Today's Essential

The week is getting off to a relatively quiet start. The region’s main issues remain temporarily on hold, from the possible resumption of talks between Washington and Tehran to Israel’s withdrawal from two “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon. The pause is due in part to the official funeral ceremonies for Iran’s former Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, which conclude Thursday, as well as the NATO summit scheduled for Tuesday, July 7, and Wednesday, July 8, in Ankara. The gathering carries added significance as U.S. President Donald Trump is set to attend following months of tension with America’s European allies. Ahead of his departure for Turkey, Trump made it clear he is not backing down on Iran. Speaking at a White House press conference, he restated his priorities and renewed his threats against Tehran. “Either we make a deal or we finish the job. And finishing the job won’t be hard. I’d rather make a deal because I don’t want to hurt 91 million people,” he said, adding that the U.S. military can “knock down Iran’s bridges in one hour.” He continued in the same threatening tone: “We can knock out their electricity and power-generating plants and I would say a small part of an afternoon, every plant will be gone. And they know that. They don’t have any money now. We haven’t given them any money.” Trump also reiterated that he’s not looking for “a regime change in Iran, although in reality it is. The first regime is gone. The second regime is gone. I think the third one is more reasonable. We’ll see.” Donald Trump also reiterated that Washington intends to recover Iran’s nuclear “enriched material,” stressing once again that Iran “cannot have a nuclear weapon.” Asked about the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran seeks to keep under its control, the U.S. president said it was “a money machine.” The United States, along with Arab states and European countries, rejects any Iranian control over this strategic maritime passage. The U.S. president also expressed his willingness to help Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky bring an end to the war, now in its fifth year. “I think we are much closer to a deal than people realize. President Putin wants this war to end. President Zelensky also wants it to end. We will be going to the NATO summit in Ankara, where this will be discussed. And I think we’re going to be able to bring it to an end.” Macron in Damascus The White House confirmed that Donald Trump will meet on the sidelines of the NATO summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who was due to host French President Emmanuel Macron in Damascus later Monday evening. Macron is accompanied by a number of French business leaders. This marks the first visit by a French president to Damascus in nearly 17 years. Relations between France and Syria under Bashar al-Assad began to deteriorate after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri, an attack blamed on Damascus. France later severed diplomatic ties with the Syrian regime following the 2011 uprising and an attack on its embassy. The Franco-Syrian talks are focused primarily on the regional situation, which is also expected to be discussed in Washington during a meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump. Although the Israeli leader says the meeting has yet to be scheduled, it carries particular weight as negotiations between Washington and Tehran continue to progress with difficulty. This is all the more notable given that Trump had, at one point, shown some reluctance to receive Netanyahu at the White House. A Relative Respite in Lebanon The diplomatic pause has also reached Lebanon, where, according to the pan-Arab channel Al-Hadath, CENTCOM commander Admiral Brad Cooper is expected to return in the coming days to present Lebanese authorities with a proposal for a mechanism for a gradual Israeli withdrawal, in line with the security provisions of the Washington-backed framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel. In this context, President Joseph Aoun reiterated the importance of redeploying the Lebanese army along the entire southern border, while stressing the need to increase pressure on Israel to withdraw from the areas it still occupies in the south of the country. “The continued occupation undermines the legitimacy of the state, prevents the deployment of the army, and jeopardizes the foundations of a just and lasting peace,” he said during a video conference with representatives of the American Task Force for Lebanon. He also said that “there can be no civil war in Lebanon,” despite what he described as “attempts by some to rekindle sectarian tensions,” in an apparent reference to Hezbollah. On the ground, the situation in Lebanon remains volatile. The Israeli military continues demolition operations in several towns in Bint Jbeil, Marjayoun, and Nabatieh, as well as carrying out intermittent strikes. An attack on Nabatieh al-Fawqa killed three people on Monday: a school principal, her mother, and their domestic worker. The Israeli military also said it had uncovered large weapons stockpiles in the village of Haddatha, where it is carrying out extensive demolitions and which it describes as an operational base for Hezbollah. It said it had destroyed “dozens of military installations” in the area and seized more than 150 weapons. It also warned residents of border villages in the south to avoid hosting displaced people from areas it considers Hezbollah strongholds. In another development, comments by the Israeli prime minister suggesting that some border Christian villages had asked to be “annexed” by Israel for protection from Hezbollah sparked strong reactions in Lebanon. The claims were immediately rejected by municipalities, mukhtars, and local figures from around 15 villages, who described them as “completely unfounded” and reaffirmed their commitment to Lebanese state sovereignty. Dissolution of Gaza Government Another major regional development has emerged: Hamas announced the dissolution of its government in Gaza, nearly 20 years after seizing power in 2007, in order to facilitate the transfer of responsibilities to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG), a technocratic body established as part of talks preceding the October 2025 ceasefire. The move, which some analysts have received with skepticism, bears watching as it could reshape the Palestinian political landscape. Hamas said the decision was aimed at “depriving the occupation of any pretext” to continue the war, while reaffirming its willingness to hand over governing responsibilities to the new committee. The head of the NCAG, Ali Chaath, said the body was ready to assume its duties once the necessary resources were in place. Israel, however, appears unconvinced and is insisting on the disarmament of the Iran-backed group, as set out in the U.S.-brokered peace plan. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called the move “a ruse” designed to avoid disarmament. “As long as Hamas retains its weapons, any civilian government will, of course, operate under its directives,” he wrote on X. “Israel insists on full implementation of the Trump plan, whose core principles include the disarmament of Hamas and all other terrorist organizations, as well as the complete demilitarization of the Gaza Strip.”

On the surface, the situation in Lebanon — and, to a lesser extent, across the region — appears to be on "pause"… However, appearances can be deceiving, because in practice the pieces of the puzzle are gradually and quietly being put into place by players who are clearly in control of the game. To grasp the true scope of the game currently being played out in the Levant and well beyond, one need only draw connections between the maneuvers and actions — or "moves," as English speakers would say — of the decision-makers working to reshape the region's new geopolitical landscape. If one were to identify a broad guiding thread running through current developments, it would be the increasingly pronounced isolation of the Iranian regime on the international stage. Reuters reported on Friday, July 3, that NATO leaders, gathered in Ankara, are expected to declare that Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. But even more damaging for Tehran, NATO will explicitly call on the Islamic Republic to "fully respect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz." The European Union also adopted a firm stance along the same lines this week, rejecting any Iranian attempt to impose a transit fee — under the guise of "services rendered" — on vessels using this international waterway. This last point is currently the main battle cry of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Iran's key power centers. Speaking in a threatening tone laced with insulting arrogance toward the Trump administration, Iran's Parliament Speaker and chief nuclear negotiator Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf bluntly declared on Friday: "We will not allow the United States (!) to interfere in the Strait of Hormuz, and we will continue implementing navigation rules in the strait." Iran's stance on this issue is increasingly infuriating the US administration, prompting an American official to say 48 hours ago that "President Donald Trump's patience with Iran is beginning to wear thin." Other senior US officials told the Axios news site that American negotiators have made clear to Iranian delegates at this week's talks in Doha that Iran's insistence on imposing a transit fee in the Strait of Hormuz risks torpedoing the framework agreement between Washington and Tehran. The firm position taken by the Trump administration on this matter has the full backing of the EU, further deepening the Islamic Republic's isolation. These snags in the negotiation process with Tehran were likely raised during the phone call President Trump had on Friday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who may be received at the White House in the near future. Lebanon: Iran's trump card The second trump card to which the Iranian regime is desperately clinging — while wallowing in a state of complete denial in the face of new realities — is Lebanon. Mr. Ghalibaf pressed the point on this front, firmly putting the "Lebanon chapter" back on the table — referring to the memorandum of understanding signed with Washington in mid-June, as well as the agreement recently reached in Switzerland with US Vice President JD Vance — which reportedly grants Iran a direct role in the process of resolving the situation in the South, thereby reinforcing its grip on the Lebanese chessboard. In a statement made on Friday, Mr. Ghalibaf unabashedly invited "all Lebanese parties to work toward implementing the Lebanon-related provisions of the memorandum of understanding (signed with Washington), as doing so would prevent discord"(!) It should be recalled, however, that this Iranian attempt to reassert its tutelage over Lebanon came to nothing, following the framework agreement signed in mid-June by Lebanon and Israel in Washington, under the auspices of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This roadmap provides for a gradual mechanism under close American supervision, with the ultimate goal of withdrawing Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and deploying the Lebanese army, concurrent with the dismantling of Hezbollah's militant infrastructure. The sovereignty-driven dimension of this framework agreement — which completely decouples the Lebanese settlement process from the American-Iranian talks in Islamabad — was underscored once again on Friday by President Joseph Aoun and Lebanon's foreign minister, Joe Raggi. Receiving a university delegation and representatives of the Order of Physicians and the Lebanese Maronite Order, the head of state reaffirmed that the document signed between Lebanon and Israel enables the Lebanese state to take the southern file back into its own hands, ensuring that Lebanon alone is master of its decisions on this front and that it negotiates any settlement itself, rather than having a third country do so on its behalf. In a thinly veiled jab at Hezbollah, President Aoun noted that those who oppose the framework agreement signed with Israel react this way "because they have grown accustomed to living under tutelage…" Echoing the same sentiment, Lebanese Foreign Minister Joe Raggi reaffirmed the government's determination to take sole responsibility — free from any foreign diktat — for bringing the war to an end. Faced with the firm stance adopted by the Lebanese authorities, the Islamic Republic sees the Lebanese card slipping from its grasp and is consequently attempting to torpedo the framework agreement with Israel by orchestrating opposition to the document and trying to remotely stoke street unrest in order to bring down Nawaf Salam's government — with the aim of securing the agreement's cancellation, which would pave the way for a revival of Iranian involvement in Lebanon's internal political game. But here too, President Aoun was very firm on Friday, stressing that resorting to street pressure and internal strife in order to bring down the government constitutes a "red line that cannot be crossed." The multinational force project These attempts by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to reactivate their tutelage over Lebanon are running up against another major obstacle: the proposed establishment of a multinational force set to take over from UNIFIL, whose mandate expires at the end of the year. French and Italian leaders have already begun taking steps in this regard and enjoy the full support of the United States. A senior French official moreover paid tribute on Friday to the "positive role played by the US in Lebanon." And to further cement this crisis-resolution dynamic — one that is unfolding without the Islamic Republic — the European Union has taken care to emphasize its full support for the Lebanese-Israeli framework agreement and for the choices made by the Lebanese authorities in this regard, stressing the need to implement the terms of the document signed in Washington. The Iranian regime thus finds itself stripped of all its main cards, one by one. Confronted with such a situation, the radical wing of the regime is baring its claws, as illustrated by the frontal attacks it launches almost daily against the so-called "moderate" wing — most specifically against the sitting president and the speaker of parliament. And in the wake of such setbacks, certain political circles in Iran are reportedly floating a plan aimed at giving the Revolutionary Guards a new lease on life, albeit in a more "acceptable" or "tolerable" guise. Except that only a few naive or shamelessly opportunistic factions can still be fooled by such political posturing coming from the radical wing of the Islamic Republic.

Thursday’s headlines in Lebanon were dominated by the visit of Syrian Foreign Minister Assaad Chibani to Beirut, where he met with all of Lebanon’s leading political and religious figures, as well as representatives of the country’s main sectarian parties – with the notable exception of Hezbollah. For those who lived through the years of Syrian tutelage over Lebanon – or occupation, as some prefer to describe it – the visit was anything but ordinary, as were the statements that accompanied it. One of the most noteworthy came from President Joseph Aoun, who said he remained “committed to fraternal relations” between the two countries, founded on “coordination, cooperation, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.” This visit cannot be seen in isolation. It comes amid a recent wave of threats from U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting the use of Syrian forces to disarm Hezbollah – a possibility that Syrian officials, including President Ahmad al-Sharaa, have repeatedly and categorically denied. Chibani’s visit therefore appeared intended to reassure Lebanon’s leaders on this point. It is also worth bearing in mind the framework agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in Washington. The process excluded all Arab countries and reflected Beirut’s determination to keep the Lebanese track entirely separate from other regional issues. Syria’s new leadership is likely seeking to test the water and better understand the contours of the situation. Both in its symbolism and its substance, Chibani’s visit was met with a largely positive response on the Lebanese scene. He presented President Joseph Aoun with an invitation to pay an official visit to Syria. Statements emphasizing respect for the security and sovereignty of both countries were repeatedly made. The Syrian foreign minister repeatedly stressed Damascus’ determination to strengthen cooperation with Lebanon. As part of that effort, Chibani and Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam signed an agreement establishing a joint commission to deepen bilateral cooperation across all sectors, “in a manner that serves our shared interests,” as Salam put it. Meetings with a Wide Range of Figures Listing all the figures met by a Syrian minister during an official visit would no doubt be a tedious exercise, but it is nonetheless worth noting that he met a striking range of political and religious figures in a single day, including, notably (with Hezbollah excluded): President Aoun, Prime Minister Salam, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Maronite Patriarch Bechara al-Rai, Grand Mufti of the Republic Abdellatif Derian, former Progressive Socialist Party leader Walid Jumblatt, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, Kataeb Party leader Samy Gemayel, Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri, and Foreign Minister Joe Raggi. Chibani referred to Hezbollah only after his meeting with Berri, saying he remained “open” to such a meeting “if it serves the interests of both countries.” It should be recalled in this context that Hezbollah played a key role in supporting the former Damascus regime and has been fighting since 2011 against the groups from which Syria’s new leadership emerged. Clashes have repeatedly erupted along the border since the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, between groups affiliated with the pro-Iranian party and Syria’s new security forces. While the minister continued his tour in Beirut, an explosion rocked a café in central Damascus on Thursday around 3 p.m., leaving at least seven people dead and 22 injured, according to the Syrian Ministry of Health. Syrian authorities said the device was “improvised.” The AFP reported that it was the deadliest attack since a church bombing in June 2025 that killed 25 people. The attack was claimed by the Islamic State group. A Coalition or Not Against the Washington Agreement? In Lebanon too, the signing in Washington last Friday of the framework agreement between Lebanese and Israeli representatives continues to stir controversy. Reports suggesting the possible formation of a four-way coalition to bring it down in Parliament – uniting the blocs led by Nabih Berri, Walid Jumblatt, Gebran Bassil’s Free Patriotic Movement, and Hezbollah – are beginning to unravel. In the wake of Bassil’s visit to Berri on Wednesday, which fueled speculation, Thursday brought an unexpected development from Jumblatt. In remarks to the French-language daily L’Orient-Le Jour , he said he would “not be part of a coalition to bring down the framework agreement,” while still describing the text as a “misstep” by the state and calling for its revision. Jumblatt reiterated his criticism on the sidelines of the Syrian foreign minister’s visit to his residence in Beirut, speaking in somewhat cryptic terms. He said he “preferred a balanced relationship with Syria to an agreement that could be worse than the May 17 accord,” referring to the 1983 agreement between Lebanon and Israel. It was eventually abrogated, under the influence of the former Syrian regime of Hafez al-Assad. Against this at best ambivalent stance from Jumblatt and the openly hostile position of Hezbollah, whose MP Hassan Fadlallah once again described the text as a “capitulation”, Thursday also saw several sovereigntist parties step up their support for direct negotiations with Israel and for the efforts of Aoun and Salam. In an interview, the Lebanese Forces leader said the agreement was the only viable path to securing Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon, as well as Hezbollah’s disarmament, and the restoration of full Lebanese sovereignty. It should be noted in this context that Samy Gemayel and Michel Mouawad, head of the Independence Movement, met with President Aoun at the Baabda Palace, leading sizeable delegation. Both reaffirmed their support for the head of state. It is also worth noting a statement by Berri in an interview with a local newspaper on Thursday, in which he said he was “ready” for a compromise on the framework agreement, should there be the political will to do so. A potential political turning point? Negotiations after the funerals On Iran-U.S. negotiation track, the process has clearly been postponed until after the funeral ceremonies for former Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an Israeli strike at the very beginning of the war on February 28. The long-delayed funerals, originally scheduled for March, will last several days and are expected to be used by the Tehran authorities as an opportunity to rekindle a sense of allegiance among supporters of the Islamic Republic. Tensions between Washington and Tehran remain palpable. While Iran continues to assert control over the Strait of Hormuz, the United States on Thursday took a firm stance, insisting that conditions in the strait must return to their pre-war status – i.e. open to all navigation, according to statements reported by the al-Hadath channel. Also on Thursday, the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting over the war in the Middle East at Bahrain’s request. Meanwhile, Iran’s ambassador to the UN filed a complaint over recent remarks by Israel’s defense minister, who described Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei as a “target to be eliminated.”

Has the uncertainty surrounding the long-announced resumption of U.S.-Iran talks in Doha over the past two days brought negotiations back to square one? Probably not, though it’s a fair question to ask. The picture is more nuanced, but the road ahead is far from easy. Tehran and Washington seem reluctant to make any further concessions beyond those already made under the memorandum of understanding they signed on June 18. While Doha is expected to host U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner today, alongside an Iranian technical delegation that will be joined on Wednesday by Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, Qatari officials say that no direct high-level meeting with Iranian officials has been scheduled for now. Majed Al-Ansari, spokesperson for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, told a press conference earlier in the day that no direct meeting between U.S. and Iranian officials was planned in the coming days. Quoted by Iranian and Yemeni news agencies, Kazem Gharibabadi said the first round of technical discussions, through the designated working groups, would take place “once the necessary conditions have been met and after agreement has been reached on the date and venue.” He added that “consultations on this matter are ongoing through the countries serving as mediators.” On Wednesday, Gharibabadi is also due to meet with Qatari officials to discuss the $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets, Iran’s Foreign Ministry announced Tuesday evening. The frozen assets remain a priority for the Islamic Republic as it grapples with mounting financial difficulties. The Strait of Hormuz and Frozen Assets According to Majed Al-Ansari, U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who are in Qatar, will meet only with Qatari mediators and officials to assess the implementation of the memorandum of understanding signed in mid-June. The talks will cover a range of regional issues, including Iran and Lebanon. In other words, the mediators are once again at work in an effort to find common ground between the United States and Iran, which believes it has already made sufficient concessions under the memorandum of understanding. The key question now is how the disputes over the Strait of Hormuz and the frozen Iranian assets will be resolved. Tehran continues to assert what it describes as its right to control the strait, a prospect fiercely opposed by Arab states, the United States, and European countries. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson was unequivocal: Doha has no intention of accepting Iranian control of the strait. Majed Al-Ansari also confirmed that the frozen Iranian funds, whose release is provided for under the memorandum of understanding, have yet to be transferred. For its part, Tehran has maintained a hardline stance. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei warned that any violation of the memorandum of understanding by Washington would trigger an immediate response. “No action will go unanswered,” he said, referring to U.S. strikes on Iranian targets after Tehran attacked oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz through the shipping corridor established by Oman in coordination with Washington. Baghaei also stressed that the United States must honor its commitment to bring an end to the fighting on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon. According to him, Washington must, if necessary, compel Israel to comply with the terms of the agreement. Pezeshkian Condemns Attacks on Negotiators The importance of a ceasefire on the Lebanese front was also underscored by Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, who, during a visit to Qom Province, used the occasion to stress that the agreement with Washington had been concluded “in full coordination with Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and with the backing of the Supreme National Security Council.” His remarks, however, once again underscored the existence of two rival camps within Iran’s leadership. According to Iran International, Pezeshkian defended the U.S. negotiating team by stressing that it had coordinated every step of the process with Mojtaba Khamenei. “Unfortunately, certain groups, echoing the psychological warfare being waged by hostile media outlets, are seeking to undermine this achievement by attacking the negotiating team and casting doubt on national decisions,” he said. According to Iran International, the remarks come as his administration faces mounting pressure from ultraconservative factions opposed to dialogue with Washington. The outlet notes that several hardline figures have accused the president and his negotiating team of making concessions, while also questioning the Supreme Leader’s backing for key security decisions. Waiting Game in Lebanon In Lebanon, where the framework agreement with Israel is also meeting resistance, implementation of its provisions is still pending. The deal calls for, among other things, a gradual Israeli withdrawal from areas currently occupied in southern Lebanon, where regular forces are to be deployed, as well as the phased dismantling of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure. Israel, as noted, is expected to withdraw first from “pilot zones,” in an operation coordinated with U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), whose commander, Admiral Brad Cooper, visited Beirut and Tel Aviv on Monday. The day after the visit, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun met with the army commander, General Rodolphe Haykal, for talks on the military’s role in implementing the framework agreement. On the ground, the situation remains volatile. Israeli artillery targeted the villages of Hebbariyeh in the Marjayoun district, Beit Yahoun in the Bint Jbeil district, and Majdel Zoun in the Tyre district. The latter has now been split in two following the demolition of an underground Hezbollah tunnel, which triggered a massive explosion. Meanwhile, Israeli media reported a visit by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz to the sector controlled by the Israeli army in southern Lebanon. Speaking to troops, Netanyahu said that Israel “has begun dismantling what he called the Iranian axis, by striking the Islamic Republic directly and establishing a buffer zone in southern Lebanon.” He said the army would remain in the south of the country “as long as Hezbollah is not disarmed and continues to pose a threat to Israel.” He also stated that the group’s military arsenal “is only 8 percent of what it was before the war,” and that “9,000 fighters have been eliminated.”

Uncertainty persisted at the start of the week over when technical talks between Tehran and Washington would resume, after both sides agreed last Tuesday in Switzerland to establish four working groups dedicated to sanctions relief, nuclear issues, and reconstruction. Strained by the military standoff over the Strait of Hormuz — where Iran is seeking to impose total control — and Tehran's refusal to allow IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear sites, talks between the two capitals have nonetheless not broken down, according to multiple corroborating sources cited by AFP and American media outlets. On Monday, President Donald Trump announced on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Iranian officials had requested a follow-up meeting and that it was set to take place on Tuesday in Doha. That announcement was quickly denied by Tehran, which stated that no meeting or technical working group session was planned for this week in Qatar. The White House, however, confirmed that the two American negotiators, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, are expected to travel to Qatar "for high-level meetings," though no date was given. According to the American news site Axios, they would be in Doha on Tuesday for talks with Qatari officials. On Wednesday, the American and Iranian technical delegations tasked with implementing the memorandum of understanding signed on June 18 are each set to meet separately with Qatari and Pakistani mediators, Axios reported. A diplomat described by AFP as being close to the matter confirmed to the French news agency that communication channels between the two countries remain open — meaning in practical terms that the mediation, jointly led by Qatar and Pakistan, has resumed following the recent escalation of tensions and exchange of threats between the two sides. On Monday, calm had been restored on the US-Iran front: the exchange of threats that had flared up following Iranian attacks late last week on tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz had ceased, as had Iranian drone strikes and American counterstrikes. This calm appears to have been reached by mutual agreement, as a US official announced Sunday evening a suspension of mutual attacks in order to allow technical discussions to continue and to maintain freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. However, the situation is far from resolved, with Tehran remaining intransigent over its self-proclaimed right to control this strategic maritime chokepoint. The Islamic Republic had counted on the cooperation of the Sultanate of Oman to set a precedent in violation of international maritime law, but was quickly disappointed. Muscat reaffirmed on Monday that it will take no action contrary to that law, but that it remains willing to discuss with Tehran the possibility of fees being imposed in exchange for guaranteed services. Monopoly on arms in Iraq — what about Lebanon? Still at the regional level, another development deserves attention due to its strategic significance. The Iraqi government has given pro-Iranian armed factions a three-month deadline to hand over their weapons — a deadline that expires on September 30. The announcement comes as Iraq's new Prime Minister, Ali al-Zaidi, is expected to visit the United States, which has long called for the disarmament of these factions, and in the wake of an unprecedented crackdown within Iraqi political circles. At least 200 people — including numerous members of parliament, former ministers, and businessmen — were detained as part of an operation conducted under the banner of the fight against corruption. Tens of millions of dollars were seized from certain residences. These two operations reflect the determination of Iraq's leadership to break free from the influence of the Islamic Republic, which has not responded to the announcement. They cannot be separated from the broader transformation process the region has been undergoing since the Israeli-American military operation against Iran. At the political level, Iraq and Lebanon share many similarities, particularly regarding Iranian influence and its destabilizing effect on both countries. The key difference between them, however, lies in the capacity and willingness to act: in Iraq, the decision to curb the grip of armed factions has translated into concrete measures, whereas in Lebanon, the same decision taken in August 2025 continues to meet with reluctance over its implementation. It remains unclear and is now contingent on a set of measures outlined in the framework agreement reached last week between Beirut and Tel Aviv in Washington. The first phase of this agreement calls for an Israeli withdrawal from 'pilot zones' in southern Lebanon — a withdrawal that has yet to take place. The arrival in Beirut of CENTCOM commander Admiral Brad Cooper — who held talks with Army Commander General Rodolphe Haykal and President Joseph Aoun focused on preparations for implementing the document signed in Washington — signals the beginning of this process. Israel also appears to be preparing for gradual, partial withdrawals up to the Blue Line, as evidenced by the large-scale demolition of Hezbollah tunnels in Majdal Zoun and the destruction of homes in other villages, including Haddatha. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reiterated on Monday that his country will not withdraw from Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remains armed, while the pro-Iranian group flatly refuses to give up its weapons. While the tension that manifested on the ground through protests among Hezbollah's base following the signing of the Lebanese-Israeli agreement has eased somewhat on the political front, it remains very much alive. Militia leaders continue to warn against any attempt at disarmament, repeatedly reaffirming their determination to resist the diplomatic process underway between Beirut and Tel Aviv. For now, however, calm prevails. The Amal-Hezbollah tandem is not considering an escalation, at least 'for the time being.' Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry, who is also opposed to the Lebanese-Israeli agreement, expressed his commitment to the country's stability and the preservation of calm during a phone call with Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. Through one of its officials, Mahmoud Qomati, Hezbollah indicated that it does not currently plan to withdraw its ministers from the government, even as it claimed that 'Hezbollah has the means to bring it down.' WLCU welcomes the agreement Despite these dissenting voices — all moving within the same orbit — and the reservations expressed by certain politicians, including Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, regarding specific provisions of the Lebanese-Israeli document, the framework agreement enjoys broad consensus insofar as it removes Lebanon from Iranian influence and would prevent southern Lebanon from continuing to serve as an echo chamber for regional conflicts. The World Lebanese Cultural Union (WLCU), the main body representing Lebanese diaspora communities, welcomed the agreement on Monday, stating in a communiqué signed by its president, Fares Wehbe, that the process initiated by the Lebanese authorities 'is in keeping with the Head of State's inaugural address and with the government's decisions aimed at restoring to the State, exclusively, the authority to decide on war and peace.' For the WLCU, as Farès Wehbé emphasizes, this process is a "first step toward restoring Lebanon's full sovereignty over its entire national territory" and it "reconnects with the tradition of bold Lebanese diplomacy that existed in the aftermath of independence, before the power to decide war and peace was stripped from state authority." "For the first time in several decades, the country is negotiating in its own name and in the interest of its nation," Mr. Wehbé notes, adding that "Lebanese people, both at home and around the world, are longing to rediscover a normal Lebanon — one where culture, the arts, life, and joy will once again take precedence over the language of arms." The WLCU president also expressed his commitment to supporting the president and government in this endeavor, while calling on the Lebanese people "to remain vigilant and to thwart any attempt to sow chaos, especially given that certain armed factions, tied to a deeply entrenched system of corruption within the deep state, have a vested interest in keeping the arms issue under the sway of regional power dynamics." "What has been achieved must now be preserved through serious and sustained commitment, not celebrated as an end in itself," the WLCU statement emphasizes, reaffirming that "the independence Lebanon aspires to must be complete and definitive."

After nearly two months of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, a 'framework agreement' between the two countries was signed on Saturday evening (Beirut time), on the fourth day of the fifth round of talks held at the State Department in Washington, under the supervision of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The ceremony took place in the presence of Mr. Rubio and negotiators from both countries, including, on the Lebanese side, former Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Simon Karam and U.S. Ambassador to Beirut Michel Issa. The document was signed by Lebanon's Ambassador to the United States, Nada Hamadé Moawad, and Israel's Ambassador, Yechiel Leiter, both of whom delivered brief remarks, thanking the Trump Administration for its efforts and highlighting the significance of the occasion. This framework agreement marks the first official diplomatic act concluded between Lebanon and Israel since the signing of the (aborted) May 17 Accord in 1983. This outcome of five rounds of negotiations represents, it should be noted, a first step that will be followed by future, lengthy negotiations aimed at securing a full Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, alongside a process of Hezbollah disarmament. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu indicated on Saturday evening that this first step will pave the way for further agreements, with the ultimate goal — as Ambassador Leiter noted on Saturday evening — being a future peace agreement between the two countries. In practical terms, the document calls for the immediate establishment of two 'pilot zones,' one of which is located north of the Litani River, where the Lebanese army will be required to deploy in order to prevent any militia presence in those areas. An Israeli source indicated late in the evening that the army deployment will take place with direct American support, which could translate into the provision of U.S. military advisors. This is therefore a starting point that will be followed by further steps, progressively leading to an Israeli withdrawal as local regular forces deploy and Hezbollah is disarmed. In this regard, on the instructions of President Joseph Aoun, the Lebanese delegation insisted that the framework agreement explicitly mention the necessity of a 'full withdrawal' of Israeli forces from South Lebanon. Regarding the scope of this agreement, the Israeli Prime Minister's office stated on Saturday evening that 'the Hezbollah disarmament process provided for in the document will be implemented both south and north of the Litani River.' Above all, however, it is the geopolitical significance of this framework agreement that is drawing the attention of analysts and political circles in Lebanon. The document effectively enshrines the sidelining of Iran from the process of resolving the Lebanese crisis and the South Lebanon issue. In recent weeks, the mullahs' regime spared no effort in trying to secure a direct Iranian role in efforts to find a way out of the Lebanese conflict, particularly in the South. During recent negotiations between the Trump Administration and the Islamic Republic, Iranian leaders had set the complete halt of Israeli military operations in the South as a precondition for any agreement with Washington. This insistence barely concealed Tehran's desire to carve out a prominent role for itself in any political resolution process in Lebanon. This role, claimed by the Revolutionary Guards, appeared to have been acknowledged during U.S.-Iranian discussions that began this week in Switzerland under the supervision of U.S. Vice President JD Vance. Those talks had resulted in an understanding aimed at including Iran in a process to oversee the situation in South Lebanon. However, the Washington framework agreement signed Saturday evening rules out any involvement of the Islamic Republic — and by extension Hezbollah — thereby confining peacemaking efforts and the restoration of Lebanese security and sovereignty strictly to a Lebanese-Israeli framework under exclusive American supervision. This explains Hezbollah's swift reaction late Saturday evening. Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah reverted to the familiar refrain of a "civil war" threat, claiming that the Washington agreement is designed to undermine the Islamabad process — which is clearly aimed at reviving Iran's dominant regional role, particularly in Lebanon. On the political reaction front, the Secretary of State declared late Saturday evening that this framework agreement "lays the groundwork for a clearly defined process aimed at restoring Lebanon's sovereignty, disarming Hezbollah, and dismantling its infrastructure." President Joseph Aoun, for his part, emphasized that the goal is "the establishment of exclusive Lebanese state sovereignty over its territory." "There must no longer be any question of occupation, dependency, or guardianship," he said, in a barely veiled allusion to Iran's attempts to impose its hegemony over the Lebanese political scene. Military escalation, Hormuz, and Ali al-Taher On the military operations front, it is worth noting that the conclusion of the Washington framework agreement was preceded by the Israeli army's announcement, earlier in the afternoon, of its "full control over the Ali al-Taher hill," whose strategic importance is undeniable. "We now have complete control over the Ali al-Taher hill, and as a result Hezbollah has lost the stronghold from which it threatened Israeli territory," the Israeli military command stated. The capture of the Ali al-Taher hill carries not only military significance but also represents a fundamental geopolitical gain for Israel. The underground network beneath this area was transformed by the Revolutionary Guards into an extensive system of tunnels and infrastructure, including well-equipped command rooms and large warehouses storing missiles and various munitions. Dozens of Hezbollah militants and, most notably, several senior officers and commanders from the Revolutionary Guards are now reportedly trapped inside these tunnels with no way out following the Israeli army's seizure of the area. This development prompted an Israeli military source to assert that full Israeli control over Ali al-Taher "marks the end of Iran's and Hezbollah's role" in the region. Nevertheless, the pro-Iranian party flatly denied late Saturday evening that the hill had fallen into Israeli hands. On the broader regional front, President Donald Trump accused the Islamic Republic of violating the ceasefire agreement, stating that Iran had launched four drones toward vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. Three of those drones were shot down in the area by U.S. forces, the American president noted, adding that the fourth drone struck the upper section of a large commercial vessel head-on, causing significant damage. In this context, an Iranian media outlet reported Saturday that "a direct line of communication had been established between the Americans and Iranians to prevent any incidents in the Strait of Hormuz." This claim was subsequently categorically denied by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Shortly before midnight, the US military announced that it had carried out strikes against Iranian targets in the Strait area. The military command specified that US aircraft had launched raids against missile and drone storage facilities and radar stations, in retaliation for the Iranian attack on the merchant vessel.

On the third day of the fifth round of Lebanese-Israeli talks in Washington, what were described as difficult discussions between the two Lebanese and Israeli politico-military delegations were expected to yield a statement of intent outlining the framework for more substantive negotiations and future cooperation between Lebanon, Israel, and the United States. The statement of intent was set to be announced and signed by Lebanon and Israel at 11 p.m. Beirut time, but the announcement was delayed as discussions between the two sides continued. According to several consistent sources, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is throwing his full weight behind efforts to bring Lebanon and Israel to sign the statement. Meanwhile, a number of isolated incidents were reported throughout Thursday's day and evening between the Israeli army and Hezbollah militants. Shortly before midnight, Israeli aircraft carried out a strike on the village of Beit Yahoun, in the Bint Jbeil district. The debates on this final day of the fifth round of talks unsurprisingly centered on the Israeli withdrawal and the future of Hezbollah's military arsenal. These are two issues on which the two sides were struggling to reach agreement, even as the U.S. Secretary of State, currently touring the Gulf, spoke of progress in the talks. For Israel, under heavy American pressure to pull back at least to the Blue Line, the equation is straightforward: no withdrawal as long as the pro-Iranian group retains its weapons and poses a threat to the country's north. Lebanon, for its part, reaffirms its determination to extend its sovereignty over its entire territory and argues that the continued presence of the Israeli army in the South would complicate that effort. Beirut is therefore demanding a full Israeli withdrawal as a precondition, while Tel Aviv wants the Lebanese army to deploy in the South before its forces pull back. The two sides were also struggling to reach agreement on the 'pilot zones,' which would serve as the starting point for an Israeli withdrawal whose timeline has yet to be established. According to Yediot Aharonot , Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly succeeded in convincing Donald Trump to stop calling for a withdrawal, on the condition that Washington is brought into the 'pilot zones' project in the South, from which Israel would gradually withdraw in exchange for a strengthened deployment of the Lebanese army. Netanyahu also reaffirmed, in a speech late in the day, that his troops would maintain a presence in 'the security zones in Gaza and Lebanon' and that 'missions have yet to be carried out against Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.' Tel Aviv has admittedly scaled back its operations in the southern part of the country significantly, but its army continues to eliminate Hezbollah fighters. Three people were killed in a drone strike that targeted a vehicle near Mayfadoune, in the Nabatiyeh district. The Lebanese file is, as is well known, embedded in the talks between Washington and Tehran, at the insistence of the Islamic Republic, which seeks to retain its grip over any process affecting the country's fate and has appointed itself Lebanon's spokesperson—despite Lebanon's official rejection of any Iranian interference in its affairs. Dismissing the criticism leveled by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam at Tehran's behavior, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, Esmail Qaani, once again declared that Israel must leave 'the entirety of Lebanese territory' of its own accord, or else be 'forced to flee in defeat.' Tehran continues to make an unconditional Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon a condition for the continuation of its negotiations with Washington. For their part, the United States and Gulf countries reaffirmed, in a joint statement issued at the close of the Gulf Cooperation Council ministerial conference held in Manama, the need to keep the two diplomatic processes underway in Washington and Switzerland separate. Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc echoed the IRGC's position, urging the Lebanese state to 'take advantage of Iranian support' and warning it against 'making concessions to Tel Aviv.' Israel responded immediately through Defense Minister Israel Katz, who announced that his country 'will strike Iran hard if it attacks us because of our operations in Lebanon.' Standoff over the Strait of Hormuz At the regional level, the standoff over the Strait of Hormuz intensified sharply on Thursday, as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps rejected an Omani initiative — backed by Washington and the Gulf states — aimed at securing navigation through this strategically vital waterway. This development threatens to complicate the ongoing diplomatic efforts toward regional peace, particularly as Iran — which is proclaiming itself the victor in its confrontation with the United States and Israel, while grappling with serious financial and economic difficulties — is seeking to maximize gains of this kind. According to the Wall Street Journal, transit tolls could earn Tehran up to $40 billion per year — enough to bail out the regime, especially if its assets remain frozen by Washington. In a sign of an emerging crisis, a tanker was 'struck by an explosive device of undetermined origin southeast of an Omani port,' the British Navy announced late in the day. Three other cargo vessels, including a tanker, passing through the same corridor were forced to turn back, according to the same source. Tehran had counted on Oman to help it sidestep international pressure and impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz, but the sultanate quickly distanced itself from that position, announcing two new temporary shipping lanes established along its coastline in coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Oman's Foreign Minister, Badr al-Busaidi, assured that no 'transit fees' would be imposed, while clarifying that Muscat was continuing discussions with Tehran regarding costs related to certain administrative and maritime security services. While this decision was broadly welcomed by the Gulf states, the Revolutionary Guards — who are intent on maintaining control over one of the world's key energy transit points — immediately rejected it. In a counter-statement, they declared that 'the only authorized routes for transiting the Strait of Hormuz are those announced by the Islamic Republic of Iran.' Accusing Muscat of failing to consult them, they warned that any vessel taking an alternative route would face 'sanctions,' without specifying their nature. The American response was swift. In Bahrain, where he was attending the GCC ministerial conference, Marco Rubio flatly rejected any notion of tolls or fees in the strait, stating that 'no country can claim ownership of an international waterway.' For Washington, the issue goes far beyond the Gulf. American officials fear that a precedent set at Hormuz could embolden other powers to monetize passage through strategic straits around the world, which would cause 'total chaos,' Rubio warned. It remains to be seen what impact this episode will have on US-Iran negotiations. On one hand, the Revolutionary Guards believe that any concession regarding Hormuz would be tantamount to a loss of regional influence. On the other hand, while the United States is eager to reach a deal with Iran, it is not willing to do so 'at any price,' Marco Rubio reaffirmed in Manama. The U.S. Secretary of State reiterated that no provision of a future agreement with Iran should jeopardize the "security, stability, or prosperity" of Gulf states, in an obvious attempt to reassure these monarchies, as a new round of technical talks between American and Iranian experts is scheduled to take place in Switzerland later this month. This commitment was reflected in the final communiqué of the Manama ministerial conference. The issue of ballistic missiles was included in the statement, even though it does not appear in the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding and Tehran refuses, on the grounds of regional balance of power, to have this matter made subject to negotiations. The Gulf states' foreign ministers called on Washington to include the issue of Iranian missiles and Tehran-backed armed groups in the talks aimed at bringing a lasting end to the war in the Middle East. "Sustainable regional peace and security require addressing the full range of Iranian threats, including its ballistic missiles, drones, and support for armed groups in the region," the GCC ministers stated.

The second day of the 5th round of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, held on Wednesday, June 24, at the State Department in Washington, focused on examining the concrete mechanism to be put in place to "manage" the partial — and at this stage symbolic — withdrawal of Israeli forces from certain sectors of the border region. In line with the ongoing discussions on this plan, the Lebanese army will need to progressively replace Israeli units as they gradually withdraw. Sources generally considered well-informed note that this handover will be carried out by Lebanese army units supervised and under the "security" and operational control of the American military command. The ongoing talks in Washington on this matter will continue for a third day on Wednesday, June 25. Regarding the ultimate goal of these Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, a senior State Department official stated on Wednesday that the Trump administration is working to "put a definitive end to the cycles of violence between Lebanon and Israel." He added, in order to clearly define the framework of the talks — no doubt to keep them well removed from the hegemonic media posturing of the mullahs' regime — that "Lebanon and Israel are negotiating in their capacity as sovereign states to achieve peace." While the talks of this fifth round have yet to yield clear results, a fragile and tense calm continues to prevail on the ground in the southern zone along the border with Israel. This lull is nonetheless marked almost daily by isolated security incidents, as was the case on Wednesday when the Israeli army shot and killed two Hezbollah militants who were approaching Israeli positions in the area of the strategic hill of Ali el-Taher. At the same time, an Israeli drone fired a rocket at a car traveling on the road to Kfar Remman (Nabatiyeh district). Two people were killed in the strike. Late in the afternoon, another drone strike was reported in Nabatiyeh el-Fawqa, while artillery fire was directed at the village of Yater, in the Bint Jbeil district. These isolated incidents come as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated on Wednesday that the Jewish state "has not concluded its operation in South Lebanon," emphasizing that as long as he remains Prime Minister, the Israeli army will not fully withdraw from the buffer zone it is working to establish and consolidate in southern Lebanon in order to secure northern Israel. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also indicated on Wednesday that the Trump administration has not asked Israel to withdraw from South Lebanon. To close out this Lebanese file — which appears to be moving forward in "small steps" — it should be noted that President Joseph Aoun reaffirmed on Wednesday that the Washington negotiations are entirely separate from the American-Iranian talks initiated in Switzerland. The Regional Dimension On the regional front, three core issues continue to fuel disagreements between the Americans and Iranians over the interpretation and understanding of the framework agreement reached between the two sides. The Trump administration — and the president himself in particular — misses no opportunity to assert that experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency will indeed inspect Iranian nuclear sites, a claim the Iranian regime's leadership consistently and categorically denies. At the same time, President Trump makes clear that the Iranian assets to be unfrozen will be used exclusively to purchase wheat, corn, and soybeans directly from the American market on behalf of the Iranian population, which would benefit U.S. farmers and producers. This approach is, however, rejected by senior officials in Tehran, who repeatedly make clear to anyone willing to listen that it is solely up to the Iranian leadership to decide how the assets unfrozen by the U.S. Administration will be used. Another point of contention between Washington and Tehran is the management of international maritime navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian regime continues to push on multiple fronts to impose, as a fait accompli, its control and sovereignty over the strait by charging fees for administrative, "ecological," and "security" services allegedly provided to vessels passing through this waterway. This is clearly a toll by another name… which prompted President Trump to state on Wednesday that if Iran moves to impose a disguised toll in the Strait of Hormuz, he will simply and outright halt negotiations with Tehran…

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

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