Articles

Diplomatic activity intensified on Tuesday around two issues that have dominated international headlines in recent weeks: the discussions between Washington and Tehran and the direct talks between Lebanon and Israel. The fifth round of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations opened at the Pentagon, but not before President Joseph Aoun issued a firm reminder of the guiding principle that should govern the three-day talks: respect for Lebanese sovereignty. Mr. Aoun, who has repeatedly criticized Iran’s blatant interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs, treated Tehran and Tel Aviv as equally responsible. “We will accept nothing less than an end to the Israeli occupation and to all forms of foreign domination,” he said, in a barely veiled reference to Iran. He expressed hope that the discussions would lead to “the full restoration of Lebanon’s sovereignty over every inch of its territory,” according to a statement released by his office. For Beirut, the objective of these talks is to turn the ceasefire into a concrete mechanism facilitating an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, the return of displaced residents and the release of prisoners. According to sources at the presidential palace, quoted by the local news agency al-Markaziya, precise instructions were given to the head of the Lebanese delegation, Ambassador Simon Karam, to firmly uphold these priorities while seeking military and security arrangements that can be implemented on the ground, where the ceasefire remains under strain. On Tuesday, the Israeli army opened fire on groups of individuals it described as “Hezbollah terrorists” in the area of the strategic Ali Taher hill, killing at least two people. According to Israeli media reports, the discussions are focusing in particular on the creation of “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon. According to Haaretz , Tel Aviv has drawn up several maps outlining an experimental withdrawal from certain areas south of the Litani River and the Yellow Line, where the Lebanese army would deploy under U.S. supervision. In Lebanon, officials say that the military and security discussions will be followed on Thursday by political talks, with a particular focus on the disarmament of Hezbollah. The proposed “pilot zones” naturally enjoy U.S. backing, as they would serve as a real test of the Lebanese army’s ability to maintain security in southern Lebanon and prevent Tehran from re-establishing its influence there. The plan nevertheless faces two major obstacles. First, the Islamic Republic, which refuses to loosen its grip on Lebanon, has been included in the mechanism to be established. The reasons behind this presence, which is at best inopportune, have yet to be officially explained. Second, Lebanon does not appear to be involved in the practical preparations for the arrangement, as suggested by details released about Joseph Aoun’s two phone calls with U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Both men called him on Tuesday to express their support for his positions and those of the government in favor of restoring Lebanese sovereignty. According to a statement from the presidency, they informed him that “preparations for the formation and operation of this body are currently under consideration.” It remains to be seen what role Lebanon will play within this framework, as Beirut continues to advocate keeping the Lebanese-Israeli and Iranian-American negotiating tracks separate. Joe Raggi Calls on Arab Countries In Amman, where he was taking part in the 165th ministerial meeting of the Arab League, Foreign Minister Joe Raggi called on Arab states to support “the independence of the Lebanese negotiating track” from the U.S.-Iran axis. He stressed that Lebanon’s future should not be decided in its absence. Washington appears to still back this position, as reflected in JD Vance’s response to Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, who had questioned the U.S. stance on Lebanon and Hezbollah. In his reply, Vance said the United States considered President Aoun and the Lebanese government to be “the only legitimate authority in the country.” The U.S. vice-president also insisted that talks with Tehran “were not intended to grant it a role in Lebanon’s future, but to ensure it exerts pressure on Hezbollah to comply with its commitments.” In any case, the pro-sovereignty camp – against which Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem again lashed out on Tuesday, accusing it of serving Israeli interests – says it will not lower its guard. More than 400 Lebanese figures have co-signed an appeal to “save Lebanon,” built around three main points: rallying around the state, supporting direct negotiations with Israel, and rejecting the tutelage Iran seeks to impose on Lebanon through its military arm, Hezbollah. In the same vein, the parliamentary bloc of the Lebanese Forces, MPs from the Kataëb party, and a group of independent lawmakers – including Ashraf Rifi, Michel Moawad and Fouad Makhzoumi – submitted a memorandum to Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, urging the Lebanese state to prepare a legal, financial and diplomatic case to pursue compensation from the Islamic Republic of Iran for damages and losses resulting from the latest war on the Lebanese front, which they attribute to Iran. French diplomacy also remains heavily engaged in post-war developments in Lebanon. In three separate calls with Joseph Aoun, Nawaf Salam, and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, French President Emmanuel Macron discussed the progress of the U.S.-Iran negotiations, the consolidation of the ceasefire in southern Lebanon, and preparations for the post-UNIFIL period. As the international force’s mandate is due to expire from 2027 onwards, Paris is consulting several European partners to define the terms of a possible replacement international presence. Tensions Rising Meanwhile, U.S.-Iran talks have entered a new phase, with both sides agreeing to establish four working groups focused on sanctions relief, the nuclear program, Iran’s economic reconstruction, and monitoring compliance with commitments. U.S. officials remain optimistic, but signs of friction are emerging, as Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are in Islamabad for talks with Pakistani officials, who are involved in mediation with Washington. U.S. President Donald Trump said Iran had agreed to “high-level nuclear inspections” and that “inspectors will be on the ground at the appropriate time,” a claim swiftly denied by Tehran. Iranian officials said the Islamic Republic has no intention of allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect certain nuclear sites recently bombed by Israel and the United States. Trump responded: “If Iran is looking for trouble, let it try to acquire a nuclear weapon.” A second point of contention is the release of frozen Iranian assets. Tehran announced an agreement providing for the immediate unfreezing of $12 billion in assets, in two instalments of $6 billion. Trump, however, said the funds would be placed in escrow and used exclusively for the purchase of American food and medical supplies. Iran’s UN ambassador immediately rejected that interpretation, insisting that Tehran would remain solely in control of how its assets are used. While the United States aims to ensure the funds are used to support the Iranian people amid an unprecedented socio-economic crisis, Iran’s clerical leadership, facing acute financial pressure, is seeking to replenish its resources in order to secure its own survival. Dispute Over the Strait of Hormuz A third point of friction concerns the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran has reaffirmed its intention to retain administrative control over this strategic waterway, which on Tuesday recorded its highest maritime traffic levels since the start of the war. Iran and Oman have begun talks on the terms and costs of future services related to managing the corridor, while Washington strongly opposes any Iranian control over the strait. Against this backdrop, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who began a tour of the Gulf on Tuesday, reiterated on his arrival in Abu Dhabi that “no country is permitted to collect tolls or fees on an international waterway.” The aim of the tour is to “reassure Gulf allies about the memorandum of understanding with Iran.” Rubio is expected to discuss with the leaders of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain the memorandum of understanding with Iran, the security of the Strait of Hormuz, and the stability guarantees sought by these countries, which Iran targeted during its war with the United States and Israel.

On June 12, 2026, financial markets around the world witnessed a moment of history unfolding in real time. Just hours after its IPO, SpaceX crossed the symbolic threshold of a $2 trillion market capitalization, making it the largest initial public offering ever completed. Its founder, Elon Musk, simultaneously became the first individual in human history to see his personal net worth surpass one trillion dollars. Unsurprisingly, Wall Street immediately split into two camps. For some, this valuation represents the ultimate expression of the speculative excess of our era: a market intoxicated by technology, artificial intelligence, and boundless growth narratives. For others, it simply reflects the logical value of a company that has revolutionized access to space, now dominates satellite communications, and could ultimately redefine humanity's future beyond our planet. But both camps may be asking the wrong question. The true significance of SpaceX's IPO does not lie in whether the company is or isn't worth $2 trillion. It lies in the fact that investors may no longer be valuing a company. They may be valuing a new form of supranational power. The Supranational Corporation Throughout modern history, companies have operated within structures created and protected by states. Governments controlled territories, maintained armies, built roads, administered justice, and issued currencies. Economic actors and corporations generated their profits within these institutional frameworks. Elon Musk and other Big Tech leaders are now part of official delegations during President Trump's trips abroad, as seen in this photo from May 14, 2026, at the US-China summit in Beijing. (AFP) SpaceX is now blurring these boundaries. The company owns and operates the world's most advanced launch infrastructure. Through Starlink, it controls the largest satellite communications network ever deployed. It has become indispensable to the United States military and intelligence services. It is simultaneously developing capabilities spanning telecommunications, defense, artificial intelligence, logistics, and space exploration. Historically, the ability to project power beyond national borders belonged almost exclusively to states. But that was before the digital age. Today, SpaceX projects its capabilities beyond the planet Earth itself. This is no longer merely a technological achievement. It is a geopolitical one. Every Era Produces Its Giant History occasionally sees the rise of companies that transcend their original commercial purpose to become the defining infrastructure of their time. As far back as 1602, the Dutch East India Company financed and facilitated the first great era of global trade. The British East India Company became one of the primary instruments of British imperial expansion. The railways transformed commerce and geography throughout the 19th century. Standard Oil fueled the industrial age. IBM built the information age. Microsoft provided the operating system for the digital revolution. Apple turned the smartphone into the central object of modern life. All of these organizations became far more than mere companies. They became the platforms upon which entire economic systems were built. SpaceX today appears to be following a similar trajectory. But unlike its predecessors, the company operates simultaneously across several strategic domains: transportation, communications, defense, data infrastructure, and space. No company before had ever attempted to integrate so many critical systems under one roof. The New Frontier of Great Power Competition SpaceX's rise cannot be separated from the broader geopolitical rivalry shaping the 21st century. Over the past three decades, globalization has shifted much of industrial production to Asia, and to China in particular. Beijing has gradually established dominant positions in manufacturing sectors, strategic minerals, batteries, solar technologies, and industrial supply chains. The United States has found itself increasingly unable to compete on traditional industrial terms. It has, however, retained one decisive advantage: technological innovation. The concentration of venture capital, entrepreneurial culture, tech talent, and financial markets within Silicon Valley remains unmatched anywhere in the world. SpaceX is arguably its purest expression. While China masters industrial scale, America continues to lead in building entirely new technological ecosystems. The significance of SpaceX therefore extends far beyond returns for its shareholders. The company represents an attempt to establish a dominant position in the next strategic domain before the rules of the game have even been written. The race for space increasingly resembles the race for mastery of the seas that defined previous centuries. The Merger of Corporate and State Power One of the most remarkable aspects of SpaceX is the gradual blurring of the line between public authority and private enterprise. The company is simultaneously a commercial launch provider, a defense contractor, a global communications network, a strategic intelligence asset, and an essential component of Western military planning. The geopolitical importance of Starlink came into sharp focus during the conflict in Ukraine and has since expanded to numerous regions of major strategic interest. Few companies in history have exercised such direct influence over military and political outcomes. Of course, SpaceX operates in a radically new world. But the accumulation of strategic capabilities in the hands of a single private entity raises questions that governments are only just beginning to grapple with. How far should a company's power extend? And what happens when governments become dependent on it? Can a $2 Trillion Valuation Be Justified? The debate over SpaceX's valuation is far from settled. Traditional valuation models struggle to capture disruptive technologies. How do you value a company whose ambitions simultaneously span global communications infrastructure, industrial production in orbit, lunar logistics, artificial intelligence integration, interplanetary transport, and asteroid resource extraction? The reality is that discounted cash flow models become increasingly unreliable when applied to markets that do not yet exist. That doesn't mean the valuation is irrational. Nor does it mean it's justified. It simply means investors are attempting to discount a deeply hypothetical future. A Warning from Financial History The timing of SpaceX's IPO deserves careful attention. It comes after one of the most extraordinary periods of technological speculation in modern history. Tech and AI valuations have skyrocketed. Technology stocks dominate global indices. Retail investor participation is at all-time highs. Leverage is at extreme levels. Compelling narratives have replaced economic and financial fundamentals. Historically, such environments have often accompanied major financial turning points. Every investment bubble has been fueled by real innovation. Every one has ended in a painful correction. History teaches us that revolutionary technologies and speculative excess are not opposing phenomena. On the contrary, they tend to go hand in hand. Artificial intelligence and space communications will likely transform the world. But investors who bought into the great technological revolutions at the peak of speculative enthusiasm have often found that even the best ideas can turn into poor investments when acquired at unrealistic prices. The Real Message Behind SpaceX's IPO Ultimately, the significance of SpaceX's IPO may have little to do with its share price. Or with Elon Musk's personal fortune. Its true meaning lies in what it reveals about the shifting relationships between states, technology, and capital. For centuries, companies operated within frameworks established by governments. Today, governments appear increasingly dependent on corporations to achieve their strategic objectives. As globalization enters a new phase defined by technological rivalry, supply chain fragmentation, and the return of geopolitical competition, entities like SpaceX are becoming full-fledged players on the world stage. Will this shift strengthen the global order or contribute to its unraveling? No one knows. What is certain, however, is that we are witnessing the emergence of a world in which economic power, technological power, and geopolitical power are increasingly concentrated in the same hands. Markets will no doubt continue to debate whether SpaceX is truly worth $2 trillion. But perhaps the more unsettling question lies elsewhere: Who will govern the future when the builders of that future become more powerful than the governments meant to oversee them?

President Trump reacted with unexpected speed after the Revolutionary Guards once again announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. This time, he turned his anger against his ally Netanyahu, imposing a ceasefire in South Lebanon in order to safeguard the progress of the negotiations underway in their Swiss phase. Yet this new day of closure did not prevent fifty five supertankers from reaching global markets under American protection, according to data from the Central Command, as well as statements made by President Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance. At this point, there is little value in questioning the sincerity of either side, nor is there any need to search for the truth behind every detail, since the “Memorandum of Understanding” allows both parties to present it in whatever way best serves their respective needs. Still, Tehran’s mere announcement of another closure of the strait, even without carrying it out, has become a political event in itself, one significant enough to prompt the American administration into action, even at the expense of the Israeli army, the crown jewel of the American military industry in the Middle East. President Trump may have somewhat exaggerated when he announced the destruction of Iran’s air force and navy, without realizing that he had failed to destroy Tehran’s most powerful weapon, its negotiating capability, and that he had no desire to acknowledge this, precisely at a moment when the Iranians were demonstrating negotiating skills wholly disproportionate to their current situation and far exceeding existing power balances. Mojtaba The new Supreme Leader continues to speak from behind a veil, while his audience still waits to see him appear. His inner circle, meanwhile, understands the state of the Republic better than he does after the extensive destruction inflicted upon its infrastructure, military capabilities and arsenals. They also understand their pressing need for respite, money and time, precisely what the “Memorandum of Understanding” has provided them with, turning into a gateway toward reconciliation with the “Great Satan”. Yet they also know that such reconciliation may trigger internal upheavals, especially since Washington’s policies have failed to convince them, as has Israel, which opposes the “Memorandum of Understanding” despite the fact that it remains their only guarantee. If the Supreme Leader approves it, the regime loses part of its room for manoeuvre; if he rejects it, the losses will only grow. In either case, the choice is a bitter one. This explains why he reduced his instructions to his followers and his people to two words expressing acceptance without conviction. Yesterday, at the Swiss negotiating venue, after Pakistan’s success made possible by decisive Qatari involvement, the first direct meeting between the two delegations produced a positive message. Only statements from hardliners in Tehran, compounded by President Trump’s hasty reactions, disrupted this momentum, reminding everyone how fragile the political process remains and how vulnerable it is to another collapse. Indeed, Iranian political thinking remains captive to the theory of “immaculate conception”, especially when the marriage in question involves an administration led by a real estate developer whose language is both abrasive and provocative. The Limits of the Game Whatever objections critics may raise regarding the text of the “Memorandum of Understanding”, many of them legitimate, its essential function lies not in its visible content but in the secret annexes accompanying it, whether written or verbal. Their true purpose is to bring Iran into the black room of direct bilateral negotiations, face to face with the Americans. Once the mediators have succeeded in establishing this framework for direct bilateral negotiations, no one will remember the shortcomings and loopholes of the “Memorandum of Understanding”, because once the Iranian American negotiating process begins and takes root, it will become nothing more than a direct translation of actual power balances rather than tactical manoeuvres or political cunning. In that context, the theory of “immaculate conception” will no longer have any place. Iran’s leaders understand this perfectly well. Their overriding concern is to preserve the regime and secure guarantees against future attacks that could once again threaten their survival and authority. This does not mean that Iran's leadership will not do everything in its power to secure an agreement that serves its interests. Rather, it means that the rules of the game are evolving, moving from confrontation, hostility and rivalry toward a phase of temporary understandings that may ultimately lead to reconciliation. It is in this light that Egypt’s reconciliation with the United States through the Camp David Accords with Israel should be revisited, alongside the Palestinian experience embodied by the Oslo Accords, in order to grasp the considerable gap between the outcomes of the Egyptian and Palestinian cases whenever the logic of real rather than imaginary power balances prevails. Today, Iran faces its own experience, carrying both the legacy of the Islamic Republic and, behind it, the enduring legacy of the imperial Persian state, not to mention the inheritance of uninterrupted wars since Imam Khomeini came to power, whether wars against the peoples of Iran or against Arab and Muslim peoples, from Afghanistan to Yemen. The latest war with Israel and the United States may be among the shortest, yet it has become the most dangerous for both the regime and the state. Because of this, the game has reached its breaking point. Little remains of the Iranian state today except a people struggling with hunger and disease, an army that still possesses missiles, and leaders who show little concern for either their own population or their neighbours. A New Dynamic As the Swiss phase begins, the two month countdown established by the “Memorandum of Understanding” has started. The real issues at stake go far beyond the officially declared files, whether nuclear matters, sanctions, frozen assets or similar questions. They concern, above all, the foundations of Iranian American bilateral relations, first on the security level, then on the economic level, ultimately leading toward political reconciliation. These three dimensions, security, economics and politics, encompass all disputed issues and require a new negotiating dynamic entirely different from the one that produced the “Memorandum of Understanding”. They also follow a hierarchy designed to produce a sustainable political reconciliation, beginning with the development of deep security policies capable of reassuring the Iranian regime while satisfying the United States, which still views Iran as a major security vulnerability within the area of operations of the US Central Command in the broader Middle East. This also extends to the regional security of the Gulf and Arab countries, as well as that of Central Asian states within the broader Eurasian axis. This also requires settling the question of Iran’s economy, the region’s second largest economy after Saudi Arabia. It is worth recalling that, according to President Trump’s own statements, his decision to withdraw from the nuclear agreement was motivated first by economic considerations and only then by security concerns. Time remains relatively short to address these fundamental issues if negotiations continue to swing back and forth like a pendulum. Yet it remains sufficient if the Trump administration is willing to learn a few negotiating lessons from its fiercest adversary, which, in politics, is hardly a sign of weakness. American responsibility here appears far greater than Iranian responsibility. Otherwise, the United States would have to acknowledge that its status has declined to that of a regional power rather than the great power it claims and acts to be. It is also worth highlighting the role of the four mediating countries, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, whose actions reflect the political weight generated by both Arab and Islamic summits and their ability to exert meaningful influence from Beijing to Moscow, across Western Europe and into Latin America. That influence has even reached the United States, as President Trump himself openly acknowledged. It is therefore impossible to disregard objective realities that have already demonstrated their effectiveness. In the period ahead, these mediating states will be capable of becoming influential players in regional and global equations, and they are openly saying so. The clear and convergent statements issued by the foreign ministers of the four countries during their latest meeting in Cairo cannot be reduced to a mere diplomatic exercise or an abstract belief in mediation. Islamabad, Riyadh, Ankara and Cairo do not act lightly after decades of political, security and diplomatic engagement across multiple fronts and issues. Today, the future of the region itself is at stake, and these states lie both at its core and at the heart of the struggle surrounding it. Brazil as a Model Brazil is one of the emerging powers on the global stage through both the G20 and the BRICS. With its vast population and its multi trillion dollar economy, it possesses the means, as a major Latin American power, to fulfil the aspirations of its diverse population and become a pole in an increasingly multipolar world. This ambition is reflected in the brief statement issued by its Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 19 June, welcoming the signing of the “Memorandum of Understanding” as a means of ending the conflict, urging all parties to fully comply with its provisions, and explicitly calling for a complete cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, as well as the continuation of negotiations aimed at reaching a comprehensive peace agreement . Brazil also reaffirmed its commitment to lasting stability and security in the Middle East, particularly in the State of Palestine, both in Gaza and the West Bank . Through these clear, simple and carefully chosen words, Brazil expressed a position that no Lebanese or Palestinian citizen could reject. A genuinely state centred approach to the “Memorandum of Understanding” thus emerged, at a time when local media were saturated with contradictory interpretations from across the political spectrum, interpretations that went far beyond the memorandum’s temporary function. These readings chiefly revealed a form of political agitation among those whose ambitions, desires, illusions or despair in the face of a complex reality do not align with the contents of the memorandum, even as an opportunity now presents itself for Lebanon’s legitimate institutions to demonstrate their capabilities and for the Palestinian people to uphold their political rights and their independent state. Brazil supported South Africa before the International Court of Justice against Israel and provided financial assistance to UNRWA, while the Iran of the Revolutionary Guards has never recognized the State of Palestine and has offered our peoples nothing but death and destruction.

Negotiations between Iranian and American delegations, following the framework agreement signed by both parties last week, continued on Monday in Lucerne, Switzerland. That said, this diplomatic process is still in its early stages, and many grey areas remain. Questions are mounting, however: are we heading toward an era in which Iran will reclaim its regional influence, or rather toward a period of regional balance of power? One place where many questions are being asked is certainly Lebanon. On Monday evening, a U.S. official announced an agreement between the United States, Lebanon, and Israel to establish a ceasefire monitoring mechanism in southern Lebanon under the supervision of CENTCOM, the U.S. Central Command. The official added that the agreement was preceded by a call from Secretary of State Marco Rubio with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Lebanese issue was at the heart of the talks in Switzerland, with Iran seeking to take credit for the ceasefire in the south, even as direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel remain scheduled for this Tuesday in Washington. Given the talks initiated by JD Vance with the Iranians in Switzerland regarding southern Lebanon — without any prior consultation with the Lebanese authorities, which constitutes a serious diplomatic blunder — President Joseph Aoun was quick to set the record straight, stating that Lebanon welcomes "any assistance to end the war," while making clear that he draws a distinction between assistance and interference, in an obvious reference to Iran. "We are a sovereign country and no one negotiates on our behalf," he stated unequivocally. Lebanon's Ambassador to Washington, Nada Hamadé Moawad, reached out to senior U.S. officials to convey this position directly, stressing that any dealings concerning Lebanon must be conducted in coordination with President Aoun himself. It was in response to this firm stance taken by Baabda that JD Vance, U.S. negotiator Jared Kushner, and Qatar's Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani called the President of the Republic to discuss with him the measures raised in Switzerland aimed at reinforcing the ceasefire in Lebanon — measures that would take the form of "de-escalation cells." These cells would be overseen by committees comprising Lebanese, American, and Iranian members — a measure that mirrors the "pilot zones" mentioned in the direct negotiations with Israel in Washington. President Aoun's sharp response to talks conducted without coordination with the Lebanese authorities was not only a reaction to the negotiations themselves, but also to the behavior of all factions within the Iranian camp. The most striking example of this can be seen in the banners erected along the airport road featuring the slain Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his son, the presumed future Supreme Leader (still nowhere to be seen) Mojtaba Khamenei, alongside a large "Thank you Iran, ever faithful!" Beyond the repeated statements by Hezbollah officials criticizing the direct negotiations with Israel and praising the position of the mullahs' regime, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ismail Qaani, issued a highly significant threat against Israel on Monday. "If you do not withdraw voluntarily [from southern Lebanon], you will suffer a defeat comparable to the saga of 2000," he said. In doing so, Iran directly claimed ownership of what had previously been a source of Hezbollah's pride: the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon on May 25, 2000. Nuclear issues, wheat, and corn in Lucerne… In Lucerne, despite the tensions on Sunday evening, talks continued throughout Sunday night into Monday. By Monday morning, signals from both sides appeared positive, even though differences of opinion persist. The official delegations departed, leaving 'technical' delegations behind to continue the discussions. The previous day, sharp statements from US President Donald Trump — who threatened to strike Iran if it did not 'stop supporting its proxies' (most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon) — had caused the Iranian delegation to walk out of the negotiating room prematurely, raising fears of a deadlock. However, on Monday morning, the Pakistani and Qatari governments announced that 'encouraging progress' had been made. The talks resulted in 'a roadmap for discussions spanning 60 days' and paved the way for immediate technical negotiations. For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi proudly declared that the talks had yielded 'major progress,' expressing particular satisfaction over the lifting of restrictions on oil and petrochemical exports. He confirmed the removal of the blockade on Iranian ports and the unfreezing of certain Iranian assets. On the nuclear file, Iran acknowledged 'very brief discussions' during the talks in Switzerland. The spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry assured that no details had yet been addressed. Meanwhile, Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian is expected in Pakistan tomorrow, Tuesday, to continue discussions related to the talks. US Vice President JD Vance, who led the American delegation, was particularly forthcoming with statements. He assessed that the talks had produced a very solid foundation, highlighting that the Iranians had agreed to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to return and conduct inspections on their soil — something the Iranians subsequently flatly denied. He expressed confidence that Iran's nuclear program was definitively a thing of the past, in contrast to the vague statements made by the Iranians on that front. Later in the day, JD Vance outlined the financial terms of the 'deal' at a press conference, attempting to justify them to the American public by emphasizing that 'the unfrozen Iranian funds will serve the interests of American farmers' — a hint at potential future trade deals, particularly involving wheat and corn. He was careful to state that the United States would ensure Iran does not 'fund terrorism' with the funds it receives — a response to the mounting criticism already targeting these talks. The Hill of Ali al-Taher On the Israeli front, de-escalation appears to be the order of the day for now. The Israeli army reportedly issued a demobilization notice to its conscripts due to the ceasefire, according to Israel's Channel 12. On the ground, the south was calm for the third consecutive day, with only minor violations reported. The ceasefire provided an opportunity for a cautious return to frontline villages, but also for the discovery of bodies that had remained buried under the rubble. Another noteworthy media report, cited by Channel 12, offers an explanation for the intensity of the fighting around the strategic hill of Ali al-Taher, in the highlands of Nabatieh in the south. According to the report, the area is a key Hezbollah stronghold — a network of tunnels managed in part by generals from Iran's Revolutionary Guards. It is the proximity of Israeli troops to this site that, according to the report, explains Iran's sudden interest in a ceasefire in southern Lebanon. Israel, for its part, certainly has no intention of leaving this strategically significant area to Hezbollah, and is already seeking, through negotiations, to have Ali el-Taher included among the "pilot zones" placed under the control of the Lebanese army… with the aim of driving Hezbollah out. Could this be the potential trigger for renewed fighting should these attempts fail? In any case, both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz declared on Monday that "the Israeli army retains freedom of movement in Lebanon."

Roger Barake's article "Storm Warning in the European Sky" - Levant Time, June 13, 2026 - presents the stated reasons for the abandonment of the FCAS project (Future Combat Air System). This article offers a particular perspective by depicting Franco-German relations as they are perceived by many French people. It sheds specific light on this regrettable abandonment. Here are some illuminating excerpts from the introduction of the aforementioned article: "The program's failure immediately reignited criticism targeting Dassault Aviation and its CEO, Éric Trappier. In certain German and European political circles, the head of the French aircraft manufacturer is portrayed as one of the main figures responsible for the deadlock. His detractors accuse him of having championed an overly nationalistic vision of the program, incompatible with the logic of European cooperation. For several years, Éric Trappier has maintained that the problem is not European but industrial. In his view, a combat aircraft cannot be designed through constant compromises between multiple companies and multiple states. His reasoning is straightforward: responsibility must be inseparable from authority. If a manufacturer is tasked with developing the primary aircraft, it must also hold the corresponding decision-making power. Two competing visions of European defense have clashed since the program's inception. The first, often associated with Berlin and European institutions, favors the sharing of expertise, industrial integration, and the pooling of technologies. France requires an aircraft capable of operating from aircraft carriers and of contributing to the airborne component of its nuclear deterrent. Germany shares none of these requirements. As for Spain, its primary concern is securing its place in the European aeronautics industry." These excerpts perfectly illustrate two opposing visions: Dassault, which only seeks leadership and design control over its own portion of the program, is genuinely concerned with upholding a conceptual and industrial coherence that guarantees the production of a high-performance aircraft — one whose development and manufacture for the benefit of the Air Force, and also the Navy in France's case, would be faster and certainly less costly than a model designed under multiple constraints and modifications, some of which would be rejected by one partner or another on the grounds that they are not relevant to them (such as features related to carrying a nuclear weapon or carrier landing, which concern only France — something none of the parties was unaware of from the outset). Reading these excerpts alone highlights the crux of the mutual misunderstanding between the two viewpoints. Berlin, with Europe behind it, favors the sharing of expertise, industrial integration, and the pooling of technologies. Dassault prioritizes efficiency and its own experience-based competence as it relates to the aircraft itself — and only the aircraft — thereby preserving its know-how. It is therefore necessary to revisit a few key points in order to explain what lies beneath the divergence between the French and German perspectives — a genuine disagreement, in fact. In his remarkable biography of Talleyrand, Jean Orieux precisely identifies what still burdens, to this day, a healthy relationship and genuine understanding between the two countries. At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, following the fall of Emperor Napoleon, "Prussia was constantly demanding Saxony, the Rhineland, Luxembourg, and Belgium; England backed its claims on one point: the Rhineland." She did it above all to position a war machine on the French border (…) Napoleon had been brought down in the name of European security. The Rhineland was given to Prussia, and European security was ruined for a century and a half (…) France thus found itself under the menacing watch of an army permanently stationed 220 km from Paris along an open border. A nation drunk on hatred since Jena was being installed at our doorstep. England (…) was freely setting up a fearsome watchdog on the Rhine. The rest is history: Bismarck, Sadowa, Sedan, the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, the War of 1914, Hitler. Europe, murdered. The consequences are still felt today, including in the Middle East: after Hitler, one must add that in order to erase the guilt of the Holocaust, a Jewish state was created on already-occupied land. Lebanon stands as both witness and victim. Jean Orieux does not mince his words — his choice of language makes that clear — when he speaks of a nation drunk on hatred since Jena. More temperately, one might ask whether a certain animosity among Germans toward the French today is not the distant, post-Jena legacy of having been represented at the signing of the unconditional surrender of German armed forces — thereby ending World War II in Europe — on May 7, 1945. In 1962, De Gaulle invited Adenauer to attend a Mass at Reims Cathedral — a city symbolic of Franco-German conflict — to demonstrate the will to turn the page on past wars, cement lasting reconciliation, and make Franco-German cooperation a driving force in European integration. On September 22, 1984, during commemorations of the Battle of Verdun, Mitterrand and Kohl joined hands before the Douaumont ossuary — a symbol chosen to seal European reconciliation, deepen European integration, and consolidate peace in Europe. On both occasions, the two French presidents were driving forces behind a sincere and definitive reconciliation. De Gaulle and Adenauer built that reconciliation; Mitterrand and Kohl deepened it, making the Franco-German partnership the engine of Europe. Why, then, is there a perceptible cooling of relations? Today, while France still speaks of a Franco-German couple, the term has fallen out of use in Germany. The creation of a Euro so unfavorable to France in terms of trade, the deindustrialization of France orchestrated in part by Germany, Merkel's unilateral decision to abandon nuclear energy — which put France in the dock before the court of German and French environmentalists — and the rules governing electricity pricing in Europe* as applied in France all point to an animosity toward the French on the part of those we call 'our friends.' But nations have no friends — only partners, and sometimes allies, for as long as the alliance holds. French politicians are forcing France into European integration at a breakneck pace; yet are the Germans not often pushing for a European Union that serves German interests? It is without doubt too early to declare Dassault — and by extension France — guilty. Time will tell which aircraft Germany chooses to buy. The F-35?** *Pegging electricity prices to the price of gas is disadvantageous to nuclear-powered France. This measure is ostensibly designed to facilitate the energy transition by incorporating more renewable energy. Germans argue that nuclear power does not fall under the category of renewables — yet they have partially offset the elimination of nuclear energy with coal-fired power plants! **To supplement its fleet of 35 aircraft ordered in haste in 2022, with entry into service expected in 2028.

A citizen from the South commented on the return of the displaced as follows: "If you return… return in a silence worthy of what has happened, not in a clamor that wounds what little life remains." "Do not raise victory signs over a land whose tears have not yet dried, and do not wave flags where dust still obscures the faces of those not yet pulled from the rubble." "Return… but shed the arrogance of slogans from your shoulders, for this is not a stage for celebration — it is a field of open graves…" If one follows the statements of Naim Kassem, who now appears more than once a week, one would think he had won a victory, defeated Israel, and liberated Lebanon. He therefore feels entitled to accuse the President of the Republic and the Prime Minister of treason and collaboration, and to demand the fall of a government from which he nonetheless refuses to withdraw his own representatives. Meanwhile, Israel has reached the outskirts of Nabatieh, is bombarding villages in the Zahrani area, and is attempting to seize one of the most strategically important hills, Ali al-Taher. The death toll exceeds 4,000, the wounded number 11,000, homes have been destroyed, and entire villages wiped off the map. Yet all of this is supposed to amount to "divine victories." When Lebanese officials speak with the Americans, they are labeled traitors. Yet these same circles boast when Donald Trump claims to have met with Hezbollah. When Lebanon reaches a ceasefire agreement, they denounce it in the name of the state and refuse to recognize it — yet they accept an Iranian ceasefire. What do you call such a mindset, such a logic — or rather, this absence of both? It is a manifestation of the disconnect between reality on the ground and mobilizing discourse. When Naim Kassem declares that "victory has been achieved," he is not speaking by the ordinary standards people typically apply: human losses, destruction, territorial control. He operates according to a different logic, which can be summed up as follows: First, the redefinition of victory. It no longer means militarily defeating the enemy or protecting the land and its people, but rather "holding on" — preventing the total collapse of the party and preserving the capacity to fight and retaliate, even intermittently and ineffectively. With such a definition, almost any outcome can be recast as a "victory," even at the cost of staggering losses. There is also the shift from reality to narrative. When the facts become too hard to bear — destruction, death, retreat on the ground — they are offset by a powerful media narrative: symbolic gains are amplified, losses are concealed or justified, and any dissenting internal voice is demonized and accused of treason. Anyone who challenges this narrative is branded a "traitor," because the battle is no longer solely military — it becomes a battle over the narrative itself. Then comes the logic of the "monopoly on patriotism." State officials — the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister — are accused of treason. We enter a logic in which legitimacy no longer belongs to the state, but to "the resistance." Any negotiation with foreign parties, particularly the United States, becomes treason, while the same contact is deemed acceptable if it goes through their own channels or serves their narrative, as they have demonstrated on multiple occasions. How can this logic be explained? This can be explained through several well-known concepts in political and social science: double standards; closed ideological thinking, which rejects facts when they contradict doctrine; mobilization propaganda, aimed at maintaining popular support; and, above all, denial of reality whenever crises deepen. More precisely, it is a "mobilizing logic that escapes all accountability," since it allows neither for measuring outcomes nor for questioning decisions. Everything within it is sacred and divine. The real danger of this imposed politics lies not only in its contradictions, but in its catastrophic consequences: the paralysis of the state and its institutions; the very destruction of the notion of truth, since everything becomes open to interpretation; and the splitting of society into two camps — the "believers" and the "traitors." This is precisely what makes rational discussion nearly impossible. The problem, therefore, is not simply one of propaganda or contradiction — it lies in the very tools of thought themselves. These tools have become idols to be worshipped. Paul Valéry warned of the moment when human beings stop using their tools of thought and instead become servants to them. We are confronted with ancient concepts — victory/defeat, resistance/betrayal — recycled endlessly; with ready-made interpretive formulas they never deviate from; with rigid linguistic molds. All of this transforms from tools into sacred references. Yet they fail to see how outdated these references are. The question then goes beyond simply asking: is this reasoning correct? It becomes: does it belong to the accepted vocabulary within the group? Furthermore, "backward-looking" thinking is not ignorance — it is a structure. It is a way of thinking oriented toward the past, yet adapted to the present. It does not exist outside the present; it lives within it, but wielding tools from another era. How does this thinking operate? It projects the past onto the present. Every event is understood as the repetition of a prior battle, as an extension of an old narrative — resistance, liberation, conspiracy. It completely ignores the fact that conditions have changed, that the balance of power has shifted, that the nature of war has changed, and that society itself has changed. And yet the tool has remained exactly the same. This is because they protect identity through immobility. Any change is perceived as an existential threat, rather than a necessity. Durkheim's concepts can help us understand this logic despite its contradictions. He speaks of "social facts" that impose themselves on the individual. In this case, opinion is not an individual opinion — it is collective discourse, an "imposed collective truth." The individual becomes incapable of seeing the contradiction, or is unable to break from it even when they do see it, because breaking from it means leaving the group. An explanation of this behavior can also be found in the way Claude Lévi-Strauss conceived of how the human mind operates through structures, often built on binary oppositions: victory/defeat, betrayal/resistance, us/them. As a result, reality ceases to matter. What counts is fitting it into this binary opposition. This is what we witness every single day: a defeat on the ground is reframed as a victory; negotiations conducted by the state are labeled as treason; yet negotiations conducted by "the resistance" become strategy and vision. Not because they cannot see, but because their mental structure does not allow them to see it any other way. This is more dangerous than a simple absence of logic or mere irrationality. It is a reason that operates within a closed system. It cannot be corrected by facts, arguments, or even losses. Any new information is "digested" within the old framework. It is an entire perceptual system that lives off dead tools… yet resurrects them anew each day.