation, but declined. He admitted that he was extremely grateful for that decision, because his name was later spared from appearing on lists of those implicated in the scandal and the media uproar it generated, which affected the reputation of British universities because of the attention they gave to money.
What is particularly noteworthy is that the image-polishing campaign that brought Fukuyama and others to Libya to burnish the regime's image ultimately resulted in Fukuyama himself becoming one of the witnesses to the gulf between that manufactured image and the reality that Libyans had experienced firsthand.

Riyadh–Cairo: Charting the Maps of the Future
Emile Ameen/Asharq Al-Awsat/September 20/2026
Last Tuesday, the Egyptian capital, Cairo, welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in a visit that could hardly be described as merely traditional -or even simply protocol-driven. It was, in many respects, a visit that transcended the usual diplomatic formalities.
The timing was both significant and consequential. At a moment when profound changes are reshaping the region, Arab solidarity -particularly the bond between Arab states- has assumed an importance that stands above almost every other consideration.
Perhaps it is worth recalling, therefore, that Egyptian-Saudi relations are neither the product of any particular crisis nor confined to a single issue or file. Rather, they rest upon a long history and an intricate web of strategic interests. This year, moreover, marks a full century of diplomatic relations between Cairo and Riyadh - a milestone that serves as a reminder that the ties between the two countries extend far beyond the circumstances of the moment.
It is the accumulated political wisdom of these two major Arab states that can open the way to further solutions - solutions capable of preventing crises from escalating into protracted conflicts that exact a lasting toll on peoples’ lives and threaten their sense of security and stability.
It is hardly a novel observation to say that Riyadh and Cairo have long been looked to whenever crises engulf the region. After years of mounting instability, the Middle East now finds itself confronted by ever-deepening unrest, turbulence, and disorder, in an era in which militias have grown increasingly powerful and assertive. Saudi Arabia has demonstrated that it is firmly on the path toward a promising and prosperous future, as evidenced by the sweeping achievements being realized under Vision 2030. The Kingdom is moving toward a transformation of profound significance - one that is already beginning to reshape the realities of the country and the lives of its people. The official Egyptian statement issued following Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s meeting with President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi offers an illuminating indication of the priorities shared by the two countries. At its core is a clear commitment to Saudi Arabia’s stability and to the continuation of its independent and steady course, both now and in the years ahead. The two sides also appear determined to deepen the level of coordination between them in the prevailing circumstances. This carries particular significance given the strategic weight of both Cairo and Riyadh, and lends the current regional landscape an entirely different dimension.
That considerable strategic weight means that any calculation involving the Red Sea must necessarily take into account the strategic interests of these two sister states, as well as their respective geopolitical arrangements and concerns.
At the latest Saudi-Egyptian summit, it was strikingly clear that Cairo and Riyadh were speaking, on a number of highly sensitive Arab issues, with stances that were remarkably close to one another. These are issues of exceptional delicacy at the present moment, particularly in a region where numerous powers are advancing competing and often contradictory positions within the Arab world itself.
The bilateral discussions between the Crown Prince and the Egyptian President underscored the convergence of their positions on the Palestinian question and the two-state solution. They also addressed the situation in Gaza, particularly in light of the recent remarks of a racist nature made by certain members of Netanyahu’s government - and, most importantly, the future of a territory that has endured more suffering than almost anywhere else over the past three years.
The discussion also extended to areas of vulnerability within the Arab world, notably Sudan and Libya, and to the imperative of working seriously to preserve the unity of both states. This gives the visit a significance that reaches well beyond bilateral relations, pointing instead toward an effort to coordinate positions on the Arab world’s major crises. Above all, it reflects a fundamental premise: Arab national security is indivisible. It is, at its core, a single and interconnected whole, from one end of the Arab world to the other.
Looking further back into history, one can argue that the organic ties between the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt stretch back more than two millennia. The evidence can be found in the very names of cities and villages across Upper and Lower Egypt, many of which bear the names of Arab tribes whose members migrated southward and northward and ultimately made Egypt - the land of the Nile - their home. Against this historical backdrop, what is now being asked of Riyadh and Cairo - and what the Cairo summit must surely have sought to crystallize - is not merely the preservation of their already robust relationship, but its transformation into a greater capacity for political, security, and strategic coordination across the many volatile files confronting the region today.
The broader conclusion is that what is unfolding across the Middle East and the Red Sea region constitutes a geopolitical transformation of international consequence, at a time when the maps of the world - and maritime corridors in particular - are being redrawn. Once again, geography is demonstrating its enduring power to leave an indelible mark upon the pages of history.
It is from this perspective that one may say that whenever Riyadh and Cairo come together, we are witnessing the two principal Arab powers engaging with the forces that will, in turn, help shape the position of the Arab world on the emerging global map of the years ahead.

If Hope Is Gone, Slow Extinction Looms for Middle East Christians
Alberto M. Fernandez/National Catholic Registary/September 20/ 2026
COMMENTARY: The faith remains strong, but confidence in a secure future is fading as Christians increasingly leave their ancestral homelands.
How much are you willing to pay for your faith?
That often seems a rhetorical question for Western Christians, although the cost can be very real even here. One only has to look at the death of Father Jacques Hamel or the case of former Finnish government minister Päivi Räsänen as two examples.
In the Muslim East, for centuries the cost was literally measured in gold as Christians had to pay punitive taxes to keep their faith, the notorious jizya tax imposed on religious minorities by Muslim rulers well into the 19th century (and which the Islamic State terrorist group sought to revive). The history of Christians under Muslim rule is a complex one and included both periods of great flourishing and great slaughter — but mostly, it was costly to be a Christian.
Despite headlines when there is some terrorist attack, as happened at a Damascus church last year, the cost for many Middle East Christians today is less dramatic, less newsworthy, more subtle, but no less inexorable.
This week, on the eve of the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, two masked men on a motorcycle threw what was described as a “sound bomb” into the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in the Syrian city of Hama. There were no casualties but some physical damage inside the church. The intimidation factor was clear. Earlier this year, what are dubbed “sectarian tensions” led to extensive damage to shops, cars and homes in the Syrian Christian town of al-Suqaylabiya caused by Sunni Muslims on motorcycles from a neighboring town.
Syria is impoverished, with soaring unemployment rates and poor governance, all factors that make that sectarian friction even worse.
The undramatic, under-the-radar, almost routine process of Middle East Christians paying a heavy price for merely existing is everywhere to be seen. It is not state-sponsored, not usually, nor is it always Islamic in origin, nor is it usually targeted — but the results are devastating.
In 1947, the city of Jerusalem had 27,000 Christians. Today it has 4,000 remaining. The Catholic priest in the West Bank Christian village of Taybeh, Father Bashar Fawadleh, lamented last December that more than 13 Christian families had left the town in the preceding two years, emigrating to Spain and the United States. The environs of the town have seen repeated incursions and vandalism by Israeli settlers over the past years
Here is the push-pull factor of Christian emigration in stark action. The cost of remaining became too high for those families; the pull of leaving became too attractive to resist. There are more Palestinian Christians in Australia than in Jerusalem, more in America than in Ramallah.
The Hamas War that began on Oct. 7, 2023, only accelerated Christian emigration from the West Bank as IDF checkpoints, settler attacks and economic crisis all increased.
According to Palestinian Christian activist Khalil Sayegh, in Gaza “less than 500 Christians remain, the elderly, sick and poor.” Those with the financial means and connections to escape have already done so. Most of those who remain have lost their homes in the fighting as well as any economic activity or business they may have had.
But the attraction of flight is not limited to Christians. Polling shows large percentages of populations in the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunisia to Iran, would emigrate if they could. The economic crisis triggered by the Iran War this year has affected everyone, making life more expensive and difficult everywhere. Christians are more likely to emigrate because many of them have ties in the West already or have increasingly precarious, middle-class lives that make movement a bit easier.
Even in Lebanon, the ancient stronghold of Middle Eastern Christianity and where the Christian presence has been informally and traditionally codified, there is a sense of slow loss. Recent labor studies in Lebanon have revealed an ongoing decline in Christian representation in some state institutions.
Recent appointments in the government ministries of health, finance, and energy and water showed Christians to be heavily underrepresented (two of these ministries are headed by pro-Hezbollah Shiite Muslims). With Lebanon in economic decline, government jobs are some of the few lasting employment opportunities that remain. Christians are torn between staying in their homelands and leaving. Father Fawadleh asked departing Taybeh Christians to maintain their ties and not to sell their lands. In Lebanon this week, many Lebanese Christians — especially Maronites — noted the great cost they had borne to survive and endure as they remembered the 44th anniversary of the assassination of President-elect Bashir Gemayel during the Lebanese Civil War. The week saw the passing of two other historic figures of the Lebanese Christian Resistance, former Superior General of the Lebanese Maronite Order Abbot Bulos Naaman and politician Dory Chamoun, both aged 94.
It was Naaman, who was also a great scholar of the Maronite Church and of Eastern Christianity, who saw Lebanon as a refuge that persisted because it provided Christians and non-Christians a precious measure of freedom, including economic and religious freedom, that did not exist elsewhere in the region. He wrote, “We are Christians and we will remain Christians without parting with the virtue of hope that carries us towards the other with a historical love, making our own destiny.
The faith of Middle East Christians is strong, a reality that is obvious to anyone who knows them. They have paid much for that faith, sacrificed through the centuries, and have proven to be steadfast. The faith that is declining now is not faith in God, but faith in the temporal future, faith in justice and in human institutions and governments and nations that have failed miserably to provide the hope and security all societies need to flourish. There is a lesson for us too here.
Alberto M. Fernandez Alberto M. Fernandez is a former U.S. diplomat and a contributor at EWTN News

Selected Face Book & X tweets on September 20/2026