From Beijing to Washington, numerous uncertainties

Between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, the statements reflected a positive atmosphere, but the underlying realities of this summit between giants should become clearer over time. Iran, for its part, continues its provocations. Between Lebanon and Israel, an extension of the truce and future military cooperation.

This week was marked by crucial talks whose repercussions will be felt during the next phase.
From the very beginning of the week, attention was focused on preparations for the US-China summit in Beijing and the third round of negotiations between the Lebanese and Israeli delegations in Washington.

At the Beijing summit, from a symbolic standpoint, the welcome reserved for US President Donald Trump was spectacular and commensurate with the importance of the event. In their different styles, the American and Chinese heads of state conveyed crucial messages regarding their future economic cooperation and talks on international issues of common interest.

Among these issues were Taiwan, which China seeks to annex while the United States supports its independence, and Iran, a traditional ally of China. How are these two issues now interconnected? Time will tell.

But certain signs are already pointing to emerging trends. In an interview, President Trump asked the Taiwanese authorities not to proclaim the country’s independence on the basis of Washington’s support, something Taiwan ignored by issuing a declaration asserting its independence immediately after the summit ended.

As for Iran, the issue was extensively discussed during the summit, as expected.
The American and Chinese presidents displayed a common position: the need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
President Trump clearly stated that his Chinese counterpart — who had received Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi a few days earlier — is prepared to contribute to the negotiations.

Another important indicator emerging from the summit is that China is now expected to purchase oil from the United States, which would reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the Strait of Hormuz… and, indirectly, on its Iranian ally.

Although there is still not enough hindsight to properly assess the results of this summit, President Trump’s statements deserve close examination.
Indeed, he told reporters at the conclusion of the summit that he could accept a “freeze” on uranium enrichment in Iran for a period of 20 years if he had “the necessary guarantees.”

The process of indirect negotiations is not dead either, as indicated by the Pakistani Interior Minister’s visit to Tehran this weekend.
But the tone seems to have changed abruptly over the weekend: the White House chief said in passing during a statement that “his patience with Iran is running out.”

On his social network, Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself on Sunday with the US military in the background over the Strait of Hormuz, accompanied by the enigmatic caption: “The calm before the storm.”
This aligns with persistent reports carried by Israeli media suggesting growing American conviction that a return to war is necessary — a “50% probability,” according to an Israeli official.

European initiatives

Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranians continue to assert their right to control this maritime route.
Iran also claims to have received calls from European leaders to discuss the conditions for secure passage through the strait. In exchange for what?

Another major event this week was the meeting of BRICS foreign ministers, also held Thursday in India.
This ministerial conference addressed, among other topics, the Middle East and became the scene of a dispute between the Iranian and Emirati ministers, with the former taking the opportunity to accuse the United Arab Emirates of being “partners” in the Israeli-American attack against his country… even though, it should be noted, Iranian missiles have struck the UAE since the beginning of the conflict.

No joint official statement was issued on the war in Iran, precisely because of the disagreements between the two countries.

Another noteworthy development: another ally of Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin, spoke on Saturday with his Emirati counterpart Mohammed bin Zayed regarding the Iranian conflict, according to Reuters.
The official statement specified that “both sides emphasize the importance of the political and diplomatic process.” An attempt to pull Iran out of its isolation?

Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embarrassed the UAE this week by claiming to have made a “secret visit” to the country at the beginning of the war.
Abu Dhabi quickly denied the claim. The country has been attracting increasing media attention, especially since its spectacular withdrawal from OPEC at the beginning of May.

In Lebanon, extension of the ceasefire

The Lebanese week was marked by negotiations in Washington on Thursday and Friday between a Lebanese delegation headed for the first time by the highly experienced former ambassador Simon Karam, and an Israeli delegation once again led by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter.
The negotiations addressed both the political and military situations.

This third round — since early April — began under intense pressure: fighting continues to rage in southern Lebanon, with Israeli advances beyond the Litani River this week; increasingly virulent statements from Hezbollah accusing President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam of “treason”; and reports of American “concerns” regarding the process.

The results of these talks, however, were not reflective of this difficult beginning.
On the one hand, the process did not collapse, as some had feared, since the next round has already been scheduled by the Americans for early June.

On the other hand, even though the details of these closed-door meetings have not yet all been revealed, concrete results emerged: a 45-day extension of the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, and the launch of a “security process” beginning with a meeting between military officials from both countries on May 29 at the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, the announcement of the ceasefire was not followed by any action on the ground, even as Lebanese authorities attempt to implement a truce that would be respected “by all parties,” according to information leaked on Saturday.

According to those same reports relayed by the local press, President Joseph Aoun reportedly asked Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to convince Hezbollah to cease its attacks so that the cessation of hostilities would be observed by both parties.
The pro-Iranian party reportedly responded that it would do so if Israel also committed itself.
Yet on the ground, tensions appear instead to have escalated: the Israelis issued evacuation orders north of the Litani, and sirens continue to sound regularly in northern Israel because of Hezbollah drones.

These drones, precisely, which genuinely trouble the Israeli army by its own admission, are also likely to negatively affect Lebanon.
According to a report cited by local media, the Israelis are considering a deeper occupation than the 10 kilometers already taken, given that the threat no longer comes only from missiles whose range can be calculated, but from primitive explosive drones that are difficult for defense systems to detect.

Salam in Syria

Another figure who drew attention this week was Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who stood out with a very firm statement reaffirming the Lebanese state’s position regarding the Washington negotiations process and rejecting all accusations of “treason” directed at him, just as they were directed at the president.

Moreover, Mr. Salam was received on May 14 in Damascus by Syrian President Ahmad al-Chareh.
In statements following the visit, he reiterated that “Lebanon will no longer accept remaining a platform for operations against friendly countries,” clearly pointing the finger at Hezbollah, even as Damascus regularly dismantles subversive networks linked to the group, which it accuses of seeking to destabilize the regime.

At the same time, bilateral talks addressed coordination efforts regarding negotiations with Israel.
The exact significance of these discussions should also become clearer in the coming period, especially given that Syria itself continues to suffer regular Israeli incursions in the south of the country.

Also noteworthy this week regarding the situation in Lebanon was a strange episode revealed on May 15 concerning a Lebanese “complaint” filed with the UN and dated April 21, accusing Iran of interfering in Lebanese affairs and dragging Lebanon into the war with Israel.

The information was not denied by the Lebanese Foreign Ministry for several hours, before it eventually issued a clarification that appeared aimed at softening the initial report.

In a statement, the ministry asserted that it was not a “complaint” but rather a “letter” to the UN in which it responded to indirect Iranian accusations against the Lebanese state in the case involving the targeting of four Iranian “diplomats” in a Beirut hotel at the beginning of the war (the Iranian complaint against Israel insinuates that Lebanese authorities were aware of their relocation).
A new episode further reviving the already well-established tensions between Iran and the Lebanese authorities.