Today's Essential

It is, in many ways, a world turned upside down in the standoff between the United States and the Islamic Republic, with the key question now being whether a second round of talks will take place in Islamabad this Tuesday. On the surface, the Iranian regime – more specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the Pasdaran) – appears keen to cultivate the perception that it is dictating its terms to Washington as a precondition for resuming negotiations between the two sides. By that logic, it would be the defeated party imposing its will on the victor! Yet, at some point, things must be called by their name and “the truth must be told, however harsh it may be” – in the words of President Béchir Gemayel. In this conflict, it is Iran that has suffered heavy losses to its military, nuclear and economic infrastructure, and it is the Iranian political, military and security leadership has been decimated on a large scale. At the same time, it is the American armada that is effectively encircling Iran, and it is the maritime blockade imposed in recent days that is choking its economy; and it is the United States and Israeli air forces that, over the past 40 days, have dominated the skies, carrying out round-the-clock strikes on key strategic sites across Iran. Despite these realities, the Iranian regime – through its hardline faction – had been demanding until Monday evening, as a condition for “agreeing” (!) to travel to Islamabad, that the United States lift its maritime blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the official Iranian news agency IRNA, along with sources close to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, repeatedly stated on Monday – and indeed since Sunday – that Iran refused to take part in a second round of talks with the Americans, and that, in any case, the ballistic missile issue was non-negotiable. They further insisted that deep disagreements persisted over the nuclear file and the fate of enriched uranium. They added that “the American side is not serious in this negotiation process.” In simplified terms, the Iranian regime thus behaves like a spoiled child, ranting and raving and making incoherent statements when confronted with an authority acting with firmness and imposing a course of action that runs counter to its childish whims. Yet, to its detriment, the hardline faction in power in Tehran is now faced with an American president who reiterated late on Monday that he would not lift the maritime blockade, despite a request from the Pakistani mediator to do so. More broadly, President Trump does not appear to be backing down from his red lines, particularly on the nuclear file and the ballistic missile program. The European Union aligned itself with the US position on Monday evening, stating bluntly that talks with the Iranian regime must address the ballistic missile issue, given that such missiles could potentially reach certain European capitals… In this context, the White House is presenting Tehran with a “simple” choice: sign the agreement put forward by the United States or face the stick, to be used without restraint. As a result, late on Monday evening, complete uncertainty still surrounded the fate of the second round of talks in Islamabad. New Lebanese-Israeli Meeting Set for Thursday Tensions, which had been steadily escalating until late on Monday evening, did not prevent the Trump administration from pressing ahead with the process of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. President Joseph Aoun appears determined to continue along this path, under US auspices, without dwelling too much on the direct threats – including death threats! – issued by senior Hezbollah officials, who appear unable to accept that the state has regained autonomy in its decision-making and has broken a long-standing taboo by engaging in face-to-face talks with Israel. “Between war and negotiation, I choose negotiation,” the head of state said on Monday. This position is expected to be at the heart of talks Prime Minister Nawaf Salam is due to hold on Tuesday with President Emmanuel Macron at the Élysée Palace. It is in this context that a second meeting between Lebanese and Israeli negotiators is expected to take place next Thursday in Washington. Concrete issues are set to be discussed during this new round of talks, most notably the settlement of the dispute over the delineation of the border between the two countries. The Lebanese delegation to this second meeting would be headed by former Lebanese ambassador to Washington, Simon Karam, who could be accompanied by a military representative and a civilian official. Despite objections from Iranian power centers, which continue to seek to exert influence over Lebanon’s political map, the executive has opted to oppose what the president described as “suicidal impulses” – a pointed remark clearly alluding to Hezbollah’s futile and destructive military ventures. May this leadership hold firm and see this bold negotiating process with the Israeli state through to its conclusion.

Suddenly, in less than 24 hours, what could be perceived as signs of panic manifested themselves on Saturday, April 18, within the Iranian camp, in the form of belligerent behavior and equally aggressive and hateful statements. The most serious development of that Saturday was undoubtedly the ambush laid by Hezbollah militants against a French UNIFIL unit conducting a patrol in the area of ​​the town of Ghandourieh, in the Bint Jbeil district, within UNIFIL's deployment zone south of the Litani River. One French peacekeeper was killed and three others wounded, two of them seriously. President Emmanuel Macron reacted strongly to this attack, clearly placing the responsibility for the shelling on Hezbollah and urging the Lebanese authorities to quickly identify the perpetrators and take the necessary measures against them. This attack against the French peacekeepers was strongly condemned by President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and even the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri. President Aoun and the Prime Minister indicated that they had ordered the judiciary to conduct an investigation to arrest the perpetrators. Faced with the gravity of this attack, Hezbollah denied responsibility for the ambush targeting the French peacekeepers that evening. This denial fooled no one, especially those in official circles. In parallel with this militia incident, Hezbollah did not hesitate, on Saturday, to issue direct death threats against the centers of power, particularly the President of the Republic, whose televised address on Friday provoked the ire of the pro-Iranian party. Senior officials within this group have notably gone so far as to warn the head of state against continuing the process of direct negotiations with Israel, emphasizing that the president risks suffering the same fate as former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, assassinated after Egypt signed the peace agreement with Israel. These same Hezbollah sources also criticized President Aoun for not having "thanked Iran" (!) for its (alleged) efforts to establish a ceasefire. Amidst these boundless threats, one of the pro-Iranian party's officials demanded that the government reverse all decisions taken against Hezbollah, or, failing that, "a popular movement will bring down the government!" A Yellow line The fact remains that these apparent signs of panic do not change the reality of the situation. An official Lebanese source indicated late Saturday that President Aoun and the Prime Minister held a meeting to review preparations for the upcoming Lebanese-Israeli talks. On the ground, the Israeli army reported the establishment of a "yellow line" south of the Litani River – similar to the one in Gaza – which represents a de facto "demarcation line" separating the buffer zone established by Israel from the rest of Lebanese territory. This demarcation line would allow the Israelis to prevent Lebanese residents from accessing the buffer zone, which encompasses more than fifty villages and towns, some of which have been completely razed. In this context, the Israeli army is continuing its military operations and targeted bombings south of this "yellow line" in order to prevent the re-establishment of Hezbollah militants in this area under the guise of the return of "residents." A Standoff Over the Strait of Hormuz The clearly perceptible escalation in Lebanon, driven by Hezbollah, is in line with a parallel escalation in Iranian positions—or rather, those of a (radical) Iranian faction—focused primarily on the Strait of Hormuz. In this context, significant disagreements appear to characterize the relations between the various factions within the Iranian regime. This division emerged on Saturday following a statement from the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announcing the complete reopening of the Strait of Hormuz as a gesture of goodwill aimed at facilitating negotiations with Washington. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs' initiative was apparently not appreciated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The Deputy Foreign Minister (not the Minister himself) immediately reversed course regarding the strait, and later that day the IRGC announced the complete closure of the maritime passage to protest the continued US naval blockade. Later in the afternoon, sources within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps were expected to release a flurry of statements, indicating that Tehran had informed the Americans that it rejected holding a new round of negotiations under Pakistani auspices, which impliesThis appears, at least on the surface, to be a rejection of Pakistani mediation. Indeed, the Pakistani army commander, who had been leading the mediation efforts, left Iran on Saturday after a three-day visit. Sources within the Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) also emphasized that Iran refuses to relinquish its ballistic missiles and opposes any concessions on the nuclear issue. This hardening of Iranian positions has been accompanied by a military escalation. IRGC fast attack craft opened fire on three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, prompting the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament to declare that disagreements with the Americans over Hormuz had led to "armed clashes, and Washington backed down." Faced with this Iranian escalation and the radicalization of Tehran's positions, the US military announced at the end of the day its intention to seize all Iranian commercial vessels starting Sunday. The question at this stage is whether the hardening of the Iranian camp's stance, both in Lebanon and Iran, reflects a sense of panic in the face of current developments or is simply a desire to raise the stakes on the eve of a possible resumption of bilateral negotiations next week. On this point, President Trump stated late last night that "very positive discussions are underway with Iran." However, a senior US official asserted that "war with Iran could resume in the coming days."

For the first time since February 28, Lebanon experienced a day of calm: no Israeli raids, no exchanges of fire on the southern border, and no fighting in the border villages where the Israeli army maintains a presence. The only exception was the Israeli drone attack that killed one person in Kunin, in southern Lebanon. The focus is now on assessing the casualties—who continue to be recovered from the rubble—and the material damage in the southern suburbs of Beirut, as well as in accessible southern towns, to which displaced people have returned en masse. The ten-day truce between Tel Aviv and Beirut, brokered by US President Donald Trump, appears, at first glance, to be a respite in a war that is far from over, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted on Wednesday, since the underlying causes of the armed conflict remain. Lebanon has certainly taken a significant step by announcing a series of measures aimed at a lasting resolution to the problem posed by the presence on its soil of an autonomous armed militia, entirely subservient to the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, the authorities continue to proceed with extreme caution on this front, for various reasons, primarily related to the desire to preserve the sacrosanct internal balance and avoid upheavals in stability. Mixed Statements The remarks of President Joseph Aoun, the first since the establishment of the truce, those of Interior Minister Ahmad Hajjar, and especially the tone they both used, reflect this concern. Lebanese leaders remain uncompromising on the broad outlines of the new policy they have defined and much more discreet about the implementation mechanisms, which ultimately depend on the bilateral discussions taking place in Washington, as well as the US-Iranian talks in Islamabad. Joseph Aoun and Ahmad Hajjar, as well as the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, sought to reassure the public regarding their priority of internal cohesion, avoiding contentious issues such as the direct negotiations with Israel, currently being prepared under Washington's auspices, and the disarmament of Hezbollah, which is nevertheless essential to free Lebanon from Iranian hegemony and the risk of new wars. The process is indeed underway, Joseph Aoun reaffirmed in a message to the nation, just hours after virulent criticism from the Hezbollah parliamentary bloc against the new Lebanese political direction. "Today, we negotiate for ourselves and we decide for ourselves. We are no longer a pawn in anyone's hands, nor a battleground for others." “We will never return to that state of affairs,” he declared from the outset, noting the support of the majority of Lebanese for these policies. The head of state attacked Hezbollah without naming it, criticizing its rhetoric that presents “resistance” as the only bulwark for Lebanon: “To those who jeopardize the future of the country and its people, I say: enough is enough. Only the project of the state is the strongest, the most sustainable, and the safest for all.” He continued: “We are all in the same boat. Either we reach port together, or we all sink, but no one has the right to commit such a crime, under the cover of any slogan, out of suicidal impulse or loyalty to a foreign power,” in a clear allusion to Iran, to which Hezbollah belongs. Moreover, Joseph Aoun did not mention Iran, which had been quick to claim credit for establishing the truce, when he praised the "tireless" efforts of Lebanese officials, Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Western states, and President Trump to impose a ceasefire on Israel. Still addressing Hezbollah, he emphasized that the planned negotiations are "neither a sign of weakness nor a concession," but rather are motivated by the desire to protect Lebanon "by all means and, above all, by our refusal to die for anyone other than Lebanon." In this context, he stressed that Beirut will not make any concessions on its rights, particularly territorial rights, thus dispelling fears of the entrenchment of the "security zone" established by Tel Aviv in southern Lebanon to protect the towns north of its territory. While President Aoun reaffirmed earlier the importance of the upcoming "delicate and decisive" talks with Tel Aviv, he merely outlined the Lebanese state's objectives in this dialogue as "consolidating the ceasefire, withdrawing Israeli forces from areas where they maintain a presence in the south, extending state authority throughout the country, and releasing Lebanese prisoners." "Amal with Israel and the settlement of disputes between the two countries regarding certain border points." Not a word on the disarmament of Hezbollah, which is nevertheless at the heart of the upcoming discussions. The head of state only promised a deployment of the army and security forces in the south, "after the Israeli withdrawal," assuring that they "will put an end to the armed demonstrations and will be the only forces present on the ground." In any case, Lebanon is preparing to embark on a path fraught with obstacles. In this context, it is still unclear what precise agenda the Lebanese negotiator, Simon Karam, will take with him to Washington, and who will establish it. All attention is currently focused on this element, in light of reports that the matter is being handled exclusively by the Presidency of the Republic, based on contacts established with the Amal-Hezbollah tandem, which, as is well known, is hostile to direct dialogue with Tel Aviv. Full Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz A dialogue that, if it begins under favorable conditions, would extend the truce by ten days, the US State Department promised on Tuesday. The truce began on two significant notes: first, Iran announced the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, in what Tehran presented as a sign of goodwill linked to the announcement of the ceasefire in Lebanon. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, this maritime passage will be open to all commercial cargo ships for the duration of the truce in Lebanon. Welcomed by President Trump, the Iranian initiative actually serves two tactical purposes: it signals an openness toward Washington in the context of the ongoing efforts to revive bilateral US-Iranian negotiations. The United States, however, made it clear that it would not lift the blockade imposed on Iranian ports, at least not before a serious agreement with Tehran, which immediately reiterated its threat to close the Strait of Gibraltar, though without following through. The Iranian decision also reflects Tehran's desire to demonstrate its continued control over the Lebanese situation, to the detriment of local authorities. President Joseph Aoun responded bluntly to this in his address to the nation. Donald Trump, in turn, took care to reiterate on Wednesday, when discussing the Iranian issue, that it is separate from the Lebanese one. The American president made this point when he announced on his Truth Social network that the United States intended to recover all the nuclear "ash" caused by American B-2 bombers in Iran, without any financial compensation. He clarified that this agreement, like the one concerning the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, “is not linked to Lebanon” and that Washington “will work separately with Beirut to resolve the Hezbollah issue.” Exchange of Threats The second significant point relates to the exchange of threats between Hezbollah and Tel Aviv, at a time when a discord appears to be emerging between Israel and Washington regarding the handling of the two issues: Lebanon and Iran. President Trump stated categorically that Israel would no longer attack Lebanon, while Israeli leaders insisted that the war against Hezbollah was not over. The pro-Iranian group announced that it remained vigilant and “kept its finger on the trigger,” warning Israel against violating the truce or assassinating members of the group. For their part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Israel Katz, asserted that the war is not over and that Tel Aviv remains committed to achieving Hezbollah's disarmament through military or diplomatic means. Both also affirmed that the Israeli army will maintain a presence in the area it now controls along the border and will continue dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure there. In this context, Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated that the road to peace remains long. "We began this journey with one hand holding a weapon and the other outstretched toward peace," he said, before announcing that his country had "for the first time established a security zone along its entire northern border." This now extends to Mount Hermon, as the Israeli army revealed in the evening that it had conducted a last-minute military operation in Lebanon, just before the ceasefire came into effect at midnight on Thursday night, in order to seize control of a strategic position on Mount Hermon. This position is located 12 kilometers from the Israeli side of the mountain, which is shared by Lebanon, Syria, and Israel, and 30 kilometers from the Beirut-Damascus road. It overlooks the entire Bekaa Valley and remains far from the Lebanese villages in the region still according to the Israeli army.

A significant new step was taken on Wednesday, April 16, towards restoring Lebanon's autonomy in decision-making, free from any regional dictates. A ten-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon (including Hezbollah) came into effect at midnight on Thursday night, following two telephone conversations that President Donald Trump held in the late afternoon with President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The White House chief himself announced the ceasefire in the early evening during a casual conversation with press correspondents. The announcement of this ceasefire under the auspices of the Trump Administration carries twofold strategic importance: firstly, it consolidates at the highest level the separation of the Lebanese and Iranian aspects of the ongoing conflict, as Tehran has insistently attempted in recent days to place any ceasefire agreement between Lebanon and Israel under its control, with the aim of controlling Lebanon; and secondly, it largely legitimizes and reinforces the Executive's decision to engage in direct negotiations with Israel, with the prospect of a peace agreement between the two countries. President Trump also indicated, after the ceasefire announcement, that he had tasked Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Razin Caine with working towards achieving a lasting Lebanese-Israeli peace. The US president also emphasized his intention to invite President Aoun and Mr. Netanyahu to a meeting at the White House within two weeks. This strong American involvement in the process of resolving the outstanding disputes between Lebanon and Israel is vital for the Lebanese government. The Israeli Prime Minister declared Wednesday evening that the Israeli army will maintain its presence in southern Lebanon, up to the Litani River, in order to consolidate the buffer zone extending ten kilometers from the international border. Lebanon will thus need the support of the United States to negotiate, under the best possible conditions, an Israeli withdrawal and the conclusion of a peace agreement, with the dismantling of Hezbollah's militia apparatus as a prerequisite and essential step. Hezbollah has, moreover, been declared illegal by the Council of Ministers. The members of parliament in Beirut... It is worth noting in this context that the government received significant parliamentary political support on Wednesday. Members of Parliament from Beirut, representing all religious and political affiliations, held a congress on Wednesday at the Phoenicia Hotel under the theme: "For a secure Beirut, a Beirut free from all illegal weapons." Several MPs, representing the major parties in Parliament, spoke at the event to unequivocally support the government's position regarding the illegality of Hezbollah's militia, the illegality of the presence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the country, and the necessity of monopolizing weapons in the hands of legal forces. In short, this congress of Beirut MPs unequivocally secures popular legitimacy and fundamental political cover for the sovereignist policies pursued by the presidency and the government, much to the chagrin of Hezbollah and the mullahs' regime, which seize every opportunity to denounce the government's peace policy.

The moment is, without a doubt, historic in more ways than one: symbolically, first; and in terms of the political impact and strategic dimension of the event, secondly. The symbolic aspect, first, is of particular importance in the local and regional context that no one ignores: Lebanon's Ambassador to Washington, Nada Hamadé Moawad, meeting face-to-face at the State Department in Washington with Israel's Ambassador, Yechiel Leiter, under the auspices of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with the Lebanese, Israeli, and American flags side by side in the background… The image would have been political fiction just a few months ago. Ambassador Nada Hamadé Moawad followed by Israel's Ambassador Yechiel Leiter upon their arrival at the meeting room. But it is the geopolitical dimension that above all takes on a historical and vital character for Lebanon. The Lebanese-Israeli bilateral meeting indeed enshrines a fundamental orientation taken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Salam government, namely the total dissociation between Lebanon's foreign policy and strategic choices, on the one hand, and the political options of the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other. This orientation defined by President Joseph Aoun and the Salam cabinet has a corollary: the need to put an end to the political (and militia-related…) excesses of the outlaw mini-state of Hezbollah, which for more than two decades has been implementing a strategy of deconstructing the Lebanese state and its institutions. A two-hour meeting This geopolitical guideline was thus discussed during the two-hour meeting held at 11 a.m. Washington time (6 p.m. Beirut time) under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State. The head of American diplomacy welcomed this as a “historic opportunity” for Lebanon and Israel to make peace. “This is about definitively ending 20 or 30 years of Hezbollah's influence in this part of the world,” he declared. “This goes beyond a single day, it will take time.” “We will no longer allow Iran to exert its influence on Lebanon's political choices,” said Mr. Rubio. Hezbollah, it is noted in this regard, called the direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon a “capitulation” and marked its disapproval by launching rockets against 13 Israeli border towns at the very moment the meeting began at the State Department. Little information has filtered regarding the content of the discussions. Lebanon's ambassador called for a ceasefire in South Lebanon; her Israeli counterpart reportedly replied that his government would study the Lebanese request. A decision was also reportedly made to initiate bilateral negotiations to discuss the issues at the heart of the dispute between the two countries. The venue and date for the start of these talks will be set shortly. « Excellent exchange » At the end of the meeting, the Israeli ambassador addressed journalists and hailed an “excellent exchange” during the discussions, noting that Israel and Lebanon were now “on the same side.” “We discovered today that we are on the same side” between Lebanon and Israel, he affirmed, as he left the State Department. “This is the most positive thing we could take away from this meeting. We are both united in our desire to free Lebanon from an occupation, from a power dominated by Iran and called Hezbollah,” he said, before adding that “Naim Kassem and Hezbollah are now a thing of the past.” In the early evening, the State Department was expected to release a joint statement emphasizing that the United States hopes the talks will go “beyond the 2024 agreement to achieve comprehensive peace.” “The United States supports the Lebanese government's efforts to re-establish the monopoly on legitimate violence and end Iran's influence,” the statement stressed, adding that the United States supports Israel's right to “defend itself against Hezbollah's attacks.” And the statement underscored that “any agreement aimed at ending hostilities should be discussed between the two governments, under the aegis of the United States, and not through any other channel” (an allusion to Iran's desire to link the ceasefire in Lebanon to the Iranian aspect of talks with Washington). Aoun: The beginning of the end Regarding reactions, President Joseph Aoun said he hoped the negotiations would mark “the beginning of the end of the suffering of the Lebanese people.” But “stability will not be restored in the south if Israel continues to occupy territories there,” he added. For his part, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar stated: “We want to achieve peace and normalization with the Lebanese state. There are no major disputes between Israel and Lebanon. The problem is Hezbollah.” Operations in the South Meanwhile in the South, fighting continues to rage on the main front, that of the strategic city of Bint Jbeil, even as Israeli bombardments continue across all southern regions, as do village destructions. The Israeli army claims to have captured Bint Jbeil. In this context, the IDF announced on Tuesday the capture of three Hezbollah militants, one of whom was seriously injured and two more lightly. They were taken to Israel. Previously, the Israeli army had indicated since Monday that it was besieging Bint Jbeil, where dozens of militants were reportedly holed up. However, the fighting remains fierce as the Israeli side acknowledged that ten of its soldiers have been wounded in the South in recent hours, and one has died. The Strait of Hormuz It should be noted that on the Iranian front, several ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, but they were not vessels heading for any of the Iranian ports subject to the American blockade. Of note in this regard is the virulent Chinese reaction concerning this blockade, which China described as “dangerous and irresponsible.” The other important development this Tuesday, concerning the strait, was the announcement of a conference on Friday, chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, with the participation of “non-belligerent” countries willing to contribute to a multilateral and “purely defensive” mission. An operation aimed at “liberating” the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring free passage. A change of course among European countries, until now hostile to any intervention in the American-Israeli war against the Iranian regime?

This is the first direct consequence of the failure of the Islamabad negotiations last weekend between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. On Monday, at 5 p.m. (Beirut time), the naval forces of the American army implemented a total blockade of all Iranian ports and the Strait of Hormuz. Several warships have been deployed to enforce this blockade, which applies to all ships expected to use Iranian ports, whether departing or arriving. Only ships carrying humanitarian aid will be allowed to dock in ports, but after being thoroughly searched. As for vessels not involved in maritime traffic with Iran, they will be able to cross the Strait of Hormuz unhindered. This maritime siege holds fundamental strategic importance on two levels. If rigorously applied, it will largely disrupt the aid in arms and ammunition that the mullahs' regime provides to its proxies in Lebanon and Yemen, among others. The warning from the Iranian president But more importantly, the blockade will undoubtedly deal a particularly harsh (fatal?) (new) blow to the Iranian economy, already severely shaken by the 'maximum sanctions' policy imposed by President Trump. The massive aerial bombardments that marked military operations since February 28 have indeed destroyed the petrochemical and steel industries of the Islamic Republic, which until now had relied on its oil exports, primarily benefiting China. By imposing this maritime blockade, President Trump practically deprives the Iranian regime of its last oil revenues, without having to launch a ground offensive to take control, for example, of the strategic (heavily fortified) Kharg Island, through which 90 percent of Iranian oil exports pass. By paralyzing all economic activity on this island using the 'soft method,' without resorting to military force, President Trump is concretely working to dangerously strangle the Iranian economy in the short term. According to various information sources in Iran, the Iranian president had moreover warned the Revolutionary Guards against a risk of collapse of the Iranian economy within three weeks, at most, if no way out of the crisis is found in the short term. The siege of Bint Jbeil On the Lebanese front, the Israeli army affirmed on Monday afternoon that it had completed its siege of the strategic city of Bint Jbeil, where several dozen Hezbollah militants are entrenched. Simultaneously, the pro-Iranian party reported, in the late afternoon, 'close combat' in Bint Jbeil with IDF units, implicitly indicating that Israeli forces had made breakthroughs in certain sectors of the locality. In fact, the Hebrew state specified at the end of the day that the assault on the city had begun. This escalation comes on the eve of the launch, on Tuesday, April 14, of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel in Washington, at the office of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, with the participation of the ambassadors of Lebanon and Israel in the federal capital. Joseph Aoun and Joe Raggi remind… The true scope of this diplomatic meeting, which should kick off a series of working sessions between the two countries, was highlighted on Saturday by the head of Lebanese diplomacy, Joe Raggi, who emphasized, as a reminder (to anyone willing to listen…), that the direct negotiation between Lebanon and Israel effectively consecrates the dissociation between the Lebanese issue and the Iranian aspect of the current conflict – a dissociation that evidently holds high strategic and symbolic importance for Lebanon. President Joseph Aoun insisted on recalling in this context that 'negotiations with Israel are the sole responsibility of the Lebanese state, and no other party, because this is a sovereign matter that concerns only Lebanon.' And the head of state noted that the Lebanese authorities have adopted 'a series of security measures to prevent arms smuggling or the illegal entry of funds into the country.' In any event, on the ground, the Israeli army reportedly received instructions to consolidate and develop its advances in the South, particularly in Bint Jbeil, before Tuesday's bilateral meeting, given that Beirut could insistently demand, as Mr. Raggi indicated on Monday, the entry into force of a ceasefire – such an achievement, according to several observers, could allow the Lebanese government to legitimize and consolidate direct dialogue with Tel Aviv. Naïm Kassem returned… In this context, it should be noted that after a long eclipse from the audiovisual media scene, Hezbollah Secretary-General, Sheikh Naïm Kassem, reappeared yesterday evening to stigmatize, in a televised speech, those who criticize Hezbollah for having dragged the country into a new war (!). He implicitly acknowledged in this regard that his pro-Iranian party used Lebanon to serve exclusively foreign interests, stating that 'the war in Lebanon aims to reduce pressure on other fronts' (!). And he called 'traitors' all those who oppose the war triggered by the Iranian party. Sheikh Kassem obviously condemned the direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, asking the state to cancel these bilateral talks. Addressing President Joseph Aoun, he launched: 'Let's build Lebanon together'! However, he did not specify how such a joint recovery undertaking could be possible when the pro-Iranian party perceives the Lebanese entity as a mere instrument of maneuver in the hands of a regional power with largely destabilizing and belligerent hegemonic aims.

Marathon day for American and Iranian negotiators and experts, Saturday, in Islamabad. Arriving Friday evening in the Pakistani capital, the two delegations immediately began, each on its own side, informal discussions with high-ranking Pakistani officials who reportedly exchanged messages between the two parties to pave the way for formal, face-to-face negotiations, which began Saturday in the early afternoon. Late in the evening, the two delegations completed two successive working sessions and announced a suspension of work that was to continue on Saturday night (which, in this type of situation, opens the way for discussions away from the spotlight) or on Sunday. Very little information filtered through about the content of the negotiations, apart from the fact that the talks are focused on points of detail and points of divergence, hence the presence of many experts within each delegation. The principal positions of each party on the major contentious issues are known and have been the subject of long discussions in the past, during several dialogue sessions, without a common ground being found. Saturday's meetings therefore went beyond the principal positions and focused rather on points of detail, which undeniably represent the most important part of the negotiations, and which actually determine the success or failure of the negotiations. Disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz Late in the evening, Iranian sources indicated that the problem of the Strait of Hormuz constitutes “one of the main points of divergence during the Islamabad talks”, which implicitly indicates the existence of other subjects of disagreement between the two parties. Earlier in the day, the Financial Times had specified that negotiators had reached “an impasse over the Strait of Hormuz”. The Iranian regime, it is noted in this context, always insists on having direct control over the strait. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps also published a communiqué at the end of the week, stating that “from now on, we will decide which ships can use the Strait of Hormuz”. A position rejected by both the United States and European countries and which is, moreover, in flagrant violation of the Montego Bay Convention (see Jean-Patrick Dayras' article on this subject). US Navy clears the strait It should be noted in this context that, late on Saturday, President Donald Trump indicated that US military ships were clearing the Strait of Hormuz of Iranian mines, specifying that this operation is being carried out to “serve countries around the world, including China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, and several other countries”. “They do not have the courage, or the will, to do it themselves,” noted the American president. Earlier in the day, the news site Axios had indicated that US warships had crossed the Strait of Hormuz without any coordination with Iranian authorities, making a round trip to better demonstrate that they controlled the situation in that area. The head of the White House had indicated in this context that the American navy had destroyed the 28 Iranian minelaying vessels. “The Iranian navy and air force have been destroyed, as has their anti-aircraft defense,” emphasized President Trump. In any event, the Strait of Hormuz issue was one of the main subjects examined during these Islamabad negotiations, especially since it is a new point of conflict that did not arise during previous meetings. It should be noted that the official talks on Saturday took place in the presence, on the American side, of Vice President JD Vance, and special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, as well as, on the Iranian side, the Speaker of Parliament, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, and the head of diplomacy Abbas Araghchi. The first working meeting was held after a tête-à-tête between Vice President Vance and Mr. Ghalibaf in the presence of a high-ranking Pakistani official. The face-to-face negotiations, in the presence of the head of the Pakistani army, were preceded by bilateral consultations between the American delegation and the Pakistani leaders, on the one hand, and between the Iranian delegates and the Pakistani officials, on the other. It should be noted that before their departure from Tehran, the Iranian negotiators had set two preconditions for starting their mission in Islamabad: the establishment of a ceasefire in Lebanon and the unblocking of Iranian assets frozen by the United States. Neither of these two conditions was met, but the Iranian delegates nevertheless began talks with the American delegation, despite the fact that Israeli raids continued in South Lebanon. In Lebanon… While American and Iranian negotiators were working in Islamabad on the points of divergence between the two parties, the Israeli air force continued its raids against Hezbollah positions and infrastructure in South Lebanon. The IDF thus indicated that it had carried out no less than 200 raids in twenty-four hours. However, the Hebrew State committed, at the request of the Americans, not to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Beirut until next Tuesday, the date of the first direct negotiation session between Lebanon and Israel. The decision to engage in these face-to-face bilateral talks between Lebanese and Israeli delegates provoked the ire of the Iranian camp. The advisor to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic thus stigmatized the attitude of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on this plan, even going so far as to utter barely veiled threats, warning of “security disturbances” (in Lebanon…) if the government went ahead with its decision to engage in direct negotiations with Israel. A high-ranking Hezbollah official echoed this, predicting “a popular tsunami that will overthrow the government to protest the plan for talks with Israel”. Salam postpones his visit to Washington On Saturday afternoon, persistent rumors reported Hezbollah's desire to organize a demonstration in Beirut and storm the Grand Serail to overthrow the government and torpedo negotiations with the Hebrew State. However, the army command was to publish, on Saturday in the early afternoon, a communiqué with a particularly firm tone, affirming that the army would intervene forcefully to prevent any attack on security and civil peace and to deal with any aggression against public and private buildings. Acting on its word, the army deployed significant regular units in the capital's neighborhoods, establishing identity checkpoints and carrying out motorized patrols. Faced with this imposing deployment of troops, Hezbollah was to retreat and published in the evening, jointly with the Amal movement, a communiqué calling on its supporters to refrain from organizing demonstrations in the capital. However, the intense tension that prevailed on this front during the day led the Prime Minister to postpone the visit he was to make early next week to Washington to examine with American leaders the course of events on the Lebanese scene.

In a surprise move late Thursday, April 9, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced, following a meeting of the country’s security cabinet, that he had instructed his government to initiate direct negotiations with Lebanon without delay. He also took the opportunity to publicly welcome a decision by his Lebanese counterpart, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, whose cabinet, meeting Thursday at Baabda Palace, approved a resolution mandating the Lebanese army and security forces to prohibit any illegal armed presence in the Beirut governorate. The move effectively seeks to enforce the principle of the state’s monopoly over arms. This surprise decision by Mr. Netanyahu came in the wake of several significant developments over the past twenty-four hours. It was announced a day after a phone call on Wednesday evening between President Donald Trump and the Israeli Prime minister. Reports emerging from Tel Aviv on Thursday afternoon indicated that the White House had urged Mr. Netanyahu to “somewhat reduce” the intensity and scope of strikes in Lebanon. It is highly likely, however, that the prospect of direct negotiations with Lebanon was central to the conversation. Another notable development on April 9 came in remarks delivered at the opening of a cabinet meeting by President Joseph Aoun, who stressed that “only Lebanon can negotiate on behalf of Lebanon, and it is inconceivable that any third party should seek to do so.” Lebanon’s Foreign Ministry had already taken a similar stance several days earlier, drawing sharp criticism from circles close to Hezbollah. In any case, during Thursday’s cabinet meeting, the Prime minister sought approval for a decision tasking the army and security forces with concretely enforcing, in the Beirut governorate, the principle of the state’s exclusive monopoly on arms. Ministers from the Shiite Hezbollah-Amal duo strongly opposed Mr. Salam’s request, and heated exchanges were reported between the two sides. Ultimately, however, the Prime minister’s position prevailed, backed by ministers from the Lebanese Forces, the Kataeb Party and other sovereignty-aligned figures. At the close of the cabinet session, Mr. Salam personally and solemnly announced the decision to demilitarize the Beirut governorate, specifying that the resolution was in line with the provisions of the Taif Agreement and with previous decisions already taken by his government in this regard. It is worth recalling in this context that President Joseph Aoun has repeatedly called, over the past few weeks, for direct negotiations with Israel – much to the chagrin of Hezbollah and the Amal Movement. The initiative by Lebanon’s head of state had previously been rejected by the Israeli Prime minister. However, the unfolding developments in the Iran war, and likely Wednesday’s intensive raids targeting Hezbollah officials and positions in the heart of Beirut, as well as in Saida, the Bekaa, and Hermel – around a hundred strikes in ten minutes – appear to have had the indirect effect of prompting Mr. Netanyahu to give the green light for direct talks with Lebanon. At the State Department, with Washington as Guarantor In practice, information available Thursday evening indicated that direct Israeli-Lebanese talks are set to take place in the coming days – possibly as soon as next week – at the State Department, with Washington acting as guarantor for the smooth conduct of the negotiations. The Israeli delegation will be led by Israel’s ambassador to Washington. As for the Lebanese delegation, some sources said Thursday evening that it would be headed by former ambassador Simon Karam, while others reported that Ambassador to Washington Nada Hamadé Moawad would lead the negotiating team. Regarding the agenda for the talks, Mr. Netanyahu indicated that it would focus on “the disarmament of Hezbollah and peace between Lebanon and Israel.” For now, Beirut is demanding that at least a provisional ceasefire serve as a prelude to these negotiations – something the Israelis do not appear willing to accept. The big unknown, in light of this surprise move, is the reaction of the Iranian camp – specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guards and their armed wing in Lebanon. It is worth noting that, prior to the announcement of the upcoming direct talks with Israel, the Israeli air force continued its strikes Thursday against several villages in southern Lebanon, with the main objective of the ongoing battle seemingly being control of the strategically important town of Bint Jbeil.

A torrent of iron, fire, and blood – unmatched in recent years, except for the August 4 explosion at Beirut’s port – rained down Wednesday across Beirut, its southern suburbs, and countless towns and villages throughout Lebanon. According to initial figures from the Lebanese Ministry of Health, more than 180 people were killed and nearly 800 injured in a wave of simultaneous Israeli airstrikes, which struck roughly a hundred targets nationwide in just ten minutes. The attacks came even as a regional two-week truce had been announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, coinciding with the opening of Washington-Tehran negotiations on a comprehensive agreement aimed at a lasting cessation of hostilities. Israel struck Beirut and some fifty towns – from the south to Hermel, including Aley, Chouf, and the Bekaa – without prior warning, just hours after the army’s Arabic-speaking spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, issued the usual alert urging residents of the southern suburbs and villages south of Zahrani to evacuate. “Hezbollah targets remain squarely in Israel’s sights,” he had warned that morning. By early afternoon, the Israeli army launched what its spokesperson described as “the largest coordinated strike” against Hezbollah since the start of the war with Iran, hitting roughly a hundred Hezbollah positions across Lebanon “simultaneously, within ten minutes.” According to the spokesperson, the strikes targeted “around a hundred command posts and military infrastructures” belonging to Hezbollah. Yet, numerous civilians were killed or wounded in the ten-minute deadly frenzy, which Tel Aviv has dubbed “Eternal Darkness.” The grim name has fueled fears of a broader military operation against Hezbollah, accused by Israel of “taking refuge among civilians north of the Litani River.” Tel Aviv made it clear that the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, which it had nominally accepted, “does not apply” to Lebanon and that it would continue its military operations against Hezbollah – operations that, judging by Wednesday’s raids, amounted to near-indiscriminate warfare. The strikes drew sharp condemnation from President Joseph Aoun, who denounced them as “an act of barbarism,” even as Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz described them as “the largest operation against Hezbollah since the buzzer attacks.” Unlike the earlier buzzer attacks, Wednesday’s assaults hit not only Hezbollah members and supporters but also ordinary Lebanese with no ties to the Iran-backed group – civilians caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. By early evening, another Israeli raid targeted the Tallet el-Khayat neighborhood in western Beirut, reportedly aiming at a senior Hezbollah official, according to the Israeli army. The scale and intensity of Wednesday’s Israeli strikes underscore just how fragile the Washington-Tehran negotiations remain, hanging perpetually under the threat of renewed hostilities. More importantly, they highlight Israel’s apparent determination to escalate its operations in Lebanon – a stance justified in Tel Aviv by the Lebanese state’s inability to disarm Hezbollah. Several Israeli officials have suggested that military operations against the group could extend as far north as the Litani River, aiming to neutralize what they perceive as a persistent threat to Israel’s northern communities. On Wednesday, the Israeli Foreign Ministry publicly criticized the Lebanese authorities for failing to curb Hezbollah’s arsenal. In the coming days, it will become clearer whether this trajectory of escalation will continue or be curtailed. Iranian Threats Tehran responded to Wednesday’s raids by threatening to pull out of the ceasefire agreement and retaliate against Israel’s ongoing attacks on Hezbollah. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reportedly raised the situation in a phone call with Pakistan’s military chief, while U.S. President Donald Trump told PBS that the Lebanon-Hezbollah situation would be “dealt with” – against Iranian wishes – outside the framework of the next two weeks of negotiations. The U.S. president said this was due to Hezbollah, which he described as a “Lebanese terrorist organization.” He added that “this will also be resolved,” emphasizing that the ongoing clashes between Israel and Hezbollah were “separate skirmishes” from the U.S. campaign against Iran. His remarks align with reports from American media suggesting that Washington has effectively given Tel Aviv the green light to continue its operations in Lebanon. Moreover, Mr. Trump revealed that the document Teheran had referenced differed from the one that would actually be discussed in Islamabad. Since the U.S.-brokered truce was announced, the Islamic Republic has halted attacks on Israel and reportedly ordered its proxies to follow suit. Indeed, since the truce was declared, Hezbollah has not fired a single rocket at northern Israel or Israeli positions in Lebanese territory. It did not even respond to Wednesday’s raids, demonstrating, once again, if any proof were needed, its strict alignment with Tehran’s directives. Iran, however, has continued missile strikes against Gulf states, including Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. The UAE reported being targeted by 17 missiles and 35 drones, all “successfully intercepted by air defenses.” Negotiations Set to Begin Talks between Tehran and Washington are set to open Saturday in Islamabad. U.S. Vice President JD Vance will lead the American delegation to the talks, which are being held under the auspices of Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. He will be accompanied by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Tehran has yet to announce the composition of its own delegation. Both sides face a two-week window, set by President Trump, to reach a final agreement on a series of points around which a preliminary understanding has reportedly been reached. Does this signal a triumph of diplomacy? Not quite. The divisions between Tehran and Washington remain deep, and the stakes tied to the conflict – which has now lasted just over five weeks – are so high that compromise solutions may prove extremely difficult, if not entirely unimaginable. Put simply, the mullah-led Iranian regime is fighting for its survival, while the United States is defending its credibility. Viewed this way, Tuesday’s agreement offers both sides a temporary reprieve. The truce therefore feels less like a diplomatic breakthrough than a pause imposed by a convergence of factors: the exhaustion of the actors involved – particularly Iran, under heavy pressure from both Israel and the United States – and domestic and international pressures on President Trump, including major anti-war protests at home and falling stock markets alongside soaring oil prices abroad. The impact of Trump’s announcement was almost immediate: oil prices fell, sparking a rebound in financial markets. Another sign of easing tensions: Iraq announced the reopening of its airspace, closed since the start of the conflict. The United States remains firm on its conditions for a lasting agreement. While it has secured an Iranian commitment to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, Washington continues to demand significant concessions on Tehran’s nuclear program and regional activities. President Donald Trump, who hailed a “total victory,” said the issue of Iran’s nuclear program could be “resolved” within the next two weeks. Tehran, which is calling for the full lifting of sanctions and binding international guarantees, appears to be maneuvering. The Associated Press has reported discrepancies between the Persian and English versions of a document outlining Iran’s conditions for talks. The English version reportedly omits any reference to maintaining the nuclear program – a provision included in the Persian text – something Trump appeared to acknowledge in remarks to PBS. In any case, the coming two weeks will determine whether this preliminary agreement can evolve into a lasting settlement or merely prove a brief pause in the conflict.

The deadline given by US President Donald Trump to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to restore free maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz expires today, Tuesday, at 8 PM Washington time (overnight, Middle East time). Failing that, President Trump could give his green light to a very large-scale strike against Iran. Late Tuesday afternoon (Beirut time), heavy suspense reigned in all the capitals of the region regarding the course events might take. An agreement could be reached in the final fifteen minutes, especially since throughout the day on Tuesday, April 7, the White House kept the door open for a resumption of negotiations, but it was unclear whether the Iranians had softened their position. Around midday (Levant time), the US president used even stronger terms, stating that what could happen in the event of escalation « could wipe out an entire civilization ». According to CNN, Iranian negotiators rejected the proposal for a simple ceasefire, making a counter-proposal to the Americans for a lasting peace, which Trump considered « a step forward but not enough ». At the same time, Iran’s ambassador in Islamabad stated that negotiations have reached a « critical and delicate » point. Parallel to Donald Trump's threats, the Revolutionary Guards are not lowering their tone, considering his remarks « baseless » and assuring that they continue the fight. In this context, late Monday night, the regime called on the country's youth to form « human chains » around threatened energy plants… apparently not hesitating to expose adolescents and young people to death to accuse their enemy of crimes against humanity. Furthermore, Iran's ambassador to Kuwait called on Gulf countries to do everything to avoid a « tragedy in the region ». Military operations On the ground, bombardments did not decrease in intensity during Monday night and Tuesday. Tehran and several cities were thus targeted by American and Israeli missiles. In recent hours, the strategic island of Kharg, from where Iranian oil is exported, has been targeted by strikes. Another target has generated much discussion: a synagogue in Tehran that was « entirely destroyed » by a strike, according to Iranian media reports cited by AFP. New bridges were also hit, and Israeli aviation is beginning to execute its threats against railways in certain regions. Iranian missiles also continue to fall on Gulf countries and Israel (in Israel's case, simultaneously with Hezbollah rockets). A petrochemical plant was hit in Saudi Arabia, probably in response to attacks against the petrochemical industry in Iran by Israeli aviation. Another consequence of the war is that the bridge connecting Saudi Arabia to Bahrain has been closed as a precaution by Saudi authorities. For Bahrain, this is the only possible exit route, as the airport of this small Gulf state has been closed since the beginning of the war at the end of February. On Tuesday, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei made headlines again: European intelligence reports relayed by the international press state that he is in a comatose state, asserting that he is neither conscious nor capable of making decisions, and is being treated for serious injuries in the Iranian city of Qom. This again confirms the complete grip of the Revolutionary Guards Corps on the country. Another serious development this Tuesday: a shooting in front of the Israeli consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, knowing that no Israeli diplomat is currently on Turkish soil, according to a source close to the matter at AFP. The terrorist attack left two Turkish police officers lightly wounded. Until early afternoon, no information on the identity and nationality of the attackers had yet been communicated. However, such disclosures may not be long in coming, given that, according to CNN, one of the assailants was killed and the other two wounded, thus logically being in the hands of the Turkish authorities. This incident raises serious questions, especially if a link with the war in Iran is established: are we facing a period of attacks as this conflict bogs down and reaches a stalemate? Moving funerals in Yahchouch In Lebanon, although fighting continues on the front, it is the Israeli attack against the Christian region of Ain Saadeh, east of Beirut, targeting a Hezbollah official who escaped death, that continues to dominate the news. This attack, which resulted in three deaths among the residents of this building, including a Lebanese Forces official, Pierre Moawad, his wife, and a neighbor, raises serious questions about the protection of Lebanese civilians in areas considered « safe » against the infiltration of fighters pursued by the Israeli army. The full truth about the potential presence of a fighter in this building was not yet known in all its details on Tuesday. Be that as it may, moving funerals took place in Pierre Moawad's home village. The two coffins were carried aloft to the sound of automatic weapon fire. In the crowd, much anger was expressed by the victims' relatives, who wondered why they had paid the price of a war initiated solely by Hezbollah, demanding to know the full truth and for justice to be done. The third victim was buried east of Beirut. The other question concerning Lebanese people these days is that of the Masnaa border crossing, the main one linking Beirut to Damascus, located in the Beqaa. This border crossing was threatened by Israel last Saturday, but it was not targeted. However, it has been closed since then. On Tuesday, Lebanese Interior Minister Ahmad al-Hajjar stated that diplomatic efforts were underway to secure its reopening. According to some reports, Lebanese and Syrian authorities have succeeded, through their intense contacts, in preventing or postponing a possible strike, but have so far failed to obtain its reopening. Finally, the Christian border villages still resisting on the front line in the South are more isolated than ever. A convoy led by Apostolic Nuncio Paolo Borgia could not reach the encircled village of Debl on Tuesday and had to turn back due to an untimely intervention by Hezbollah militiamen…