Today's Essential

The past 24 hours in a Middle East at war offer a stark illustration of the uneasy coexistence between intensifying fighting and persistent reports of backchannel negotiations between the United States and Iran. Even as Israeli and US strikes on Iranian military and civilian infrastructure continue unabated – and as thousands of Marines are set to be deployed to the region in the coming days – reports in credible media outlets of a 15-point list of demands set by Washington as a basis for talks with Tehran have dominated headlines since Tuesday evening, with Pakistani, Turkish and other mediation efforts reportedly under way. Strikes on the Islamic Republic’s energy infrastructure, as threatened by US President Donald Trump on Sunday, appear for now to have been delayed. According to reports by outlets such as The New York Times and Israel’s Channel 12, the 15-point US proposal focuses primarily on the nuclear issue, calling for an end to uranium enrichment and the dismantling of nuclear facilities, as well as limits on ballistic missile production and the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. One provision, concerning Lebanon and other countries in the region such as Iraq, calls for Iran to halt its support for “proxies” such as Hezbollah and the Hashed al-Shaabi – an Iran-backed Iraqi militia that has been the target of the intensified US strikes in recent days. While these measures represent the stick, the carrot is a promise to lift international sanctions – provided they can be reinstated in the event of non-compliance – along with development assistance. In return, again according to media reports, Iran is said to have set its own conditions, including the lifting of sanctions, guarantees of a definitive end to the war, control over the Strait of Hormuz, the preservation of its missile program, and compensation for war damage. Notably, there is no mention of Iran’s nuclear program, and the only ally referenced is Lebanon’s Hezbollah, for which Iranian negotiators are reportedly seeking a halt to Israeli strikes. “Excessive” Conditions Beyond these media leaks, public statements suggest a degree of American “exuberance,” as reflected in remarks made Tuesday evening by the US president, who spoke of a “very big gift” the Iranians had allegedly offered, without specifying its nature. He also insisted that Iran was seeking a deal at any cost. However, these early hopes of negotiations were quickly dampened by comments from an “official Iranian source,” who told state television on Wednesday afternoon that the US conditions were “excessive,” that Iran “would not allow Trump to dictate the end of the war,” and that Tehran would continue to fight. Is this a firm rejection or a bid to raise the stakes ahead of potential negotiations? The fate of this initiative should become clearer by the end of the week – a deadline set by Trump himself. The Heated Home Front Meanwhile, in Lebanon, tensions remain at a peak, both on the southern front and in the political arena. Clashes and exchanges of fire continue south of the Litani River between the Israeli army and Hezbollah, which has launched hundreds of drones and rockets against Israeli forces in both Lebanese and Israeli territory. While Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has claimed to have approved a new plan to expand operations in Lebanon, these statements are being translated into action on the ground: the main development on the morning of Wednesday, March 25, was the advance of Israeli forces toward the Christian village of Debl in the Bint Jbeil district. Although Hezbollah fighters are battling on a front they themselves opened, they can increasingly count less on internal solidarity within Lebanon. The dispute over the order to expel Iran’s ambassador from Lebanon, issued by the government, continues to escalate, particularly among the Shiite parties Amal and Hezbollah. After a scathing statement from Hezbollah the day before, Amal issued its own communique on Wednesday, calling on “officials to reverse the order to expel the ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in order to prevent a political and national crisis in the country.” This decision stems from suspicions of interference in the internal affairs of Ambassador Mohammad Reza Shibani, who has yet to present his credentials to President Joseph Aoun. The move echoes reports that members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are present in significant numbers in Lebanon, using false passports to directly oversee Hezbollah, which has been without its historic commanders since 2024. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam cited these details in a recent interview. Although welcomed by many voices in Lebanon and abroad, the measure risks destabilizing the government, which is scheduled to meet on Thursday at 3 p.m. at the Grand Serail (under the Prime minister’s chairmanship, rather than that of President Aoun). Environment Minister Tamara Zein set the tone Tuesday evening during a televised interview, saying she did not rule out “the withdrawal of Shiite ministers from the government.” According to MTV, discussions are ongoing to prevent the cabinet’s implosion, likely through a solution familiar in Lebanon: either a change of ambassador or an extension of the expulsion deadline, currently set to expire Sunday evening. Added to the recurring threats from Hezbollah officials, including Wafic Safa and others, alongside tensions triggered by the government’s decision to declare the party’s military operations illegal, and the controversy surrounding President Aoun’s proposal for direct negotiations with Israel, this latest dispute further strains relations between an armed militia and the rest of Lebanon’s political actors. The atmosphere is so tense that the specters of the civil war seem to be awakening, fueled by fears of a new Israeli occupation of large areas in the South, which has already caused significant population displacement. Addressing these concerns, President Aoun told the daily an-Nahar that “there is no new civil war” in Lebanon. Into this fraught environment came a new message from Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem on Wednesday. For the second consecutive time, he did not appear on camera, even in a recorded statement; instead, his (brief) message was read by a third party on the party’s al-Manar channel. Without directly addressing the issue of the Iranian ambassador’s expulsion, Qassem said that “any negotiation under fire is a capitulation,” calling for “national unity against the Israeli-American project that will lead to Greater Israel, erasing Lebanon.” Consistent with his usual stance, Qassem argued that the state’s monopoly on arms “weakens Lebanon,” warning the government “against decisions that serve Israel’s interests, even if the intention is otherwise,” and asserting that he “has no doubt for a second about the victory of the Resistance.”

Following the official ban on the military activities of Hezbollah and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon, the decision to expel Iran’s ambassador to Beirut and recall the head of Lebanon’s diplomatic mission in Tehran undoubtedly marks the most consequential step taken by Nawaf Salam’s government since Hezbollah drew the country into the military confrontation opposing Iran to Israel and the United States. And for good reason: for the first time since Taif (1989), the Lebanese authorities are setting clear limits and seeking to shield the country from foreign interference in its internal affairs – interference that has often proved damaging, even devastating. On Tuesday, Lebanon’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the chargé d’affaires at the Iranian embassy to inform him that Lebanon had decided to withdraw the accreditation of Ambassador Mohammad Reza Shibani, ordering him to leave the country no later than Sunday. Appointed in mid-February to head Iran’s diplomatic mission in Beirut, Shibani arrived in the Lebanese capital just one week before the outbreak of the war. The decision to expel him was immediately welcomed in Tel Aviv and Paris, while figures within Hezbollah’s orbit decried it as a scandal. Why does it matter? Because it allows the Lebanese state to demonstrate that it is serious about restoring its sovereignty and putting an end to armed groups and their backers, at a time when its (in)action following the initial decision taken in early March had drawn criticism both domestically and internationally. Beirut is thus signaling that, while it remains, for now, unable to halt the destructive course into which Hezbollah has drawn the country or to initiate the disarmament of a militia that continues to threaten the Lebanese authorities, it nonetheless retains room for maneuver on the political and judicial fronts – arrest warrants have, in fact, been issued against a group of militiamen apprehended while transporting rockets to southern Lebanon. Hezbollah and Amal’s Rebellion The big question remains how far the government will go, politically and judicially, against Hezbollah, whose leaders and close associates have denounced the expulsion of Iran’s ambassador. According to multiple consistent sources, Hezbollah and the head of the Amal movement – who also serves as Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri – contacted the ambassador to urge him to remain in his post and ignore the Lebanese government’s order to leave the country. Some sources further reported that the ambassador regards the expulsion order as “void.” By the end of the day, Hezbollah issued a statement sharply attacking Foreign Minister Joe Raggi and rejecting the government’s decision. Alongside Hezbollah and Nabih Berri’s defiance of the government, the vice-president of the Supreme Shiite Council, Ali Khatib, who operates within Iran’s orbit, denounced the measure as “hasty, reckless, illegitimate, and unjustified.” In reality, however, the decision was long overdue. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam himself confirmed just a few days ago what has long been evident: Revolutionary Guard operatives are present in Lebanon in force, tasked with coordinating the war against Israel and, well before the outbreak of hostilities, organizing and training the leaders and fighters of the Iran-aligned group. The most serious aspect of the religious leader’s remarks is that he described an official government decision as “a provocation against a Lebanese community” – referring to the Shiite community, which Hezbollah claims to represent exclusively. The expulsion of the Iranian diplomat, at the government’s request, is justified in particular by the fact that Ambassador Shibani violated the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and failed in his obligations by interfering in Lebanon’s internal affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained in a statement. The ministry emphasized that the measure does not constitute a break in diplomatic relations with Iran, but follows, according to the statement, a series of the ambassador’s actions – including his public comments on Lebanese domestic politics and his assessments of government decisions – all of which contravene established diplomatic norms. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also criticized Mohammad Reza Shibani for meeting with unofficial Lebanese groups without coordinating with the ministry – a clear reference to Hezbollah. The precedent of Albert Moukheiber with the Egyptian ambassador It is worth recalling in this regard the precedent, in the contemporary history of Lebanon, of the expulsion of the Egyptian ambassador from Beirut in the context of the 1958 civil war. Albert Moukheiber was then acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and decided to expel the Egyptian ambassador, who was accused, as in the current case of the Iranian ambassador, of destabilizing interference in Lebanese internal affairs. Escalation of Strikes This development comes as tensions on the ground have intensified – violent exchanges of fire have resumed between Israel and Hezbollah, in the context of a wider regional escalation. One striking element on Tuesday was the entanglement of Iraq, like Lebanon, in the ongoing conflict: fifteen fighters of the pro-Iranian Hashed al-Shaabi militia, including a senior commander, were killed at dawn in an airstrike on western Iraq – the deadliest attack against this alliance of former paramilitaries, which denounced it as “an American strike.” Among the victims was “the Al-Anbar operations commander for the Hashed al-Shaabi, Saad Dawaï.” The strike in the Habbaniya area occurred during a command meeting, according to an alliance official who spoke to AFP. Al-Anbar, a predominantly Sunni region, is Iraq’s largest province by area and borders the strategically important frontiers with Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Illustrating the spiral into which Iraq is being drawn amid the regional conflict, the autonomous Kurdistan region in the north accused Iran of firing ballistic missiles at its armed forces, killing six Peshmerga soldiers. In both cases, these are the deadliest attacks since the war began on 28 February. In the past, Iran has fired ballistic missiles at the autonomous region, but in recent years relations had warmed. With the war, Kurdistan’s leaders are exercising caution and seeking to maintain a degree of neutrality. In a statement, the Peshmerga Ministry denounced “an act of aggression (…) far from any principle of good neighborliness” – adding, “We reiterate our sovereign and legitimate right to respond to any aggression against our people and our territory.” Iran, which has just appointed Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr – a former Revolutionary Guard commander and loyalist of the late Ali Larijani – to replace him as head of the Supreme Security Council, has continued its attacks against Israel. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait announced that they, too, were facing drone and missile attacks. In response, the Israeli army struck around a hundred targets, including a series of airstrikes on Isfahan. According to Fars News Agency, two Iranian energy facilities were hit in joint Israeli-American strikes, just hours after the unexpected announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump to spare certain power plants for five days – the deadline he had set for Tehran to respond to the conditions laid out for negotiations. In Israel, around ten Iranian missiles targeted the north and central regions of the country, wounding several people in Tel Aviv – once again underscoring the intensity of a confrontation that threatens to escalate, despite the prospect of upcoming negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Talks and Skepticism In this context, it is worth noting that in Israel, a degree of skepticism persists regarding the potential outcome of U.S.-Iranian talks, announced on Monday by Donald Trump. The president has set himself a five-day window to advance discussions with “a senior Iranian official,” whom he did not identify, before resuming bombings and targeting, in particular, Iran’s power grid. On the diplomatic front, unconfirmed reports of bilateral discussions continue to emerge, while media outlets report that the U.S. military is preparing to deploy additional troops and assets to the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose war objectives do not always align with those of his ally, revealed that Trump considers it possible “to reach an agreement that would preserve Israel’s vital interests.” But “at the same time, we continue to strike both Iran and Lebanon.” In response, the Revolutionary Guards stated that they would continue launching missiles at Israel if it “persists in its attacks against Lebanon and Palestine.” Iranian missiles in Lebanese airspace were intercepted Tuesday afternoon, amid conflicting reports about their intended target – the U.S. embassy in Awkar or Cyprus. In any case, debris fell across several areas of Kesrouan without causing casualties. From Tehran, the Foreign Ministry only acknowledged receiving, through “friendly countries,” “messages conveying an American request for negotiations.” Whatever the real scope of these diplomatic initiatives, Qatar, Egypt, and Pakistan said they support “all efforts” to promote dialogue. While Doha indicated it does not wish to participate directly, Islamabad expressed willingness to host potential U.S.-Iran talks, stating that it had been approached for this purpose. Doha also suggested that Iran’s neighbors should collectively review their security arrangements. “The Gulf states, which have worked in close coordination (…) to ensure their security, need to reassess (…) a common regional security framework,” said Majed al-Ansari, spokesperson for the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In Washington, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt did not deny reports of Pakistani diplomatic initiatives but urged that these “speculations” not be “taken as confirmed” until officially announced by Washington. The involvement of Islamabad would make sense, says Michael Kugelman, South Asia expert at the Atlantic Council. “Pakistan is one of the few countries that maintains warm relations with both Tehran and Washington” and “it represents Tehran’s diplomatic interests in Washington,” where Iran has no embassy. Egypt, for its part, appears to be pursuing its own agenda. Its Foreign Minister, Badr Abdelatty, has held talks in recent days with representatives from Iran, the United States, Türkiye, and Pakistan, according to official statements. Rubio in Europe In any case, with the deadline set by Donald Trump for Iran expiring on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to be in France for a G7 meeting, where he is set to discuss the war in Iran and the broader situation in the Middle East with his European counterparts. This will be his first foreign trip since the United States and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February.

Political circles around the world, and more particularly international markets, lived this Monday, March 23, in anguish over military developments that risked occurring upon the expiration, in the evening, of the ultimatum launched by President Donald Trump to the Iranian regime, enjoining it to ensure free maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, failing which he would order the bombing of power plants and energy infrastructure in Iran. In response, Tehran threatened to attack energy and vital facilities, particularly seawater desalination plants, in several Gulf countries. Monday thus began in a particularly tense climate until the White House chief suddenly revealed in the early afternoon (Beirut time) that discussions had been engaged over the weekend with “the Iranian State,” he specified without any reference to the Islamic Republic, in order to reach an “agreement,” the outlines of which he did not indicate. He merely pointed out in this context that he had postponed the bombing of electrical and energy facilities for “five days,” allowing time for the talks engaged with the Iranian regime to unfold. In a frank discussion with journalists, the US president revealed that contacts had been undertaken with “a very respected senior Iranian official,” noting in this regard that it was not the new Supreme Leader, whose fate, health condition, and location remain a mystery. In the late afternoon, Israeli sources revealed that the “senior official” in question is the head of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, a former general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and former police chief. Israeli media and American sources went so far as to emphasize that formal talks were planned in Islamabad, Pakistan, between Mr. Ghalibaf, on the one hand, and American Vice President Mr. Vance, and negotiators designated by Mr. Trump. But a new twist: shortly after the US President's announcement, media close to the Pasdaran, as well as the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and "authorized sources" in Tehran, categorically denied any contact, direct or indirect, with the US Administration. Following the denial made public by the Pasdaran, the main person concerned, the head of Parliament, also published a statement in the early evening affirming that no negotiations had taken place with Washington, neither directly nor through a mediator. This fluctuation at the Iranian level has raised many questions. Did President Trump have discussions with a “moderate” wing of the Iranian regime, represented in this instance by the Speaker of Parliament, without the Revolutionary Guards being closely or remotely involved? Did the denial, which the Pasdaran hastened to publish, bring to light a clear fault line within the regime between a pragmatic current, advocating a realistic agreement with the United States, and the radical hardline faction that refuses any compromise and insists on continuing the fight with the United States and Israel? In recent years, there has often been talk of such a split between "reformist" and "radical" currents in Iran, but given the turn taken by the total war waged by the American and Israeli armies against the mullahs' regime, the fissure between these two wings of power, controlled before the war by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has undoubtedly widened and could very likely have led to a deep fracture within the regime between the "pragmatists" and the "radicals," especially in the absence of a Supreme Leader capable of acting as an arbiter and last resort. This break and the absence of the authority of the walih el-faqih would explain the speed with which the Pasdaran rushed to deny any draft agreement or any negotiation initiated with the American side. With the clear aim of discrediting and emptying of its content the announcement made by President Trump, the Pasdaran and the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs went so far as to affirm that the statements made by the White House chief constitute only a "maneuver aimed at lowering the price of oil on the international market." Whether this imputation of motive is founded or not, the American president's revelations indeed caused a rapid drop in the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil, for May delivery, which lost nearly 7.4% of its value in a few hours, falling to 90.95 dollars. In this context, some observers emphasize that the new five-day deadline, thus until Friday, set by President Trump reflects a desire to calm the markets throughout this week and to stem the climate of panic that was perceptible during the weekend and Monday morning. Regime change? In any event, President Trump maintained a clear climate of optimism throughout Monday, day and evening, which he accentuated by providing the broad outlines of the talks that had allegedly been engaged with the "senior Iranian official." He first specified that contacts had been initiated "Saturday evening," further asserting that a "regime change" is underway in Iran. "There is a regime change," he emphasized, noting in this regard that all senior officials of the power that was in place before the war have been killed. The US President affirmed that "Iran wants to reach an agreement" and that its new interlocutors in Tehran, whom he described as "very reasonable," have agreed to deliver their stock of enriched uranium, significantly reduce the range of their ballistic missiles, put an end to uranium enrichment and thus renounce acquiring nuclear weapons, and refrain from destabilizing the countries of the Middle East. These concessions, if confirmed in fact and materialized by a solid agreement, would amount to a total capitulation. The coming days will allow uncertainties on this plan to be lifted. In the meantime, military operations, shelling, and air raids continue intensely in several Iranian regions as well as in South Lebanon, where the Israeli army announced having taken several members of Hezbollah's elite unit, al-Radwane.

Three major developments, undeniably strategic in dimension, have marked the last twenty-four hours of the war between the American-Israeli alliance and the Republic of the Mullahs in Tehran. Iran thus launched for the first time two intermediate-range ballistic missiles towards the American-British base of Diego Garcia, located in the Indian Ocean, some 4000 kilometers from Iran. The two missiles did not reach their target, but the importance of this launch lies in its geopolitical significance. The range of Iranian missiles was generally estimated at 2000 kilometers. The fact that these two ballistic devices had a range of nearly 4000 kilometers constitutes tangible proof that the Islamic Republic was genuinely working to acquire a missile arsenal potentially capable of reaching European capitals, including Paris and London, located respectively 4200 and 4400 kilometers from Tehran. Such data therefore delivers a stinging rebuke to certain Western circles and observers who campaign against the battle engaged against the Islamic Republic by claiming that the Iranian regime posed no threat to European countries and Western interests. Another major development on Saturday, March 21: the bombing by American aviation, for the second time in three weeks, of the Natanz nuclear power plant and its uranium enrichment facility. Bunker-buster bombs were used during this bombing to hit underground targets buried at great depths. No radioactive leak was reported following this operation, indicated the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On Saturday afternoon, American aviation was flying over the Isfahan area, where another important nuclear power plant is located. Twenty countries commit to unblock Hormuz The other issue that has focused the attention of Western chancellories and international economic circles manifests itself in the threats that the Islamic Republic poses to maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. The new development on this front on Saturday is the commitment made by about twenty countries, including France, the United Arab Emirates, Japan, Canada, and the United Kingdom, to join efforts to ensure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump, it should be noted in this regard, had in recent days intensified his call for active participation of Western countries in the action advocated to guarantee the free movement of ships on this maritime route. As part of their contribution on this front, the United States deployed A-10 Warthog aircraft equipped with advanced military equipment capable of particularly effectively targeting vessels posing a threat to maritime traffic. Simultaneously, American and Israeli air forces intensified their pounding of missile warehouses and launch pads located in the Strait of Hormuz area on Saturday and over the past twenty-four hours. All these developments lend credence to the theory, reported for several days by various circles, that the American army is preparing a landing on the Iranian island of Kharg, whose highly strategic importance lies in the fact that 90 percent of Iranian oil exports transit through this island, which benefits from deep waters allowing the docking of giant supertankers. The Israeli army continues its advance in South Lebanon On the Lebanese front, the Israeli army continued its slow, and cautious, advance into Lebanese territory on Saturday, occupying new strategic positions that would allow it to consolidate its plan to establish a buffer zone between the Litani and the border with Lebanon. This territorial encroachment, particularly noticeable on Saturday in the Nakoura region, is accompanied by intensive shelling of several villages in the southern region. Simultaneously, clashes were reported Saturday in the locality of Khiam where the Israeli army is facing two pockets of resistance held by Hezbollah militiamen. Meanwhile, the Israeli air force continued its intermittent bombing of Hezbollah militia infrastructures in several southern Beirut suburbs, including Haret Hreik and Bourj Brajneh, during the night of Friday and throughout Saturday.

It was to the rhythm of missile exchanges between Iran and Israel that the Arab and Islamic world celebrated, on Friday, the Eid al-Fitr, which marks the breaking of the Ramadan fast. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun spoke by phone on Friday on this occasion with his Emirati counterpart, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. During this conversation, the head of state "condemned the involvement of certain political parties in a sabotage plot that the Emirates announced they had thwarted today" (Friday), according to a statement from the Lebanese presidency, referring to accusations against Hezbollah. The pro-Iranian militia, for its part, on Friday rejected the "fallacious" accusations by the United Arab Emirates, which announced the arrest of at least five members of a terrorist network linked to Iran and Hezbollah, against a backdrop of war in the Middle East. This is the third time this week that the Shiite movement has denied any link with cells dismantled in Gulf countries. Hezbollah's network in the Emirates had "sought to infiltrate the national economy and carry out external operations threatening the country's financial stability" as part of "a predefined strategic plan, in coordination with external parties linked to Hezbollah and Iran," the official news agency Wam reported, citing Emirati security services. In this same context, Hezbollah twice this week denied any presence in Kuwait, after the arrest of 16 people accused of planning a "sabotage" operation. The Kuwaiti authorities also reported the dismantling of a cell of ten people affiliated with Hezbollah who were preparing, according to the emirate, "a terrorist plot targeting vital installations." During a telephone conversation with the Emir of Kuwait, President Aoun was also expected to condemn Hezbollah's actions in the emirate. For his part, the United States ambassador to Beirut, Michel Issa, welcomed President Joseph Aoun's proposal to initiate direct negotiations with Israel to end the war against Hezbollah. Mr. Issa nevertheless stated that Israel had not "decided to end its strikes". "Lebanon must decide whether it should meet the Israelis under these circumstances," he added. Furthermore, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot on Friday called on Iran for "major concessions". "The Iranian regime must commit to a radical change in posture allowing for the peaceful coexistence of Iran with its regional environment," he added. French diplomacy is particularly seeking to avoid an escalation of the conflict between Israel and Lebanon, dragged by Hezbollah into a war that does not concern it. Jean-Noël Barrot thus condemned "Hezbollah's inadmissible and irresponsible decision" to join "Iranian aggressions against Israel," while reaffirming Paris's readiness to facilitate "direct" talks between Tel Aviv and Beirut. Tel Aviv still does not rule out the possibility of a large-scale ground incursion that France is trying to avoid, while Hezbollah continues to target northern Israel. The Israeli military spokesman announced on Friday that Tel Aviv intends to increase pressure on Hezbollah and expand its ground military operations in southern Lebanon in the coming days. He specified that the Israeli army has targeted more than 2000 objectives of this group since it began attacking its territory, and will continue to do so. Since the start of the war launched by the Israel-United States axis against Iran on February 28, Israeli authorities have reiterated that their military operations will only end when the set objectives are achieved: annihilate Iran's capacity to produce nuclear and ballistic weapons, weaken, if not destroy, the Mullahs' regime and its proxies in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump have both reaffirmed that they are getting closer to this. In response to these statements, the Revolutionary Guards in Iran announced on Friday that Tehran "has been continuing missile production since the beginning of the war," has no shortage of stocks, and that "there is no concern about this," according to Reuters. They also threatened to target Israeli and American officials. This threat, in particular, follows the continuous elimination of Iranian command cadres. The Pasdaran thus confirmed on Friday the death of their spokesman, Ali-Mohammad Naïni, while Israel announced the liquidation of a "key commander of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, Mehdi Rastami Shmastan, during a targeted strike on Wednesday". On another note, the United Kingdom authorized the United States to use British bases to strike Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz as part of "defensive operations," a decision that London should have taken "much more quickly" according to Donald Trump. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, for his part, accused Prime Minister Keir Starmer on X of putting "British lives at risk by authorizing the use of British bases to launch aggression against Iran".

As fighting continues to rage in southern Lebanon and tensions escalate on the Iranian front, attention has turned to Riyadh on 19 March – where the Saudi capital hosted an extraordinary meeting of foreign ministers from Arab and Islamic countries. Gulf Arab states have been under Iranian missile fire since the launch of the Israeli-American offensive against Iran on 28 February. Under the pretext of targeting American interests in these countries, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have struck civilian infrastructure and urban centers, while continuing to threaten vital oil facilities. The tone of statements following the Riyadh meeting was notably firm – not only regarding missiles and drones attacks on the Gulf, but also in response to Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20 per cent of the world’s oil passes, including much of the Gulf’s exports. Saudi foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud made clear his rejection of any pressure linked to the strait, stressing “the right of (Gulf) states to defend themselves against ongoing attacks.” In a unified stance, the ministers condemned what they described as “completely unjustified Iranian missile and drone attacks on residential areas”, reaffirming “the right of states to self-defense, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.” They also issued “a call on Iran to immediately halt its attacks and to respect international law and the principles of good neighborliness,” adding that “the future of relations with Iran depends on its respect for state sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.” Finally, another key point in the meeting’s communiqué was “the condemnation of any support for or provision of weapons to militias in Arab countries” – a stance that directly implicates Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. What emerges from these statements is not only the uniformly firm tone adopted by Arab and Islamic states, but also the growing isolation of Iran’s strategy since the start of its war with the United States and Israel – a strategy widely seen as seeking to sow chaos across the region and now beginning to backfire. The ministers also expressed their “support for Lebanon’s security and stability, for the state’s monopoly on arms, and their condemnation of Israeli attacks on its territory” – amounting to a clear and firm stance against both parties to the conflict: Hezbollah and Israel. Lebanon was represented at the meeting by Foreign Minister Joe Raggi. In his statements, he called on Arab and Islamic countries to support President Joseph Aoun’s initiative for direct negotiations with Israel – a plan aimed at ending the war in Lebanon, which has already claimed nearly a thousand lives and displaced more than a million people. So far, neither Israel (backed by the United States) nor Hezbollah (and its Shiite allies in Lebanon) have shown any willingness to engage. While condemning Israeli attacks, the Lebanese minister did not shy away from criticizing Iran for drawing Lebanon into the conflict through Hezbollah – a stance that marks a significant departure from that of his predecessors. He also reiterated Lebanon’s condemnation of Tehran’s attacks on the Gulf. On the sidelines of the meeting, Syrian Foreign Minister Assaad Chibani reassured his Lebanese counterpart that his country has no intention of entering Lebanon or interfering in its internal affairs. According to recent media reports, the United States had allegedly asked Syria to get involved in the ongoing war in Lebanon to rein in Hezbollah – a longstanding adversary of the new Syrian regime – but Damascus reportedly refused. For the First Time, Long-Range Missiles While Arab and Islamic ministers gathered in Saudi Arabia, French diplomacy was active in Lebanon. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot was expected in Beirut on Thursday. France, it should be recalled, supports President Aoun’s initiative for direct negotiations with Israel and has proposed that they take place in Paris. On Wednesday, remarks by the French president’s envoy to Lebanon, Jean-Yves Le Drian, caused a stir: in a televised interview, he said that Hezbollah is directly responsible for the latest escalation in Lebanon following its rocket attacks at dawn on 2 March, acting on behalf of Iran rather than in the interests of the Lebanese people – and certainly not those of southern Lebanon. He also criticized repeated calls on the Lebanese government (notably from the United States) to disarm Hezbollah, pointing out that Israel had been unable to do so over years of conflict, and that Lebanon could not be expected to accomplish the task “in three days and under fire.” In this context, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot’s visit to Beirut is seen by observers as unlikely to make much of a difference, even as the situation on the ground appears to be igniting. Clearly, the time for diplomacy has not yet arrived. Indeed, despite a relative calm in recent hours in southern suburbs of Beirut and the capital, the southern Lebanon front is witnessing fierce fighting between Hezbollah fighters and the Israeli army, which announced it had killed around twenty militants over the past 24 hours. Hezbollah, meanwhile, has not reported its own casualties since the escalation began in March 2026. The latest development is the Shiite group’s use of long-range ballistic missiles, reportedly fired from the Baalbek region in northern Bekaa – another of its strongholds – marking the first time such weapons have been deployed not only in this conflict but also during the previous one in 2023–2024. These new capabilities fundamentally change the rules of the game, expanding the battlefield and likely forcing Israel to rethink its strategy, as it is clear that Hezbollah can no longer rely solely on rockets fired near the border. The timing of this development – coinciding with the assassination of prominent figures in Iran and an intensification of U.S. strikes on the country – could be explained by a desire to keep the Israeli army fully occupied on the Lebanese front, showing total disregard for lives and property inside Lebanon. Another sign of the escalation on this front, and of growing animosity among the militia’s supporters toward a Lebanese government that now considers it to be operating illegally, is a series of cyberattacks on various Lebanese ministry websites, including the Ministry of Information (which recently banned the word “resistance” from public media). The hacker group, calling itself the Fatimids – a reference to Shiite history – also targeted the site of MTV, a media outlet known for its anti-Hezbollah stance, earlier this week.

As the days pass, the resurgence of military operations escalates crescendo, making the total war that the United States and Israel have been waging against the Iranian mullahs' regime since February 28 increasingly serious. And this escalation is evident on more than one level. After the elimination on March 17 of the head of Iran's National Security Council, Ali Larijani (the true strongman of the regime after the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) and Gholamreza Soleiman, commander of the Basij (the formidable machine for repressing the population), it was the turn of Intelligence Minister, Ismail Khatib, to be eliminated during an Israeli raid. His death was confirmed on Wednesday, March 18, by official authorities. In terms of military operations strictly speaking, American aviation has, over the past twenty-four hours, begun intensive bombing, using anti-bunker bombs, of Iranian positions and underground missile and drone depots on the coastline along the Persian Gulf. More than 200 ballistic missiles are reported to have been destroyed during one of these strikes. This pounding is clearly aimed at paving the way for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, or at least significantly reducing the Pasdaran's ability to disrupt the free movement of oil tankers through this strategic maritime route. In this regard, a significant Marine unit, equipped with a sophisticated strike force, is expected shortly in the region to reinforce the operational capabilities of the US army, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz area. At the same time, Israeli aviation bombed the world's largest (Iranian) gas field. In retaliation, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced its intention to bomb oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. It didn't take much to cause a new rise in the price of a barrel of oil, which reached the $109 mark late Wednesday afternoon. In this context, the foreign ministers of the Gulf States and Muslim countries were due to hold an extraordinary conference on Wednesday evening to examine the serious consequences of Iranian aggressions against several Gulf countries. The south of the Litani isolated from the rest of the country On the "Lebanese front," the Israeli army announced early Wednesday afternoon its intention to bomb and destroy bridges and crossing points along the Litani River. This operation amounts to isolating the south of the Litani from the rest of the country, which means, in military terms, the establishment of a buffer zone between the Israeli-Lebanese border and the southern region of the country located north of the river. According to some reports, this Israeli deployment in Lebanese territory could extend as far north as Zahrani. This would allow the Hebrew state to impose its conditions in any negotiation concerning the withdrawal of its troops. In the capital, Tuesday night to Wednesday was particularly tense. Israeli aviation repeatedly bombed various sectors, notably the neighborhoods of Zokak el-Blat and Bachoura, where a seven-story building completely collapsed due to the aerial attack. In Zokak el-Blat, the Israeli aerial strike caused the death of Mohammed Cherri, political programs director for Hezbollah's television channel, Al-Manar. Late Wednesday, a heavy atmosphere prevailed in the capital amid apprehension about the extent of the IDF's deployment in the southern part of the country.

The elimination by Israel of Ali Larijani – head of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council and one of the Islamic Republic’s key power brokers – along with the commander of the Basij militia, the formidable Iranian police force, Gholamreza Soleimani, will undoubtedly mark a turning point in the war between Iran and the Israel-US axis. Both men were killed in targeted Israeli strikes on the Iranian capital overnight on Monday, Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, officially announced early Tuesday morning. As of late afternoon, however, Tehran had neither confirmed nor denied the reports. Iranian media merely announced an “imminent televised address” by Ali Larijani – echoing the scenario that preceded Tehran’s official confirmation of the death of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was also killed in Israeli strikes on 28 February 2026 – before broadcasting a handwritten message attributed to Larijani. This was accompanied by a statement from the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, pledging to “continue the war until the defeat of the United States and Israel.” Those are the facts. In practice, Israel has dealt another major blow to Iran, the effects of which, however, extend well beyond the structure of the Islamic Republic’s military and police apparatus. Following the killing of Ali Khamenei, Iranian leaders had indeed indicated that a four-tier succession chain had been put in place within this structure – a message intended as much for Tel Aviv and Washington as for the Iranian public, who are desperately seeking an end to the criminal dictatorship of the Mullahs. On the military front, the assassination of Larijani highlights, once again, the supremacy of the Israeli–US axis, which thus appears to be steadily moving closer to its war objectives: to eliminate – or at least significantly weaken – the current regime in Tehran, and to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring or developing ballistic or nuclear weapons in the future. In this war, Tel Aviv and Washington retain the strategic initiative, as illustrated in particular by targeted assassinations and military operations. In doing so, they maintain steadily increasing pressure on Tehran, which remains locked in a largely defensive posture, following an approach that – unlike that of its two adversaries – does not appear to follow a well-defined strategy. Eighteen days after the outbreak of the military conflict, the Islamic Republic continues its routine aerial attacks on US bases, as well as on civilian targets in Gulf countries, while also targeting Israel, simultaneously with Hezbollah operating from Lebanon. According to AFP, the US embassy was targeted twice, just a few hours apart, on Monday and Tuesday. A projectile also struck a hotel located in Baghdad’s ultra-protected Green Zone. Late in the evening, Iranian drones targeted one of the southern Iraq’s main oil fields – currently out of operation and already hit last Friday – also according to AFP. Yet even by disrupting the navigation of oil tankers and cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz, much to Washington’s frustration, as it struggles to rally its European partners to secure this strategic point for international trade – Tehran still appears unable to generate any meaningful inflection point capable of altering the course of the ongoing war or, at the very least, of bringing the United States to the negotiating table. Furthermore, considering the latter point, the assassination of Ali Larijani also carries particular political significance – insofar as it appears to confirm what President Trump has reiterated on several occasions in recent days: that talks with Tehran are not, for now, a priority, with precedence instead given to achieving the war’s stated objectives. Although part of Iran’s hardline establishment, Ali Larijani – a trusted confidant of Ali Khamenei – played a central role in the talks Iran conducted over its nuclear program and its relations with Gulf countries. His death deprives Teheran of a key interlocutor with the international community and could potentially weaken its negotiating capacity – should the regime endure – in any future dialogue within the framework of the “new Middle East” now taking shape. “We are shaping a new Middle East, forged through power,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterated on Tuesday, according to Israeli media. The assassination of the Basij commander – the militia responsible for bloodily suppressing popular protests against the Mullahs’ regime in Iran – also aligns with the objectives the Israeli–US axis is seeking to achieve: effecting change in Iran. The loss of its leader, while his successor, whoever that may be, remains in the Israeli crosshairs, could provide Iranians with a renewed opportunity to reignite their protest movements. The big question, however, remains how Iran will respond to this latest blow. Will it close the Strait of Hormuz in an attempt to increase pressure on the United States? Will it push its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, to step up attacks against Israel? So far, the latter has shown that – aside from prompting Israel to strike more aggressively in areas where it is based – it is incapable of helping its Iranian patron change the course of events. On the contrary, an escalation of Hezbollah’s military operations against Israel would only increase the risk of a large-scale Israeli ground incursion into Lebanon – an option Tel Aviv has been openly discussing for some time and for which, according to Israeli media, it has reportedly mobilized nearly 450,000 reservists. In this logic of suicidal escalation, Hezbollah thus risks dragging Lebanon further into a deadly spiral of violence, serving solely the interest of its Iranian patron.

The war in Iran has entered its third week and, at the current stage, the two opposing camps, the American-Israeli coalition, on the one hand, and the Iranian Islamic Republic, on the other hand, are engaged in a military-political escalation that seems to be going crescendo. President Donald Trump thus raised the tone with his Western allies to overcome their reluctance concerning the establishment of a vast coalition that would take charge of the security of the maritime route of the Strait of Hormuz. The White House chief went so far as to emphasize that if the United States' allies maintain their refusal to send a military naval force to secure the Strait of Hormuz, the consequences for NATO could be unfortunate. On Monday afternoon, President Trump reminded public opinion of the real stakes of the current war launched against the mullahs' regime. He notably pointed out in this regard, for the attention of those who have not grasped the true scope of this conflict: «What is happening now is minor compared to the years of terrorism exercised by the Iranian regime». And the White House chief added that «the Iranian regime has been annihilated». If, on the military front, some Western countries are, for the moment, reluctant to engage directly in the armed conflict, on the political level, however, the time is for verbal escalation. President Emmanuel Macron thus contacted his Iranian counterpart, Massoud Pezechkian, to whom he expressed his strong grievances regarding the Iranian aggressions perpetrated against France and Iran's neighboring countries. For his part, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, Johann Wadephul, emphasized Germany's «total support» for the United States and Israel in the ongoing conflict, stating that «it is clear that the Iranian regime constitutes a danger for its neighbors, for the entire region, for freedom of navigation and for global economic development». «This danger must not continue to exist», noted the German minister. The British government, for its part, reiterated its criticism of the Iranian regime, specifying that it is undertaking contacts with European countries to guarantee the security of the Strait of Hormuz. Diplomatic contacts would indeed be underway between Western chancelleries to ensure the security of maritime navigation and guarantee oil exports without hindrance. This issue seems all the more vital as the blocking of the strait has had the predictable consequence of a surge in the price of oil on the international market, approaching the $110 per barrel mark. In this context, it should be noted that some social networks reported on Monday morning information indicating the commissioning by Saudi Arabia of a pipeline built in the Saudi desert and opening onto the Red Sea. This pipeline, the aforementioned sources affirm, was built many years ago to constitute an alternative route to the Strait of Hormuz in case of conflict. The military escalation At the level of military operations, the night of Sunday March 15 and the day of Monday March 16 saw a clear escalation on all «fronts». Israeli aviation thus launched intensive raids against the Iranian regime's infrastructure in Tehran. At the same time, the southern suburbs of Beirut and several sectors of the southern region were the target of very violent aerial bombardments. The Israeli air force raids seemed to provide cover for a new deployment of IDF armored units in certain southern areas where clashes with Hezbollah militiamen were also reported. It should be noted in this context that the Israeli Minister of Defense announced on Monday, making it clear that the IDF has begun a large-scale operation in South Lebanon aimed at destroying all Hezbollah infrastructure in the southern area of Lebanon. He added that the inhabitants of the villages south of the Litani will only return home when the security of the population of northern Israel is guaranteed. At the same time, missile fire and drone attacks intensified against the Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia indicated on Monday, in the early afternoon, that it had intercepted no less than 60 drones on Sunday night and Monday morning. The United Arab Emirates were not spared and air traffic at Dubai International Airport was temporarily interrupted due to a fire caused nearby by a missile strike. The vicinity of Baghdad airport was also targeted by Iranian drones and missiles. Finally, it should be noted that the mullahs' regime sent «to the Muslims of the world and to all Muslim countries» a message in which it urged them to take a clear stand on the current conflict. The Iranian power also threatened to target «American companies» in the Middle East.

The war between the Iranian Islamic Republic, on the one hand, and the American-Israeli axis, indirectly including Europe and the Gulf countries as well as Turkey, on the other hand, concludes its second week this Saturday, March 14. This first phase of the conflict focused essentially, on the Western side, on the elimination, from the first hours of the offensive on February 28, of some forty members of the Iranian military and political high command, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, followed by a massive and continuous aerial bombardment aimed at destroying the regime's military and administrative infrastructures. On the Iranian side, military operations consisted of ballistic missile and drone strikes directed against Israeli territory, but also against Gulf countries, alongside the reactivation, at dawn on March 2, of the South Lebanon front. The end of this second week of war was marked by a major development of great strategic significance: the bombing by American aviation of military and civilian installations and the air defense structure of the Iranian island of Kharg, located north of the Persian Gulf, about twenty kilometers from the Iranian coast. Often referred to as the 'jewel in the crown' of the Iranian oil industry or also Iran's 'energy Achilles' heel', Kharg Island has always represented Iran's true economic lung. And for good reason: nearly 90 percent of Iran's oil exports pass through this island, easily accessible by large supertankers due to its deep waters, unlike other ports. The island also offers an infrastructure that allows it to accommodate several supertankers simultaneously and store no less than 35 million barrels of oil. The highly strategic importance of Kharg Island allowed President Donald Trump to acquire a trump card in the standoff that emerged a few days ago around the Strait of Hormuz and the Pasdaran's attempts to block free maritime navigation on this vital transport route. The White House chief thus clearly emphasized on Saturday that American aviation had indeed destroyed the island's military, air, and maritime installations but refrained from attacking the oil infrastructure. For President Trump, the equation is clear: if the Iranian regime attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz, US aviation will destroy Kharg's oil facilities, which will lead to the economic and financial asphyxiation of the Islamic Republic. Oil exports are indeed Iran's main source of revenue. To match words with action, the American army decided to dispatch 2500 Marines as reinforcements to the Middle East and Gulf region, which fueled rumors circulating on Saturday about a possible US landing in Kharg to resolve the Strait of Hormuz issue. It seems evident in this context that the outcome of this delicate standoff will have a certain impact on the global oil price and consequently on the price of gasoline at the pump and consumer goods. This impact is already being felt as Iran continues its missile strikes against Gulf oil-producing countries, notably the United Arab Emirates where activity at the port of Fujairah was interrupted on Saturday due to a fire caused by a missile strike. The other 'hot spots' Regarding the other 'hot spots' of the conflict, Friday night and Saturday were marked by the now traditional air raids and missile strikes, targeting the southern suburbs and several villages in South Lebanon, as well as northern Israel and Galilee. In parallel, the Israeli army continued its slow advance in certain sectors of the country's southern region. The Israeli Minister of Defense emphasized in this regard that 'the conflict has entered a new phase', which lends credence to the theory of a possible prolonged Israeli occupation of the South Lebanon area located south of the Litani. Regionally, the US embassy in Baghdad was targeted by a missile strike which caused minor material damage, while the Iraqi government announced the adoption of special measures aimed at preventing any new aggression against French interests in Iraq, as was the case two days ago.