Perspective

Lebanon and the region are virtually on "pause." President Donald Trump indicated at the start of the weekend that he had granted Iran a one-week reprieve as a goodwill gesture during the funeral of former Supreme Leader of the Republic Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the massive American-Israeli bombardment that triggered the war launched against the Iranian regime on February 28. The pause will end on July 11, the date announced on Saturday for the resumption of talks between Washington and Tehran, which will take place in Islamabad. On the agenda: sanctions, frozen Iranian assets, and the nuclear file. The revival of these negotiations comes as several signs fuel uncertainty about whether the "negotiation" process initiated by the memorandum of understanding signed between the United States and the Islamic Republic can lead to any constructive outcome. Among these signs, which could work against the Iranian regime: developments in the Lebanon and Strait of Hormuz files, and above all, the emergence in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq of converging official rhetoric that tends to confirm the entire region is entering a new phase of its history, completely at odds with the Khomeinist ideological project. Regarding the Lebanese scene first: reports from the Lebanese daily Nidaa el-Watan (close to sovereigntist circles) indicate an American decision to dissolve the "mechanism" — the ceasefire monitoring committee formed following the November 2024 cessation of hostilities agreement — and replace it with a tripartite Lebanese-American-Israeli security committee, chaired by a senior American officer, former mechanism head General Joseph Clearfield, who has already begun his mission with meetings this week with Israeli leaders to examine the practical arrangements for deploying the Lebanese army in the two "pilot zones" provided for under the framework agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in Washington under the aegis of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The launch of the dynamic envisioned in this framework agreement will unquestionably serve to cut short the Islamic Republic's desperate efforts to cling to the Lebanese card. Revelations on the impact of the US maritime blockade As for the Strait of Hormuz file, the Revolutionary Guards' hegemonic ambitions — their stubborn insistence on imposing control over this waterway — are being undermined by the convergence of American and European positions on this issue. More broadly, the international community refuses to allow any toll or right of passage to be imposed on ships transiting the strait. On Saturday, the French and British leaders reaffirmed their readiness to establish a multinational force to ensure freedom of navigation at Hormuz. In this context, a senior British official paid tribute to the position of the Sultanate of Oman, which declared itself ready to guarantee the security of vessels along the corridor running parallel to its coastline. Since the start of this war, the Islamic Republic has been attempting to exploit its ability to cause disruption in the Strait of Hormuz in order to demonstrate that it can hold the global economy hostage if its desire for full control over the area is not taken into account. However, reports published at the end of this week by the New York Times indicate that the Pasdaran's threats to close the Strait of Hormuz have their limits in the current context. Citing four senior Iranian officials, the US daily reported that the Iranian president and the Governor of the Iranian Central Bank had informed the Supreme Leader, prior to the signing of the memorandum of understanding with Washington, that the American maritime blockade had largely paralyzed the entire Iranian economy. They had further claimed that the country's reserves of essential food and medicine would be exhausted by the end of August due to the blockade. The Iranian president is said to have threatened to resign if the regime did not give the green light to a deal with the United States, stressing that the prolongation of the economic crisis caused by the blockade "threatened the country's stability" and that consequently "the government is no longer able to manage the situation." It was following this two-pronged urgent move by the president and the central bank governor that the Supreme Leader reportedly finally gave the green light to the negotiation process with Washington. It must be noted in this context that the demonstrated effectiveness of the maritime blockade imposed by the Trump administration, and the serious threat it could pose to the Iranian economy in the short term, effectively counterbalance and neutralize to some extent the leverage that the Revolutionary Guards are using to assert their dominance over the Strait of Hormuz. The card of control over this maritime route, which the Pasdaran still claim to hold, thus risks backfiring on the regime. Alarming report on Iranian nuclear activity Alongside the threat of a return to the maritime blockade — which Washington could resort to again should bilateral negotiations stall — the Iranian regime may soon face another source of tension and dispute related to the nuclear file. The Lebanese online outlet al-Janoubiya (close to the Shia opposition and hostile to the Khomeinist project) reports that a highly reputable American research center based in Washington, which closely monitors the evolution of Tehran's nuclear program (the Institute for Science and International Security, ISIS), has flagged a worrying and persistent activity at a major underground nuclear site built deep inside a rocky mountain. This highly secured clandestine site, which is said to house significant underground facilities and infrastructure — including uranium enrichment capabilities — has never been inspected by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. Known as the "Pickaxe Mountain," it was built deep within the rocky Zagros mountain range, nearly one kilometer from the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The American network Fox News emphasizes that the continued activity at the site in question "raises serious doubts about Iran's compliance with its commitments" as outlined in the memorandum of understanding signed with Washington. One of the clauses of this document stipulates a freeze on all nuclear activity during the 60-day negotiation period. If it is confirmed that work is indeed continuing at the "Pickaxe Mountain" facility, as one of the ISIS experts claims, this would constitute a serious violation of the memorandum of understanding… And, above all, a telling indication of the lack of seriousness and credibility of the commitments made by the mullah regime. Next article: Three rhetorics for one paradigm

“Even if a preliminary agreement is reached, it will not alter Iran’s perception of America.” In just a few words, the Iranian news agency Tasnim – which reflects the positions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – indirectly pointed to the root cause of the existential crisis that has destabilized countries across the Levant and threatened several Gulf states for decades. The remark underscores a profound underlying problem: the divine ideological dimension that dictates the conduct of the mullahs’ regime, a dimension that some Western leaders consistently ignore – or at times fail to fully grasp. In practical terms, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman highlighted one manifestation of that deeper issue earlier this week: a strategy built on stalling, evasiveness and buying time in order to allow the Islamic Republic to acquire the military, security, political, institutional, economic and financial tools needed to prepare for its confrontation with Western powers. In recent weeks, more than one senior figure within Tehran’s ruling establishment has stressed that the regime has spent over 15 years preparing for such a war against the United States and Israel. Against that backdrop, the position voiced by the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman becomes easier to understand. Speaking bluntly on Monday, May 25, he declared: “We are negotiating to put an end to the war, and we are not currently discussing nuclear issues (...); Iran reserves the right to choose the timing of its response to ‘ the enemy .’” Nothing could be clearer. This particularly explicit clarification brings us back to what President Donald Trump had underlined just days earlier in stark terms: “For 47 years (since Khomeini’s seizure of power in 1979), the Iranian regime has been leading us on, making us wait, killing our men (...), and brutally repressing popular uprisings (...).” This is not, in any sense, an imputation of intent. The nuclear file and uranium enrichment have been raised by the international community – not only by the United States – since the early 2000s. On July 31, 2006, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1696, “demanding the immediate suspension of uranium enrichment,” with Russia and China allowing the measure to pass without resorting to a veto. The Iranian authorities, however, did not comply with the UN demand. As a result, on December 23, 2006, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1737, imposing the first round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic. In vain… This was followed, again without vetoes from Russia or China, by three additional resolutions tightening the pressure: Resolution 1747 on March 24, 2007; Resolution 1803 on March 3, 2008; and Resolution 1929 on June 9, 2010. Nearly two decades later, the situation remains fundamentally unchanged. Today, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman argues that “talks” on the same nuclear issue – discussed since 2006 and even earlier – should now be postponed, with priority instead given to ending hostilities. This strategy of evasion should come as no surprise, especially since it has consistently been accompanied, over the years, by a permanent belligerent posture toward several Arab and Western countries, particularly the United States, as illustrated by the many terrorist operations allegedly commissioned by this regime, starting with the seizure and occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the 444-day hostage crisis in 1979. A long series of hostile acts followed from the early 1980s: the truck bomb attack that destroyed the U.S. embassy building in Ain Mreissé in April 1983; the twin deadly bombings of October 1983 in Beirut against the headquarters of the U.S. Marines and the barracks of French paratroopers of the Multinational Force; the attack on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in July 1994; the establishment of subversive cells in Cyprus, Bulgaria, Germany, the United Kingdom, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Syria… These are only a few examples, to which must of course be added the assassination of Rafic Hariri, the political assassinations during the Cedar Revolution, the wars imposed on Lebanon, and, above all, the brutal repression of protest movements led by the Iranian people. Such conduct, extending over time and indifferent to both space and chronology, follows a very specific logic: that of a divinely inspired ideology, a messianic mission which the Revolutionary Guards believe they embody. It is this fundamentally irrational messianic dimension that is regrettably overlooked by some leaders, and which means that any attempt to resolve the current crisis through a purely Cartesian approach, a falsely “diplomatic” one, one that takes into account only short-term economic interests or narrow national reflexes, will merely postpone the problem and sow the seeds of a new war, a new existential crisis, even more serious than the previous ones. Negotiating a “solution” with a faction whose “divine” ideological behavior is rooted in irrationality, whose ongoing actions are in no way constrained by moral, ethical or humanitarian considerations, amounts to a vast deception, a fundamentally misleading approach. In such a context, it becomes imperative to strike at the source of the evil, to tear out its deep roots. Any other outcome to the crisis would amount to nothing more than dangerous smoke and mirrors…

In the current conflict that will likely determine the fate of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is more vital than ever to be transparent and speak plainly, without complacency or evasion: many senior political officials, experts, academics and journalists are misreading the true stakes of this existential crisis shaking the entire region and reverberating, in turn, on the international market. The gravest mistake now would be to fight the wrong battle. The adversary to be confronted today is by no means President Donald Trump, regardless of any grievances one might hold against him regarding his behavior, arrogant attitude, verbal outbursts or relations with leaders who are supposed to be his allies. Is it necessary to remind ourselves, to illustrate this point, that these same shortcomings were criticized in Winston Churchill during World War II, yet General de Gaulle, locked in full conflict with the Nazi regime, did not focus his entire struggle on his quarrels and disagreements with the former British Prime Minister? If many political officials and experts are today misreading the Iranian conflict, it is essentially because they refuse to accept that the true stakes of this conflict are not limited solely to freedom of maritime passage through the Strait of Hormuz and safeguarding the global economy. The issue is not about halting escalation and military operations to favor 'the diplomatic path' and pursuit of a 'negotiated solution acceptable to both sides'. Such objectives would have been conceivable and understandable if we were dealing with factions, even rival ones, following a course of conduct in line with customary rational norms. This is far from being the case with the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, more precisely its backbone, the Revolutionary Guards. Advocates of the 'diplomatic path' and critics of the muscular approach implemented by President Trump obscure, through self-centered calculation or misplaced naivety, what should be the true stake of this conflict: the eradication of the Iranian regime, or at least its hardline belligerent wing, represented by the Pasdaran. This is by no means a mere matter of power or the imposition of some balance of force, but a fundamentally existential stake whose ideological dimension would be dangerous to neglect divine… It is high time to acknowledge an undeniable reality, confirmed by tangible facts: the United States, the European Union, the Western world in general, the Gulf states, the countries of the Levant have faced for decades the scourge and aggression of a theocratic, dictatorial and bloodthirsty Iranian power, which believes itself invested with a messianic mission and has set for itself a course of conduct based on an obscurantist and retrograde vision of the world, of society, of life and death, of the place of Man and Woman in their environment. This Khomeynist project for society (for it must be called by its name) is built on practices, customs, a way of life, social rules from another age. It has been carried forward with great effort by the radical wing of the Tehran regime since Khomeini came to power in 1979. From the outset, the Pasdaran adopted the slogan of exporting the Islamic Revolution and put it into practice by implanting vassal militias in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, and by pursuing an expansionist and destabilizing policy in numerous areas of the region, particularly in several Gulf countries. To preserve their power and the Khomeinist regime as a whole, the 'guardians of the temple' – the Pasdaran – stop at nothing and are in no way bound by any humanitarian considerations. The latest example: mass executions of teenagers, young people in their prime, university students, senior officials, accused of participating in peaceful demonstrations (600 executions since the beginning of the year and over 2,100 in 2025, without the 'intellectuals' and 'right-thinking' people showing much concern). Can we forget that during the latest mass demonstrations in most Iranian regions, the regime's repressive apparatus massacred over 40,000 civilians in just two days, January 8-9, 2026! Need we recall the 2009 uprising (the 'Green Movement') triggered by Ahmadinejad's fraudulent re-election and savagely suppressed by the Pasdaran, or the 'Bloody November' of 2019 which left no fewer than 300 dead, and especially the broad 'Woman, Life, Freedom' protest in 2022, sparked by the death in custody of the young Kurdish-origin girl Mahsa Amini and which was suppressed with live fire, thousands of arrests, and countless cases of torture… But the pinnacle of atrocity was reached during the war against Iraq, when the regime sent hundreds of children to be killed in minefields to clear the way for regular forces! Despite this grim past, which one could dwell on at length by detailing the repressions and crimes of the regime, many Western countries and Arab states continue to advocate for 'dialogue' and a 'diplomatic' solution to end the current armed conflict and find a way out of the Iranian nuclear program and uranium enrichment issue. These countries pretend in this regard to forget that it has been more than… twenty years (!), since the early 2000s, that these nuclear and uranium enrichment matters have been discussed, negotiated, debated, examined, scrutinized, renegotiated multiple times over the years, extensively and repeatedly. More than twenty years of fruitless discussions that allowed the mullah regime to buy time to continually develop its nuclear program and accelerate uranium enrichment, reaching a threshold of 60 percent and beyond. President Trump recently put his finger on the wound by rightly pointing out what other leaders stubbornly refuse to acknowledge: 'For 47 years (since 1979), the Iranian regime has been stringing us along; it makes us wait, kills our men with roadside bombs, brutally suppresses popular uprisings and just recently massacred 42,000 innocent, defenseless protesters' (…). Faced with this grim reality and this repugnant situation, what is there left to negotiate with such a murderous regime, driven by a cult of martyrdom, by a retrograde divine ideology that has no consideration for human beings, for the individual as an absolute value? Would it have been conceivable, by comparison, to advocate for 'dialogue' with Hitler in 1944-1945 to achieve a 'diplomatic solution' with the Nazi regime?

His name was Amirhossein Hatami; he was a musician, a talented guitarist, according to his relatives; he was 18 years old; he was hanged in the courtyard of Ghezel Hesar prison in the suburbs of Tehran… He had been accused of “enmity against God”... Mohammed Amin Beighari, 19, was allowed last week by his jailers to contact his father by phone to inform him (the height of sadism and cruelty on the part of the regime…) that he would be hanged the next morning; the execution took place as planned. His “crime”: having participated in the latest demonstrations against the mullahs’ regime… His name was Saleh Mohammadi, a professional wrestler; he had participated in wrestling competitions under the banner of Iran; he was 19 years old; he was hanged a few days ago for opposing the current dictatorship… These are three randomly chosen cases from a long list – a very long and sinister list – of thousands of teenagers and young Iranians in the prime of their lives , or at the beginning of their professional lives, who have been hanged or are awaiting execution, enduring all sorts of abuse in their places of detention. These “children of war” – the war waged by the mullahs’ regime against the free Iranian people – are the forgotten ones of this armed conflict that has been shaking the entire Middle East and the Gulf for more than five weeks. The repressive services of the Islamic Republic are clearly taking advantage of the international community’s attention being focused on military operations and their repercussions to engage in serial hangings of young people. Their appalling work is far from being disturbed by the tragic fate suffered by Iran as a direct consequence of the suicidal and belligerent strategy pursued by the Khomeini regime for decades. These endless series of death sentences and summary executions have been part of the Iranian judiciary’s “tradition” for years and follow expedited mock “trials” condemned by all international organizations. They illustrate a dark reality, namely the fundamentally savage, bloodthirsty, and utterly inhumane nature of the radical wing of the mullahs’ regime. Unfortunately, this extremist and hardline current, in its standoff with the United States and the Western world in general, now seems to hold the reins of power alone in Iran, taking advantage of the elimination, followed by the obvious marginalization, of the Supreme Leader and his successor. This grim situation is deliberately obscured by the “right-thinking” and pseudo-Islamo-leftists who refuse to perceive the deep and real danger that the continued power of the mullahs’ regime survivors represents, not only for the peoples of the region but also for liberal societies. When a plant withers, it would not be very useful, if one wishes to get rid of it, to merely prune the stem and branches while preserving the roots, because it would then soon re-emerge, stronger than before. In the same way, accepting the idea of an “arrangement” or a compromise with the remnants of the mullahs’ regime would mean allowing the rebirth in the short term, and with more malice, of a dictatorial power that has for more than twenty years developed a uranium enrichment program for clearly military purposes, that has built over the years thousands of ballistic missiles potentially capable of reaching major European capitals, that has cold-bloodedly massacred, in two days, nearly 40,000 young peaceful demonstrators, that does not hesitate to fire live ammunition at mass protests, that has no qualms about hanging hundreds, even thousands, of teenagers and young people, that has for years undertaken to finance and develop international terrorism, that has destabilized several Middle Eastern countries to satisfy its hegemonic aims by emulating sinister Nazi practices, that has created subservient militias in several capitals of the region, that has formed subversive cells in the Gulf and some European countries, that has associated itself with global networks of drug trafficking and mafia schemes… Here too, the list is long… The tragedy experienced today by the Iranian population and the peoples of the region is the direct result of the indescribable laxity observed, for more than 45 years, by certain Western leaders and circles in the face of the belligerent and expansionist strategy patiently put in place by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. To wish to “compromise” with the survivors of a power that remains imbued with an archaic theocratic ideology and to wish to re-engage in laxity towards such a power would be to betray the humanist and universal values advocated and defended by the West. During the last phase of the Second World War, it was out of the question, under the pretext of stopping hostilities, to consider an “arrangement” with the survivors of the Nazi regime. It was imperative to totally eradicate that entire regime to prevent it from re-emerging. In the same way, maintaining the roots of the Khomeini project would be to grant it a new life and to condemn the countries of the region to suffer once again, not too long from now, the torments of another destructive war with economic repercussions that would, without a doubt, extend beyond the narrow confines of the Middle East region alone.

In a recent interview given to an English-language television channel, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not mince his words in describing the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — and, by extension, the mullah regime in general — as the “new Hitler of the Middle East”… Offering a particularly lucid reading of the geopolitical context of the current conflict, the Crown Prince noted without circumlocution that the Iranian regime clearly adopts an expansionist posture and seeks to extend “its own project in the Middle East, in the same way that Hitler had done” in Europe. “Several countries had not realized how dangerous Hitler was until it was too late,” MBS emphasized, adding — touching the nerve: “I would not want that to happen here.” To strip the parallel to its barest outlines, the comparison with Hitler does present some similarities, but only at the level of form, of behavior, perceptible on more than one plane: a regional expansionist strategy aimed at imposing on other populations a hegemony based on a fascistic ideology — theocratic in the Iranian case, moreover —; the extension of “occupation,” indirect , of territories across several countries by controlling local powers subservient to the colonizing power; the establishment in each country of vassal militia organizations (similar to the Gestapo) tasked with suppressing any contestation and relentlessly maintaining a climate of terror and oppression. But far beyond these manifestations of sectarian imperialism and the fascist militia practices in which those conventionally called Iranian proxies engage, the Khomeinist project afflicting the Middle East carries a danger of an entirely different dimension. It constitutes a threat of a fundamentally existential nature, one that bears not only on Lebanon but on all the countries of the region, Gulf states included. This political project, transnational by essence, advocates the construction of a warrior society — permanently “warrior” — whose foundations are values, a culture, a structure of thought, social customs, a way of life, entirely alien to the populations of the region. Worse still: brainwashing is practiced within this obtuse ideological framework from earliest childhood, as illustrated by the school curriculum applied in Hezbollah’s partisan schools, beginning at the primary cycle. The curriculum imposed on pupils in these establishments mirrors the Khomeinist ideology, which “teaches” young children the cult of martyrdom. It comes as no surprise, then — to cite only this example — that the Revolutionary Guards in Tehran fixed, just a few days ago, the age of recruitment into their ranks at… 12 years old! In this type of situation, however, the autocratic ideology underpinning an expansionist policy goes hand in hand with the construction of a military apparatus that barely conceals a belligerent posture toward countries or populations classified in the category of “enemies,” because they do not share the same values and civilizational foundations as the “mother” power. As an illustration of this point, the military operations that have been unfolding since February 28 have laid bare the full extent of the nuclear and ballistic arsenal that the mullah regime has developed with diligence over entire decades. The morbid obstinacy to enrich uranium beyond 60 percent, to construct ballistic missiles with a range of 4,000 kilometers — capable of reaching European capitals —, to pour monumental investments into destabilizing the countries of the region through para-state militias subservient to the Pasdaran, can only be explained by the will to apply a strategy of conquest, not only at the geopolitical level, but above all in the socio-cultural sphere and in the imposition of “divine” values that are, in every respect, reductive, obscurantist, and retrograde. President Donald Trump characterized the mullah regime on Friday evening as the “tyrant of the Middle East.” A “new Hitler,” a bloodthirsty tyrant sowing terror across the region, should under no circumstances benefit from any complacent or conciliatory attitude. He must imperatively be eliminated from the scene. Any half-measure in this context would be a grave strategic error. To refrain from carrying to its conclusion, all the way through, an operation of radical and total eradication of the regional tyrant would only sow the seeds of a new armed conflict in the near term. At the end of the Second World War, had the Hitlerite regime not been totally and definitively erased from the map, the specter of Nazism would have resurfaced without delay. In such circumstances, any elementary angelism displayed by the “right-thinking” or the pseudo-left-leaning wokists would amount to a vast and unspeakable crime against peoples in danger.

People often spoke, especially before the war, of the « Lebanese miracle », of Lebanon compared to the phoenix rising from its ashes. A beautiful image… Except that by constantly rising from its ashes for more than half a century, the Land of the Cedar is today out of breath… Especially since it is undermined from within by a party that in no way cares about « the interest of Lebanon and the survival of its people », as President Joseph Aoun aptly emphasized in his online intervention addressing the leaders of the European Union. The head of state did not hesitate to put his finger on the wound by openly accusing Hezbollah of having reactivated the South Lebanon front to « serve Iranian interests », stating that the objective of the group allied with the Pasdaran is to provoke « the fall of the Lebanese state » to subsequently claim that it alone is capable of confronting Israel. Such is therefore the true existential problem, in the full sense of the term, that Lebanon faces. This is a truism for sovereignist parties and spheres of influence. But when the President of the Republic – whom some circles accuse of being too complacent towards Hezbollah – comes to stigmatize the pro-Iranian party's deviations before international bodies, it means that the danger in this regard has reached a particularly critical threshold. And for good reason: the Hezb's irrational, even « irresponsible » behavior – as the French ambassador to the UN emphasized on Wednesday – has gone beyond all understanding. It is precisely this danger that the army commander, General Rodolphe Haykal, obscured when addressing the officers of the Great Mute a few days ago. Seeking to justify the troops' passivity in the face of the pro-Iranian group's militia surge, in flagrant violation of the Council of Ministers' resolutions on the matter, he stressed that the army « must remain equidistant from the Lebanese people ». Clearly, Yarzé must, according to him, refrain from applying government decisions so as not to enter into confrontation with a part of the population. But this is a false problem, or a way of posing the problem in a completely distorted manner. What is required is by no means to confront a part of the Lebanese people. What is asked is to face a political project whose ideological, theocratic, transnational foundation is the negation of the very idea of Lebanon , of a pluralist, liberal Lebanon, open to the world, respectful of the specificities of each of its social components. The Khomeinist project (since that is what it is about) is ideologically diametrically opposed to the raison d'être of the Lebanese entity, whose existence it does not even recognize, perceiving it solely and exclusively as a mere battleground with the Western world and a front line of « defense » against Israel. Is not the reopening of the Southern front on March 2nd, to avenge the death of the Iranian Supreme Leader, with all its consequences for Lebanon, the most striking proof of the total contempt that the Pasdaran, and in their wake Hezbollah, have for Lebanese legality, the most elementary interests of Lebanon, and the will of its population to survive? Some might retort that a confrontation between the army and the pro-Iranian militia would be very costly in terms of human lives and internal stability. Are the inhumane consequences of this fifth war against Israel in the South, triggered on March 2nd by Hezbollah at the request of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, less costly? More than eight hundred dead in two weeks, no less than 600,000 residents of the South and suburbs forced into exodus, new villages razed by the Israeli army, hundreds of targeted air raids with their share of destruction and victims, and, above all, a new occupation that seems to be looming... And this time, in all likelihood, the Hebrew State will not agree to withdraw before imposing an agreement that will make Hezbollah and others regret the May 17th agreement or the terms of the November 2024 ceasefire. But what does it matter, isn't the survival of the Pasdaran and the tyrannical and bloodthirsty regime of the mullahs in Tehran the important thing? In light of such tangible realities, it would be nothing less than a violation of the Constitution and a treacherous blow to Lebanon to show complacency and laxity towards a party whose theocratic ideology, militia action, regional role, and very existence are the antithesis and negation of the foundations of the Land of the Cedar.

In times of total war or acute existential crisis, when the fate of an entire population hangs in the balance, timid and hesitant half-measures are no longer acceptable. When a nation faces the expansionist and hegemonic designs of a power unbound by law or principle, and when a tyrannical, blood-soaked regime commits large-scale massacres with impunity – striking indiscriminately at civilians, at youths, at teenagers – such extreme circumstances demand clarity. They require a firm, unequivocal stance, far removed from cynical equivocation or evasive maneuvering. That is, beyond any doubt – as readers will have guessed – the situation with the regime currently in power Iran. The latest round of negotiations – yet another in a decades-long saga – between American and Iranian envoys is nothing more than a mirage. This has become a truism, as countless past experiences have shown: the leaders of the Islamic Republic have perfected the art of sterile “dialogue,” creating the illusion of openness to talks and compromise. In reality, their strategy rarely goes beyond buying time – maneuvering, hedging, and waiting for the geopolitical winds to shift in their favor. The mullahs in Tehran are counting on the inevitable alternation of power in Western democracies to exploit any weakening or regime shift in a country that “displeases” them. This familiar tactic allows them to rebound and escalate their belligerent campaign against the opposing party. Meanwhile, as they play their favorite game of “negotiation” pursuing a so-called “deal” they have no intention of honoring, these same mullahs orchestrate unthinkable massacres and mass arrests – targeting particularly youths and students. In a striking disclosure, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s Education Commission recently revealed that 28 percent of those imprisoned following last January’s uprising are under 20. Even more harrowing, an Iranian association published a list naming 200 children killed in the latest protests. The scale of the bloodshed prompted Lebanese-American political analyst, close to Republican circles, Walid Phares, to urge Washington’s leaders: if they insist on pursuing “dialogue” with Tehran, they must require the effective and immediate cessation of killings and mass arrests – and the release of those detained since January – a non-negotiable precondition for any talks with the Iranian regime. President Donald Trump was not mistaken on this point, noting during one of his trips that, for 47 years, senior officials of the Islamic Republic have consistently given the impression that they wish to “dialogue” with the West when under pressure – while simultaneously carrying out intermittent massacres and unspeakable atrocities, claiming the lives of thousands of political prisoners in detention. The fundamentally fruitless nature of any negotiations with a regime like mullah’s was skilfully highligted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stressed that Iran is ruled by radical Shiite clerics whose decisions and strategic choices are driven entirely by theological considerations, far removed from any sense of geopolitical realism. But it was the recent remarks by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi that most clearly exposed the mullah’s regime deceptive penchant for endless discussions, brazenly finding ways to evade its written commitments. Shortly after the latest Geneva meeting with the American delegation, he bluntly acknowledged that it would be “difficult to draft the final text of a potential agreement with the United States.” In other words, Tehran reduces any agreement with Washington to a mere stylistic exercise – a rhetoric riddled with linguistic traps, deliberately ambiguous, designed to leave the door open to multiple interpretations, thereby allowing the regime to surreptitiously evade the concrete obligations such an agreement would entail. The situation in which the Islamic Republic finds itself today can be compared to a plant in an advanced state of decay. Simply pruning it – cutting off the withered stems and branches while leaving the roots intact – would achieve nothing. Those untouched roots will inevitably, in a relatively short time, cause the plant to regrow even stronger than before. The same would be true of any flawed, trap-laden deal struck with the mullah’s regime if the deep roots – those patiently and meticulously working in the shadows to revive what was once rotten – are not uprooted completely.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio hit the nail on the head, without mincing words. Showing himself paradoxically not very 'diplomatic' on this occasion, he displayed magnificent frankness by summarizing in a few words, in a short laconic phrase, the basis of the Iranian crisis from the perspective of the strained relations between Washington and the Islamic Republic. 'The leadership in Iran is in no way a reflection of the Iranian population (…). I'm not sure we can reach a deal with these people'... These remarks echo those made in the same vein by former French Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defense Jean-Yves Le Drian, who is well acquainted with the centers of power in Tehran, having dealt with them. 'They are very good at trickery (…),' he emphasized in a televised interview. 'Their only concern is to buy time and (ensure) the longevity of the regime.' Everything is said… But it still seems vital, particularly in the current context, to constantly bear in mind the ideological dimension, the deeply (and dangerously) theocratic foundations of the mullahs' regime, especially of the Revolutionary Guard Corps (the Pasdaran). It is by being fully aware of this doctrinaire, in all respects obscurantist dimension, that it becomes possible to perceive to what extent the American-Iranian 'talks' scheduled for this Friday, February 6, in Oman, risk constituting nothing more than a vast deception… Or, worse still, a serious strategic and historical, even moral, error. After the large-scale massacres perpetrated in a matter of days by the security apparatus of the mullahs' regime, one can only condemn any 'deal' that would be concluded in Oman and that would be politically immoral in the highest degree. It would indeed represent a shameful rehabilitation, a reaffirmation of the alleged legitimacy of a power that killed in cold blood, in 48 hours (January 8 and 9), no less than 30,000 young people and adolescents in the prime of their lives (much more, even, according to various sources), some of whom were hanged from a crane, others liquidated at point-blank range on their hospital beds after being wounded by live bullets, still others coldly poisoned with mercury… Not to mention the arrests of doctors accused of treating demonstrators (!), and students abducted in the middle of university campuses. To trivialize, under the guise of cynical realpolitik , the abominable atrocities for which the mullahs' regime is guilty, with complete impunity, would undoubtedly have the effect – if such a complacent stance is confirmed – of casting a heavy discredit on those who present themselves as standard-bearers of democratic values in the world and who are already bitterly called 'quitters' by many Iranians. Parallel to this moral aspect, a rehabilitation of the current power through a supposed agreement, even a global one, will undoubtedly strengthen and embolden the radical wing of the Pasdaran, with all the destabilizing political (on a regional level) and destructive (on a security level) consequences that a deal that is manifestly deceptive would entail… No one is unaware, in this regard, that the leaders of the Islamic Republic have elevated lying and takiya (the dissimulation of true political intentions) into a system of governance based on a theocratic ideology, which, due to its divine character, imposes ensuring the perpetuity of power by all possible means. In this context, blind violence, mass killings, bloodshed, savage repression, torture, death sentences, summary executions become 'legitimate' and even constitute a religious duty. Deception and takiya, combined with the absolute political power attributed to the Supreme Leader (the walih el-faqih ), Imam Khamenei, in his capacity as the divine representative of the disappeared Imam el-Mahdi, explain why the mullahs' regime continuously pretends to discuss the nuclear issue with the international community, and particularly with Western powers. Except that these negotiations have been going on for nearly… 25 years! And, when an agreement is reached, Tehran has no scruples in brazenly failing to respect its commitments. At each difficult phase the Islamic Republic goes through, the Supreme Leader gives the deceptive impression that he wishes to 'dialogue'; the real objective, however, is to gain time, awaiting a change of power in a decision-making country or an evolution towards a more favorable situation that would allow the hegemonic and expansionist policy initiated since 1979 by the Revolutionary Guard Corps to be relaunched with renewed vigor. A year ago, almost to the day, on February 9, 2025, President Donald Trump declared that he hoped Iran would change its course of conduct, emphasizing that he wished to reach an agreement with Tehran instead of embarking on a military path. That was a year ago… We know what happened next. The meeting in Oman is taking place today even though the mullahs' regime has not changed its anti-Western and fundamentally anti-American line of conduct by one iota since… 1979, displayed relentlessly for 47 years, as illustrated by the recent media posturing of Iranian deputies who, disguised as Pasdaran militiamen, chanted in unison a few days ago, in the middle of Parliament, 'Death to America,' while joyfully burning an American flag…

Thus, after the 'brilliant' military performance (!) of the 'support war' for Hamas and Gaza, Sheikh Naim Kassem now promises us a new 'support war,' but this time with the objective of coming to the aid of an even more distant regional actor: Ayatollah Khamenei and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The leader of Hezbollah has therefore decided, or rather has announced (since he is not the one who decides on such matters…), that the Lebanese must show blind self-sacrifice, without any limit, up to the ultimate sacrifice, to 'defend' (?) a foreign force… For all those who still had some doubts in this regard, or who refused to acknowledge the truth, Sheikh Naim Kassem has just brilliantly confirmed what was, for informed observers, a truism: Hezbollah is not a Lebanese party. Its members are indeed Lebanese, but its political decisions, its line of conduct, its political project, are transnational and take no account of local realities or the higher interests of the Land of the Cedars. In fact, from its formation in the mid-1980s, the party very clearly stated in its political charter that for all strategic decisions, including the decision of war and peace, it pledges allegiance to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in his capacity as the divine, direct, representative of the twelfth occulted Shiite Imam, Imam al-Mahdi. Hezbollah thus pledges to the Iranian Leader, the walih el-faqih, a total 'religious obedience' that does not overly concern itself with the contingencies of this world, whether national, state, or socio-economic in nature. From the perspective of this doctrine, which grants to the walih el-faqih absolute power exercised in the name of the occulted imam, the existence of an Islamic Republic based on these foundations defined in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini, as well as the perpetuity of 'armed resistance' – in service of this project – become a deeply religious duty, all the more dogmatic as it aims, like a catalyst, to pave the way for the return of the occulted imam. In order to adhere, regardless of the circumstances, to the sacred nature of this doctrinal edifice, the most irrational behaviors become permissible, in this case, for example: repression, even bloody and large-scale, of any opposition, presented as an 'offense against God' (which provides the pretext for the summary verdicts pronounced by Iranian Islamic courts against protesters); systematic obstruction of any attempt to build a strong and sovereign central state, as illustrated notably by the Iraqi case and the current attitude of Hezbollah, which refuses to hand over its military arsenal to the army; the destabilization manu militari of the Levant countries through the export of the Islamic revolution, initiated in 1979 by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. With the aim of progressively and meticulously creating favorable conditions for the success of this transnational Khomeinist project, the mullahs' regime plays on the 'time' factor… The deconstruction of the established order can indeed only be carried out slowly and gradually, while creating blockages and extending tentacles to different levels of power and economic sectors. When the current circumstances or the balance of power are not favorable to this theocratic project, the strategy followed is clear: to give the impression of wanting to 'dialogue' and 'negotiate' an agreement with the opposing party. But this is only a deceptive perception, the true aim being to gain time, to procrastinate, while waiting for unfavorable circumstances to change or evolve. This explains the notion of 'strategic patience,' advocated by Khamenei, which is merely a diplomatic version of taqiyya, which consists of concealing one's true intentions while awaiting better days. Unfortunately, some high-ranking Lebanese and Western officials are naively falling for this game. Negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program have been ongoing for more than twenty years! Throughout this period, the power in Tehran gave the impression that it sought an agreement on this issue, but at the same time, uranium enrichment continued steadily, away from the spotlight. It is also based on this same pernicious approach that Hezbollah constantly emphasizes its willingness to 'discuss' its disarmament. Except that this 'discussion' has been ongoing, episodically, since… 2006, when Speaker Nabih Berry organized a dialogue conference that deliberated at length on the matter! Do the Lebanese remember how many times the supposed 'defense policy' has been, since Taif, at the center of debates and 'discussions' in the highest spheres of power? The dramatic upheavals of recent months, in Gaza as well as in Lebanon, and most recently in Iran – with the veritable bloodbath suffered by the civilian population – illustrate the urgent need to finally put an end to the naivety, or perhaps political hypocrisy, demonstrated by some leaders in the shadow of the pernicious and deadly maneuvers of ideologues who cling to medieval, and above all inhumane, methods in the exercise of power. Weakness, complacency, and cowardly behavior in the face of militia blackmail and mafia-like intimidation campaigns can ultimately only result in the transposition of state terrorism to Western societies, as demonstrated by the direct threats made as recently as Tuesday by the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs against European Union countries, 'ordered' without scruple not to list the Pasdaran as terrorist organizations.

Lebanon and, more specifically, the Shiite community commemorated a few days ago the 25th anniversary of the death, on January 10, 2001, of the former president of the Supreme Shiite Council (SSC), Imam Mohammed Mehdi Shamseddine. The man who was, for more than two decades, the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Shiite community, succeeding Imam Moussa Sadr – who mysteriously disappeared during a visit to Libya in 1978 – left behind a political 'will' whose existence and true scope are ignored (or concealed...) by many Lebanese and foreigners, particularly in academic and journalistic circles. The historical and truly existential dimension of this legacy is highlighted by the dramatic developments currently unfolding in Lebanon and the region. More than ever, the Land of the Cedars and the Levant need the contribution to public life of a personality combining, like Imam Shamseddine, moral authority, open-mindedness, and a clear vision of current socio-political realities. At the end of his life, and although weakened by illness, he had recorded his memoirs and recommendations on cassette regarding the course of conduct that Shiites in Lebanon and the region should adopt. He particularly urged his co-religionists not to have a 'political project specific to Shiites' and to fight for their rights 'by integrating into the society in which they live'. Clearly, he subtly rejected the principle of exporting the Iranian Islamic Revolution initiated by the Pasdaran in the aftermath of Khomeini's rise to power in 1979. He particularly challenged, in this context, the system established by Khomeini, based on the authority of the Walih el-Faqih, namely the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Islamic Revolution – in this case, himself and his successors – endowed, in his capacity as a direct descendant of the Prophet, with absolute and unchallenged decision-making power on strategic matters, including decisions of war and peace. By establishing such a political system, Ayatollah Khomeini had sown the seeds of chronic regional destabilization, the result of an autocratic power's behavior that would plunge the entire Middle East into chaos for over four decades. And for good reason: the Wilayat el-Faqih was designed to be an absolute reference authority not only for Iranians but also for all Shiites. In terms of religious practice, every Shiite group or individual must indeed choose their own spiritual leader. However, by granting himself power based on a divine 'legitimacy' (thus indisputable), the new Leader of the Islamic Republic (Khomeini, then Khamenei, currently) placed himself above all other religious authorities, serving, moreover – and this is where the problem lies – a transnational, expansionist, hegemonic, repressive political project that sanctifies violence as a mode of action. This Khomeinist 'graft' on the Shiite socio-political-religious body could only be a source of tension and conflict in the Arab world, under the weight of the 'exportation of the Islamic Revolution' and the divine power granted to the Supreme Leader. As a true visionary, Sheikh Mohammed Mehdi Shamseddine had seen the danger looming, clearly distancing himself from the foundations of Wilayat el-Faqih and the expansionist ambitions of the Pasdaran, much like the spiritual leader of the Shiite community in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani, Imam Moussa Sadr, and even Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, whom many Western observers mistakenly called the 'spiritual guide of Hezbollah', whereas, on the contrary, he challenged the divine power of the Walih el-Faqih and, consequently, expressed reservations about Hezbollah's conduct in Lebanon. More than twenty-five years later, events have illustrated the visionary nature of Sheikh Shamseddine's political legacy. In fact, it is on the basis of the 'Shiite-specific (transnational) project', denounced by the former president of the SSC, that the Iranian regime resorted to militiamen from Arab countries to brutally suppress its own people in bloodshed a few days ago. The slogan 'Neither Gaza, nor Hezbollah, we give our lives for Iran', launched by Iranian revolutionaries, alone summarizes the entire historical and existential dimension of the vision expressed by Imam Shamseddine. In this context, it primarily reflects the serious resentment towards Arab populations expressed by a large part of Iranian public opinion, which does not understand how the radical wing of the Iranian regime could spend tens of billions of dollars to maintain proxies in Arab countries while Iran faces an unprecedented severe socio-economic crisis. It is also on this same basis of the 'Shiite-specific (transnational) project' that Hezbollah's Secretary-General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, constantly prioritizes the supreme interest of the Iranian regime at the expense of the imperatives of building a strong and sovereign Lebanese state. He even went so far as to utter threats against Foreign Minister Joe Raggi (deemed too sovereignist!), not forgetting to brandish the specter of internal unrest if the government were to implement its decision to disarm Hezbollah… During one of his recent public interventions, President Joseph Aoun called on Hezbollah to 'reason,' which openly displeased Naim Qassem (the supreme interest of the mullahs' Iran requires it!). To stop such a suicidal drift by the pro-Iranian faction, an imperative step must be taken today, urgently: alignment with the recommendations, with the prophetic political legacy, of Mohammed Mehdi Shamseddine. Even if this must inevitably lead – they will have to admit it one day – to a genuine 'cultural revolution' to reshape their political doctrine developed in the mid-1980s...