Articles

Hold on tight! By bombing Iran for the umpteenth consecutive night, the United States would allegedly have been doing nothing more than trying to communicate with Tehran. Each strike on a military or civilian target — every radar destroyed, every launch pad taken out, every oil refinery hit — would count only as a message to the adversary. It would merely be a signal to resume or continue talks under certain conditions! Or so Thomas Schelling, winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Economics, would have argued. In his view, it is precisely when cannons roar and fire rains from the sky that belligerents exchange messages and communicate with one another — war being nothing more than a form of negotiation carried out by other means.

The war in Ukraine continues to be at the center of a wide-ranging debate, fueled in part by near-daily bombardments targeting key nerve centers on both sides, and more specifically the Russian and Ukrainian capitals. In order to better understand the various dimensions of this long-standing conflict, it is necessary to revisit the background and origins of what led to this (fratricidal?) war—by examining the motivations and aspirations of the different parties involved, including the West (the United States and Europe, extended to all NATO member states with the exception of Turkey), and by also recalling the early stages of the Russian offensive and the failed attempts to reach peace, or at least to open negotiations, bearing in mind that responsibility in this context is shared by many.

The scene was impeccably choreographed in the Oval Office on Tuesday, July 21, 2026. On one side, Donald Trump, promising military aid and offering a spectacular economic opening by lifting a forty-year-old aviation embargo. On the other, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, brandishing an official document presented as the definitive roadmap for disarming Hezbollah. To Western observers, the trade-off looked perfect: an extension of Lebanese state sovereignty in exchange for American sponsorship to permanently drive Iranian influence out of the Levant. Yet behind the obligatory smiles, handshakes, embraces, and witty remarks, this summit — however promising — risks becoming yet another diplomatic illusion.

The escalation continues and intensifies on the Iranian front, particularly as the U.S. military has been bombing Revolutionary Guard positions and infrastructure across several regions of Iran for twelve consecutive days. The entry of Yemen's Houthis into the conflict is also being confirmed. Early Thursday, the pro-Iranian Houthi militia announced it had struck two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, as part of what it claims is a maritime blockade it is imposing on Saudi Arabia. The activation of the Yemeni front did not go unanswered on the American side. President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to the Iranian regime and the Houthis. Condemning the attack on the two Saudi tankers, the U.S. president made it clear that if such aggression is repeated, he will hold the Islamic Republic responsible, "since it is the one pulling the Houthis' strings." Trump stressed that if such an attack happens again, he will inflict "severe punishment on Iran, as well as on the Houthis."

By Antoine Menassa* A few days ago, the Beirut Indictment Chamber issued a dismissal ruling in favor of former Banque du Liban Governor Riad Salamé, in the case stemming from a complaint filed in June 2021 by businessman Talal Abou-Ghazaleh. The complainant had accused Salamé of issuing circulars that altered the liberal economic system, concealing the true state of the banks' finances, and conspiring with those banks to misappropriate depositors' funds. In its decision handed down on July 14, 2026, the Indictment Chamber found that the constituent elements of the alleged offense had not been established. Applying the principles of criminal law with impartiality and independence, it placed the case back within its strictly legal framework and brought the proceedings against the former Governor to a close. This decision has been welcomed as an illustration of the role of justice, which must be guided not by public sentiment or pressure, but solely by the law and the evidence.

For the first time since 2009, a Lebanese president walked through the doors of the White House this week not as a supplicant coming to beg for attention, but as the bearer of a plan. On Tuesday, President Joseph Aoun sat across from Donald Trump and handed him a written proposal: a roadmap to dismantle Hezbollah's arsenal, consolidate all weapons in the country under the exclusive authority of the Lebanese state, and in return, secure an Israeli withdrawal from the territory the Israeli army still occupies in the south. Trump, for his part, struck an almost paternal tone. "We feel very good about Lebanon," he told reporters, adding that the country had been "very badly treated" and deserved to be "treated with the respect it deserves." He acknowledged in the same breath that "there is a Hezbollah problem" — as if he were diagnosing, in a single phrase, both Lebanon's tragedy and its opportunity.