Brief Pause Amid Tensions and Internal Divisions

The past week gives a vague sense that fire is smoldering beneath the ashes. Tensions between the Americans and Iranians persist; they are erupting openly within the mullah regime itself, and in Lebanon, Israeli ceasefire violations continue without, for now, drawing a response from Hezbollah.

Days of waiting, almost of a standstill, defined the past week. It was less eventful than the weeks that have followed one another since the start of the war in Iran and the opening of the parallel Lebanese front, yet it remains no less significant. Cracks are appearing here and there — not only in the memorandum of understanding signed between the Americans and Iranians, but within the Iranian regime itself.

The Strait of Hormuz was a flashpoint this week between Iran and the rest of the world. The Iranian insistence on treating the strait as territory to be controlled by the regime — and the firing on vessels crossing the waterway without its approval — has earned the mullahs condemnation from all sides.

On Thursday, at Bahrain's request, the UN Security Council convened to address the issue, and the remarks made by various representatives, including the American ambassador, strongly rebuked Iran for its conduct and actions.

On Friday, NATO leaders, following the European Union earlier in the week, sharply criticized the Tehran regime, rejecting any fees imposed on ships under the guise of "services rendered."

Even more notable were the words spoken by U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday, during celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of American independence. "We hit them very hard — they're dying to make a deal with us — but we're going to give them a week for the funeral of (their Supreme Leader) Khamenei, out of kindness," he told the crowd.

Does this statement signal that he is losing patience? In any case, negotiations on this front will not resume until after July 9, when the mourning period ends. The Americans would also clearly prefer to let the World Cup period pass — a tournament being held partly on their soil.

A show of force and internal divisions

The funerals of Ali Khamenei and his family members, killed alongside him in the Israeli-American strike of February 28, 2026, that ignited the war in the Middle East, are one of the defining moments of this week and are expected to stretch over several days, culminating in the burial on July 9.

The ceremonies honoring the late leader began — and it is hard to believe this was a coincidence — on July 4, American Independence Day.

For the mullah regime, this is, as one might expect, a show of force and an opportunity to reassert the regime's cohesion.

Except that, so far, it has not quite played out that way. To be sure, the show of force succeeded on the surface. Hundreds of thousands of regime loyalists turned out to pay their final respects to the religious (and political) leader who ruled that vast country with an iron fist for more than three decades. Tears, cries, self-flagellation — all the outward signs of grief and of a determination to continue on the path of the "master" were on display.

Official representatives from several allied countries, such as Pakistan, made the trip. Despite the strained relations of late between official Lebanon and Iran, Beirut sent Defense Minister Michel Menassa to represent it.

Unsurprisingly, a large Hezbollah delegation bowed, in tears, before the ayatollah's coffin.

Yet what was meant to be a moment of tremendous unity around a beloved unifying figure has ultimately exposed growing cracks — not only between conservatives and reformists (which would be expected in Iran), but within the conservative wing of the regime itself.

According to several media outlets, including an article in the New York Times and a report by al-Arabiya, the signs clearly indicate that the unity displayed by Iran's leaders is nothing more than a façade.

While President Massoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf continue to defend the deal with the Americans, other conservative voices are questioning how such talks can take place when Washington — along with its allies — is responsible for the assassination of the Supreme Leader.

A power struggle

Also this week, a televised interview with Ghalibaf, in which he laid out the details of the agreement with Washington, was abruptly cut off by state television — run by an ultra-conservative — prompting outrage from the chief negotiator.

In Iraq, where he was taking part in preparations for ceremonies honoring Khamenei in a country with a large Shia population and many supporters, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was booed by Iranians… who blamed him for his role in the negotiations with the United States.

The article in the New York Times explains that these divisions are not focused solely on the deal with the United States, but above all reflect an internal struggle for power.

A struggle, too, to win the favor of new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei… who has yet to make any public appearance, despite reports of his determination to attend the funerals of his father and other family members.

His continued absence is fueling the wildest rumors about his health (he is said to have been seriously wounded in the same strike that killed his father) and his ability to lead the country.

This week also saw revelations from the New York Times and the Washington Post about an alleged Israeli intention to eliminate Iran's two chief negotiators, Ghalibaf and Araghchi, during the talks with the Americans.

According to the American newspapers, Washington was so concerned about losing these interlocutors that it reached out to countries in the region to warn Tehran of the threat.

Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stepped forward to deny these allegations.

Demolitions in southern Lebanon

While the preliminary agreement signed between the Americans and Iranians continues to divide opinion in Tehran, the framework agreement signed by the Lebanese and Israeli delegations on June 22 in Washington is also drawing criticism in Beirut. The Shia duo continues to voice its opposition to the document, which calls for the establishment of pilot zones where Israeli troops would hand over control to the Lebanese army.

Faced with criticism from the Hezbollah-Amal tandem, sovereignist factions are increasingly showing their support for head of state Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who had the political courage to opt for direct negotiations with Israel.

Opponents of the framework agreement are primarily pointing to one of its articles — Article 13 — to justify their position: this article stipulates that neither Lebanon nor Israel shall file complaints before international bodies against the other country for any potential war crimes.

Hezbollah, which has so often paralyzed and undermined international and domestic judicial proceedings — as seen with the international tribunal into the 2005 assassination of Rafic Hariri and the 2020 Beirut port explosion — now suddenly presents itself as a fervent champion of international courts. Those who support the text argue that the inclusion of such a clause is standard practice in ongoing negotiations.

The document is certainly not perfect, but as President Aoun has emphasized on multiple occasions this week, this framework agreement reflects Lebanon's determination to negotiate on its own behalf, with the understanding that the government cannot under any circumstances cede a single square meter of national territory.

It must be acknowledged, in this context, that following the successive defeats suffered by Hezbollah against Israel in the wars of 2023 and 2026, official Lebanon finds itself with few options for recovering the lost territories.

On the side of the Shiite tandem, the outward show of unity is giving way to telling "nuances" in their respective positions.

While Hezbollah unequivocally rejects the direct negotiation process, Amal leader and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry appears to be blowing hot and cold.

In one of his statements this week, he indicated he was open to compromise on the matter.

In any case, the plan to form a four-party coalition — Hezbollah, Amal, the Free Patriotic Movement, and the Progressive Socialist Party — to defeat the framework agreement in Parliament has come to nothing.

Although a visit by FPM leader Gebran Bassil to Berry this week fueled speculation on the matter, a statement by former PSP leader Walid Joumblatt, the Druze chieftain, dashed the hopes of those counting on such a scenario.

While critical of the framework agreement, Joumblatt made clear he would not be part of any such coalition, should it come to that.

On the ground, the situation in the south remains tense, though it has not yet escalated into open warfare.

Israeli forces continue their attacks, the targeted killings of Hezbollah figures, and the demolition of homes and tunnels.

The Shiite party, for its part, is largely adhering to the ceasefire, which it views as the outcome of Iran's stance ahead of the framework agreement's signing in Washington.

That truce remains more fragile than ever.

Shaibani in Beirut

The other major development this week was the visit of Syrian Foreign Minister Assaad al-Shaibani to Beirut on Thursday — a visit that appears to open a new chapter between two countries with a deeply complicated shared history.

The statements made reflected a mutual commitment to respecting each country's sovereignty and building equal-footing relations across various areas, particularly in trade.

The visit culminated in the signing, by Shaibani and Nawaf Salam, of an agreement establishing a bilateral cooperation commission.

The Syrian foreign minister, who met with all parties except Hezbollah and also traveled to Tripoli, the predominantly Sunni capital of northern Lebanon, likely reassured Lebanese officials that Syria would not interfere in the disarmament of the Lebanese Shiite militia — something President Trump has called for on multiple occasions.

A coincidence of timing? The Syrian capital Damascus was rocked on Thursday by a powerful terrorist explosion at a café near the Palace of Justice, killing at least 9 people and wounding many more. The blast, caused by a makeshift explosive device according to Syrian authorities, has not been claimed, but bears the hallmarks of the Islamic State terrorist group.

L’attentat à la charge explosive «artisanale», selon les autorités syriennes, n’a pas été revendiqué, mais il porte les empreintes du groupe terroriste Etat islamique.