Today's Essential

The Strait of Hormuz and Lebanon: two key military-diplomatic "weapons" Iran intends to wield to strengthen its position in negotiations with the United States, which are set to unfold over 60 days according to the memorandum signed Wednesday by both parties. Iran announced on Saturday that it was once again "closing" the strategic Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for Israeli strikes on Lebanon, while stopping short of breaking off talks aimed at reaching a final agreement with the US, which are due to begin Sunday in Switzerland. Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaïl Baghaï warned the United States on Saturday that the initial protocol would be "at risk" if its provisions were not implemented swiftly, in an apparent reference to the situation in Lebanon. "We hold Washington directly responsible for the Israeli attacks against Lebanon, and this escalation threatens regional security and stability," Baghaï stated, adding, in a barely veiled threat directed at the Trump administration, that Tehran would take all necessary measures to protect its interests, its security, and the rights of its allies. Meanwhile, the news agency Tasnim , affiliated with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, called for the suspension of negotiations and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. On Saturday evening, the Iranian army's central command stepped in with its own propaganda move, announcing that "the Strait of Hormuz will be closed to maritime traffic" as a "first measure in response to the enemy's violation of its commitments" (a reference to the US). It threatened to take "further measures" if necessary "to compel the enemy (the US) to honor its obligations" under the memorandum of understanding. CNN, citing a source, reported that Washington had informed Tehran that Israel had agreed to a ceasefire following the strikes on Lebanon, and that it was now up to Hezbollah to halt its attacks. In an initial response, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) stated that its forces remained "vigilant." According to CENTCOM, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continued normally on Saturday, with 55 merchant vessels passing through. "Technical talks" Sunday in Switzerland Regardless, Iran's Foreign Ministry announced that "technical" discussions between Iranian and American officials would take place Sunday in Switzerland, with representatives from Qatar and Pakistan — the mediating countries — also present. Members of the Iranian delegation include chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also serves as Speaker of Parliament, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, and Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati, according to state television. Islamabad confirmed that these "technical talks" would take place Sunday in Bürgenstock, near Lake Lucerne. According to US Vice President J. D. Vance, envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner are already in Switzerland to "manage some of the technical elements of this negotiation." "Preparatory" discussions even began on Saturday among diplomats, according to Bern. More than 4,000 dead in Lebanon In Lebanon, despite fresh ceasefire announcements, Israel and the pro-Iranian Hezbollah movement have been clashing for two days in the south, where Israeli operations killed at least 24 people on Saturday, following 83 deaths the day before. Israeli operations in Lebanon have killed 4,057 people since the war between Hezbollah and Israel began on March 2, Lebanon's Health Ministry announced Saturday. The Israeli military announced that one of its soldiers was killed Saturday during fighting in southern Lebanon, bringing its total losses to five since the conclusion of an Iran-US agreement aimed at ending the conflict in Iran. Israel said it was targeting Hezbollah positions in retaliation for attacks on its troops. According to the Israeli military, "more than 50 projectiles" were fired by the Shiite organization at its soldiers overnight from Friday to Saturday. For its part, Hezbollah declared that Israel was "fully responsible" for the ceasefire violations. The "Ali al-Taher" stronghold The Israelis announced details on Saturday about ongoing military operations, stating that "dozens of Hezbollah fighters are trapped in tunnels beneath the hill of Ali al-Taher, in southern Lebanon." The newspaper Yediot Ahronoth, citing military sources, reported that the Israeli army has besieged dozens of Hezbollah fighters in the area, which the military says houses a central underground complex belonging to the pro-Iranian militia, as well as the headquarters of the Badr Brigade. The newspaper added that the operation, during which a tank crew and a battalion commander were killed, aimed to seize the tunnels in the Ali al-Taher area as part of ongoing military operations. The Ali al-Taher site, where launch systems are operational and large quantities of weapons are stored, is extremely difficult to target through airstrikes alone, given its depth and fortifications. Vance's message to Lebanese Christians On a separate front, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance addressed Lebanese Christians during a Fox News interview, urging them to "hold firmly to their faith in Jesus Christ." He added: "Know that you have many friends within the U.S. government who are working toward peace in the region." Vance explained that "the core problem facing these Christians, or the reason for their great vulnerability to violence, is the presence of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has effectively embedded itself in Lebanon. Hezbollah occasionally fires on Israelis, who naturally respond in self-defense." He went on to say: "So there is an ongoing, albeit low-intensity conflict. However, the situation has improved significantly in recent weeks thanks to the efforts of the President, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and many other administration officials." He concluded: "Peace sometimes takes time to take lasting hold, and that is what we are working toward. In truth, that is the goal we are pursuing throughout the entire region: changing the way we have acted in the past. It is a truly beautiful part of the world."

The renewed escalation of violence between Hezbollah and the Israeli military deployed in southern Lebanon, along with the simultaneous postponement of the American-Iranian talks that were set to open today, Friday, in Switzerland, confirms fears surrounding the terms of the memorandum of understanding reached between Tehran and Washington — terms widely seen as favoring the Islamic Republic. These concerns center on the risk of Lebanon being reduced to a mere mailbox in the context of the upcoming negotiations, which everyone knows will be lengthy and grueling, if not riddled with obstacles. The escalation raises, above all, the question of what strategy Iran is pursuing. This is a legitimate question given that Friday's outbreak of violence was triggered by a deadly Hezbollah attack — Iran's military arm in Lebanon — on an Israeli position overnight between Thursday and Friday. The fighting lasted nearly the entire day and ended thanks to yet another ceasefire between the two adversaries, brokered under pressure from Washington, but against a backdrop carrying a very significant Iranian political signal. For no sooner had the ceasefire been announced than Iran's Foreign Ministry reported contacts made by mediators to hold a first round of talks "within the coming days." It also implied that the Islamic Republic is in no rush to enter into them. "Now that the agreement with Washington has been signed electronically, the Switzerland meeting is no longer urgent," stated the Iranian Foreign Ministry communiqué, which also outlined the agenda for the discussions: clauses 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of the framework agreement — issues of direct interest to Tehran, as they relate to a ceasefire on all fronts including Lebanon, the lifting of the American naval blockade, the management of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of U.S. sanctions imposed on Tehran, and the unfreezing of Iranian assets. Washington, for its part, provided no specific indication of the content of the upcoming discussions, fueling fears that the negotiation process will unfold amid ongoing conflict in Lebanon and on terms dictated by the interests of the Islamic Republic, which continues to hold the Lebanese card as a bargaining chip. At the same time, Iranian officials insisted on the need to protect the Islamic Republic's national interests in the forthcoming talks with Washington. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of Parliament and chief negotiator with the Americans, affirmed that Iran would remain committed to its "red lines" during the upcoming nuclear negotiations. He warned that Tehran was prepared to respond firmly to any attempt at excessive pressure by the United States. This combination of factors lends Friday's escalation a political dimension that goes well beyond the Lebanese context, raising fears of similar episodes over the next 60 days. Forty-seven killed in a matter of hours Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon and in the Baalbek region killed at least 47 people and wounded 97, according to official figures. Hezbollah's overnight drone attack on an Israeli position near Nabatieh killed four Israeli soldiers, including one officer. The Israeli army responded by striking "150 Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa," military and political authorities of the Jewish state confirmed. The intensity of the raids triggered a massive exodus from southern Lebanon, compounded by the escalating threats against Lebanon from far-right Israeli ministers, even as Hezbollah fighters continued to target Israeli positions in turn. Washington quickly stepped in to prevent the exchange of fire from spiraling out of control. A ceasefire was set to take effect shortly after 4 p.m. Hezbollah indicated it would comply, provided Israel did the same. For its part, Israel reaffirmed its commitment to the truce, on the condition that the Iran-backed group refrain from violating it. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was expected to speak with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who again struck a firm tone on Friday. The Israeli leader made clear that his military would remain in southern Lebanon "for as long as necessary" and pledged to continue operations to ensure the security of northern Israel. Rubio was also set to hold a phone call with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun. Earlier, an Israeli military spokesman said at a press conference that Tel Aviv would continue its operations in the areas it occupies in southern Lebanon "in order to destroy Hezbollah's military infrastructure and neutralize any threat to its territory, until it receives new directives." "Recent events have demonstrated one thing: Israeli soldiers must stand between Hezbollah and Israeli civilians," he stated. He explained in particular that the Iran-backed group has established a large underground military headquarters in the area around Beaufort Castle, and that its relentless attacks against Israeli forces are aimed at "preventing them from destroying these facilities." Accusations that the Iran-backed group rejected. Its leader, Naim Qassem, was expected to reaffirm early in the evening the legitimacy of "resistance operations against the occupying Israeli army" and to accuse Israel of never having honored the commitments made under a first ceasefire agreement reached in November 2024. In his view, Lebanon is "going through one of the most dangerous periods in its history, because of the Israeli-American conspiracy, which we cannot bow to." "An attack on the truce" In the face of this fresh outbreak of violence, President Joseph Aoun condemned a "dangerous and reprehensible escalation," arguing that the Israeli strikes "directly undermined the diplomatic efforts undertaken in recent days, as well as ongoing efforts to consolidate the ceasefire and bring the war to an end." For Beirut, the timing of this escalation is particularly worrying. It comes just days before the resumption of direct peace talks with Israel, scheduled for June 23 in Washington and rejected by Hezbollah.

Since a ceasefire in Lebanon was mentioned in the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States – the text of which was released by the State Department on Wednesday evening (see below) – speculation has been rife over what developments may in the country in the short term. Not only does the ceasefire remain extremely fragile, but uncertainty also surrounds a possible Israeli troop withdrawal and the central issue of Hezbollah’s disarmament. While the party and its Iranian backers have already declared “victory” following the conclusion of the framework agreement, several developments on Wednesday cast doubt on that narrative advanced by the Iranian camp. The first came from the G7 leaders, gathered in Evian, France. In a joint statement, the leaders of the world’s major powers called for an “immediate and durable” ceasefire in Lebanon. They also expressed support for efforts by the Lebanese authorities to disarm Hezbollah and ensure that the Lebanese state retains sole authority over weapons. The G7 statement further reiterated “the threats posed by Iran to the region,” stressing that Teheran “must never acquire a nuclear weapon.” The document also welcomed the framework agreement reached between the United States and Iran, which notably provides for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. It further highlighted the role that Britain and France could play in mine-clearance operations and in facilitating the reopening of the strategic waterway. Another sign came from President Joseph Aoun’s renewed commitment to freeing Lebanon from Iranian influence. The Lebanese president left little doubt on Wednesday, stressing that Lebanon was pursuing a path “independent” of the agreement reached between Washington and Tehran. Aoun spoke of the “assurances” given to the Lebanese state regarding the direct negotiations it has been holding with Israel in Washington since early April. The next round of talks is due to take place on June 23-25. The Lebanese state is “conducting the negotiations,” is “master of its own decisions,” and “no one can take its place,” the president said in a statement. The comments appeared to be a response to Hezbollah officials who had swiftly urged him to abandon the direct talks with Israel, arguing that Lebanon would be better off relying on Iran to plead its case. The president also made a point of thanking all those helping Lebanon secure a ceasefire, including Iran, in a move that reflected a degree of flexibility and a desire to build internal consensus, while remaining consistent in his position on Lebanese sovereignty. Aoun in Washington? It should be noted in this context that President Donald Trump said during the day, on the sidelines of his visit to France, that President Aoun would travel to Washington “within two weeks.” A senior US official also indicated that Aoun’s visit to Washington would likely take place by mid-July. Reiterating his administration’s determination to establishing “peace in Lebanon,” the U.S. president stressed the need to “settle the Hezbollah issue one way or another.” He again pressed the point that “Syria will play a positive role in countering Hezbollah in Lebanon.” Late in the evening, a U.S. source told Al-Hadath television that “the decision on war and peace in Lebanon must rest with the legitimate government,” adding that “we have made it clear to Lebanon that safeguarding its sovereignty and regional stability requires the state’s to hold a monopoly on arms.” Separately, a senior U.S. administration official told MTV that “the agreement does not impose an immediate, comprehensive ceasefire in Lebanon at any price.” “Iran must rein in Hezbollah and prevent it from attacking Israel,” the official said, adding that “if Hezbollah attacks Israel, Israel reserves the right to respond militarily.” It should also be noted in this context that, according to AFP-reported information, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam could be received in Paris on Thursday by French President Emmanuel Macron. A diplomatic source at the G7, cited by AFP, said Macron and Salam are expected to discuss the “implementation of the G7 communiqué” on Lebanon. Amnesty International and Israel’s occupation Meanwhile, fighting continues in southern Lebanon and appears to be intensifying, particularly around the Ali Taher hill, a strategic position on the heights overlooking Nabatieh that Israeli forces have been attempting to capture for several days. On the political front, calls in Israeli continue for Israeli forces not to withdraw from the occupied territories. Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said that the Israeli military would not withdraw from Lebanon “either by Friday or afterwards,” in reference to the Iran-U.S. framework agreement set to be signed in Geneva on Friday. A report published by international human rights NGO Amnesty International accused Israel of committing “war crimes” through the systematic use of forced displacement, saying that Israeli forces currently occupy nearly 6% of Lebanese territory. The Iranian military also intervened again in Lebanon on Wednesday, threatening Israel with a “severe response” if Israeli strikes do not stop. Meanwhile, Hezbollah also continued its attacks: late in the afternoon, the Israeli army reported that five of its soldiers were wounded in a drone strike on one of its vehicles in Nabatieh. “If they don’t behave…” The Iran file followed Donald Trump to the G7 meeting in France. While the U.S. president succeeded in bringing forward the conclusion of a deal with Iran ahead of the summit – seeking to claim a diplomatic win before his European allies, with whom relations have been more than strained since the start of his second term – he nonetheless faced a serie of press questions that drew at times sharp responses. He made clear from the outset that the agreement was “a memorandum of understanding” rather than a final deal, during a joint press conference with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. “And if the deal doesn’t satisfy me, if the Iranians don’t behave properly, we will go back to dropping bombs over their heads,” he added. He nonetheless described the document as “very solid.” The remarks were significant just two days before the agreement is due to be signed in Geneva. Trump was on the defensive when questioned about the $300 billion in investments reportedly pledged to Iran. He insisted the United States would “not invest ten cents” in Iran as long as the country does not comply with all the terms of the agreement, stressing that no money would be spent in Iran until further notice. According to leaked media reports, the memorandum of understanding states that the United States “and its regional partners” commit to drawing up a reconstruction and development plan for Iran, with financing of “at least $300 billion.” On reconstruction funding in a region battered by the conflict, China on Wednesday pledged to assist not only Iran – as it has already done – but also Lebanon. Is China seeking to expand its footprint in the region? There has so far been no reaction from Lebanese authorities. At sea in the Gulf, Iranian oil tankers had already crossed beyond the blockade zone on Wednesday morning. Text of US-Iran memorandum of understanding released by US The following is the text of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, as read out by a senior US official to reporters on Wednesday: "The United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly agreed in good faith on (a date yet to be determined, the official said), on the following: "Paragraph 1 - The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare an immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and other provisions of this paragraph. "Paragraph 2 - The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs. "Paragraph 3 - The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent. "Paragraph 4 - Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal. "Paragraph 5 - Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz. "Paragraph 6 - The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive mutually agreed plan with at least USD 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America. "Paragraph 7 - The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and express their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them. "Paragraph 8 - The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in Paragraph 7, with the minimum methodology to be down-blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned, and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiation in order to achieve mutual agreement on them. "Paragraph 9 - Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions, and will not deploy additional forces in the region. "Paragraph 10 - The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc. "Paragraph 11 - The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly. "Paragraph 12 - The United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal. "Paragraph 13 - After signing this MOU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of Paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 of this MOU, and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs. "Paragraph 14 - The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution."

The defining feature of this round of talks and negotiations set in motion earlier this week by the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran is, without question, “suspense.” The formal launch of the process is scheduled for Friday in Switzerland, with the participation, among others, of US Vice President JD Vance and the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament – who also leads Iran’s negotiating team – Mohammad Ghalibaf. At this stage, suspense centers on the content of the memorandum of understanding agreed between Washington and Tehran. Only the Iranian “version” of the document has been made public. It is clearly one-sided, appearing to reflect primarily the demands of the Iranian regime. On the American side, officials say the framework agreement will be released to the media on Friday, after the official signing ceremony. From the outset, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Tuesday that the bilateral negotiations, expected to last 60 days and be renewable, will focus on the nuclear issue and sanctions. This is where a second layer of suspense emerges, given the sharply divergent positions of the two sides on the core disputes that divide them. In an interview with the New York Times , U.S. President Donald Trump clarified the American position, as it is expected to take shape gradually over the course of the talks. He said that if the Iranian regime continues to execute dissidents, he would suspend the unfreezing of Iranian assets, estimated at $24 billion. More broadly, Trump made clear that there would be no lifting of sanctions or release of frozen assets unless Teheran fully complies with and implements its commitments. The “guardian of the Middle East” Stepping up his warnings against the Islamic Republic, U.S. President Donald Trump has revived the threat of military action and strikes on Iranian infrastructure if a final agreement on the nuclear program is not reached. Pressing the point further, he said bluntly that if such a deal is not approved, the United States would, in that case, assume the role of “guardian of the Middle East,” in return for what he described as 20 per cent of the region’s revenues. On Lebanon, the White House chief made what could be seen as a diplomatic misstep, saying in another interview that he was considering proposing that Israel allow Syrian President Ahmed Sharaa to take charge of dealing with Hezbollah in Lebanon. “He might be able to do it better than Israel,” Trump added. The Syrian president swiftly rejected the idea, saying there could be no question of Syrian forces intervening in Lebanon. Four drone strikes in southern Lebanon Meanwhile, Israeli officials have reiterated over the past 48 hours that the army will not withdraw from Lebanese territory until the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons has been resolved. Until then, military operations continue in southern Lebanon, albeit at a lower intensity than before the announcement of the memorandum of understanding. Israeli forces have concentrated their strikes in the Nabatiyeh sector, particularly around the strategic hill of Ali Taher. Separately, the Israeli military carried out four drone strikes on Tuesday against vehicles in the Mayfadoun and Choukine area, in the Nabatiyeh district. The targeted attacks killed four people and left several others wounded.

Following the official announcement of a framework agreement between Washington and Tehran on a memorandum of understanding to serve as the basis for talks between the two capitals, the picture looks like this: effusiveness in Tehran, where the document is being hailed as a historic victory; anger in Israel; calculated restraint in the United States; cautious optimism in Lebanon; and relief in Gulf countries and Europe, accompanied by a drop in oil prices. The memorandum of understanding, announced late Sunday night by President Donald Trump, is set to be signed on Friday in Geneva, where Trump arrived Monday to take part in G7 meetings. The document is said to have already been signed electronically. However, a Qatari delegation's trip to Islamabad on Sunday evening suggests that some details may still need to be ironed out. Doha had joined the mediation efforts led by Pakistan at Washington's request. This assumption is further supported by comments from U.S. Vice President JD Vance, who indicated that the document would be unveiled sometime this week, without providing any further details. In the meantime, Tehran has made a point of dwelling at length — with triumphant commentary — on the provisions of the 14-point memorandum of understanding. The text lays the groundwork for a ceasefire intended to lead to lasting peace, following negotiations that will span 60 days. Two long months for a process fraught with obstacles, as the memorandum of understanding is merely a document outlining the broad strokes of the negotiations to come. Iranian media reported that it calls for a "permanent and immediate halt to the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and the unfreezing of $24 billion in Iranian assets, half of which would be released before talks begin." Also according to Iranian media, the document provides for the suspension of sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil, petrochemical products, and their derivatives. In exchange for an end to hostilities and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Washington would gradually lift the blockade on Iranian ports as well as the sanctions that have been strangling the Islamic Republic's economy. But the central issue for both parties remains the fate of enriched uranium stockpiles and Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Tehran only mentioned the nuclear program, claiming that Washington had agreed to allow the Islamic Republic to continue enriching uranium to 3%, a point on which the United States had previously been unyielding. There was no mention, however, of the ballistic missile program. If the Iranians are to be believed, it is they who managed to have all their conditions accepted by the United States. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi announced that final talks would only begin "once the United States has fulfilled key commitments, including ending the naval blockade, halting military operations, and releasing frozen Iranian funds." "Once these urgent commitments are carried out, we will immediately enter into negotiations," he told state television. "The unfreezing of Iranian assets as well as reparations for damages are two essential points" of the agreement, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said at his weekly press briefing. According to him, "the American side has committed to taking steps in both of these areas" — a claim that U.S. Vice President JD Vance was quick to deny. At a press conference, he assured that Iranians "will get nothing until they honor their commitments." "They only talk about what they stand to gain while staying silent about what they will give in return," he added, stressing that Donald Trump will have achieved through diplomacy what he had sought to impose through war — namely, that Iran never have the possibility of obtaining a nuclear weapon and that it stop funding terrorist activities throughout the Middle East. While Tehran claimed to have wrested from Washington an unlocking of compensation funds for the reconstruction of sites destroyed or damaged by Israeli-American strikes, JD Vance insisted that the only funds the Islamic Republic would receive would come from already frozen Iranian assets. The United States also expects the Strait of Hormuz to reopen "toll-free" on Iran's part, he continued, while Iranian diplomats had spoken of maritime "service fees." At the same time, Donald Trump was congratulating himself on the fact that ships "some of them laden with oil, are beginning to exit the Strait of Hormuz and sail along a route that is completely secure." Demining operations are expected to begin shortly. French President Emmanuel Macron confirmed that France will engage in this process alongside the United Kingdom. He also stated, on the sidelines of the G7, that Iran's highly enriched uranium capabilities must be "neutralized" under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Anger in Israel Widely welcomed by the international community, particularly in Europe, the Iran-US agreement is far from meeting the expectations of Israeli authorities, who have made no secret of their anger. Tel Aviv considers that the framework agreement does not neutralize the Islamic Republic's capacity for harm — let alone its proxies, particularly Hezbollah, which still poses a threat to the security of northern Israel. Israel had wanted Washington to "finish the job" rather than fall into agreements that Tehran has mastered the art of circumventing. The announcement of the memorandum triggered a genuine political storm within the Israeli cabinet, which deemed it "dangerous." Several ministers openly criticized the American administration, calling the agreement a "capitulation to state terrorism." Even the Israeli opposition condemned it. In the evening, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated at a press conference that Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons "with or without a deal." He did not comment on the memorandum of understanding but pledged to "remain vigilant in repelling any threat from Tehran's allies against Israel, particularly from Hezbollah." In this context, he announced that his army "will remain in Lebanon for as long as necessary" and that it had not withdrawn under Iranian pressure because he had remained "very firm." "I believe our American friends respect this firmness and this position. We will stay in Lebanon." Notably, he signaled a desire for military independence by announcing a defense budget of nearly $121 billion. "We are going to develop concepts that go beyond imagination," he declared, in what appears to be a message to the United States, which provides substantial military aid to Tel Aviv. For Israeli officials, the memorandum legitimizes Iranian influence and protects Hezbollah's paramilitary structures — which Tel Aviv had been gradually dismantling — from the moment it included the Lebanese front within the announced ceasefire framework. Israel is also convinced that the unfreezing of Iranian funds will enable Tehran to rebuild its ballistic missile arsenal. The Israeli government has also warned that it does not consider itself bound by the document and that a withdrawal from Lebanon is not being considered as long as Hezbollah has not been disarmed. This is an argument it can easily make, given that it has already reached a ceasefire agreement with Lebanon under Washington's sponsorship. In this context, several Israeli ministers have argued that Tel Aviv reserves the right to act unilaterally to defend its interests, even if doing so runs counter to the ongoing diplomatic momentum. Fragile calm in Lebanon In Lebanon, Hezbollah was quick to echo Iran's triumphalism. Since the announcement of the memorandum of understanding, the group immediately halted its strikes on Israeli targets, falling in line with directives from its Iranian patron — all to suggest that it is thanks to Iran that a ceasefire has been established on the Lebanese front. Hezbollah, it should be noted, does not recognize the Lebanese-Israeli truce agreement, due to its fierce opposition to direct negotiations between the two capitals. On the ground, a fragile calm prevailed throughout the day in southern Lebanon, where sporadic Israeli fire targeted Nabatieh and Kfar Tebnit, where an Israeli drone killed the driver of a vehicle. A journalist was also wounded in a drone attack in the same town. By evening, unconfirmed reports from unofficial sources indicated that the Israeli army was advancing toward the strategic hill of Ali Taher, overlooking Nabatieh, and that clashes had broken out with Hezbollah militants. Many villagers rushed to return to their towns despite warnings from the Lebanese army. On the political front, Lebanese authorities welcomed the memorandum of understanding, while the pro-Iranian group was quick to exploit 'the Iranian victory' by calling — through the voice of Jaafari mufti Mohammad Ahmad Kabalan — for a change of government. Most alarming was his line of reasoning. According to him, the new cabinet must 'reflect the national balance, now that the factors that justified the pro-American camp's rise to power have disappeared.' In the mufti's view, the new ministerial team should include 'Hezbollah's (Christian) allies, namely the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) and the Marada,' led by Gebran Bassil and Sleiman Frangieh respectively — a move aimed at restoring Christian legitimacy to a movement entirely subservient to Iran and completely isolated domestically. Sheikh Ahmad Kabalan also argued that 'Lebanon must withdraw from direct negotiations with Israel,' which are set to resume on June 22 in Washington. To achieve its goals, will the pro-Iranian group follow through on its threats to bring down the government? When asked about Lebanon, President Trump replied: 'We really want to see if we can sort out that country's problems. It's a tiny piece of what we're doing. But it shouldn't be that hard. We just need to have a little chat with Hezbollah.'

Is the transitional 'memorandum of understanding' intended to end the war between the United States and Iran really close to being finalized? The triumphalist announcement made by President Donald Trump about an 'imminent deal' with Iran has already been undermined by 'leaks' in Iranian state-controlled media, which continue to proclaim that the Islamic Republic got everything it was seeking: control of the Strait of Hormuz, the immediate release of frozen funds, the lifting of sanctions, and American investment to revive the Iranian economy… A post by Trump on his social media platform abruptly set the record straight. However, it seems unlikely that this will prevent a deal from being reached — a view reinforced Friday evening by an announcement from the Pakistani mediator, who officially confirmed that the two sides had reached an agreement. So what happened during this long day? Friday in the Levant began under the most promising of signs. 'We have just reached a very good agreement to end the war with Iran, and once the documents are finalized — which should happen within the next few days — we will probably have a signing, perhaps in Europe,' President Trump declared from the Oval Office, as reported by AFP. This announcement by Donald Trump, which has a familiar ring to it, generated enormous ink — in both the American and Iranian press. As for the former, it widely reported that the deal would be signed soon: Bloomberg News wrote that the document would be signed at the G7 summit in Geneva, Switzerland, on Sunday. According to Axios, Vice President JD Vance's visit to Switzerland is already being arranged in anticipation of the signing. The American outlet highlighted both the Qatari and Pakistani mediation efforts that apparently made this breakthrough possible. Indeed, still according to Axios, the Qatari mediator signed the 'agreement in principle' with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Tehran. The American and Iranian versions The Iranian press, true to its habits as regime-controlled media, did echo the strong possibility of an imminent deal — but went into considerable detail about what the terms of the truce would supposedly be. According to these outlets, Iran would have secured continued control over the Strait of Hormuz, the release of its frozen assets (figures of $24 billion, or at least half that amount, are being floated), the lifting of sanctions and the American blockade on ports, the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region bordering Iran, as well as the right to continue uranium enrichment. According to the Mehr news agency, ballistic missiles are not mentioned in the text, and the framework agreement allows a six-month period to reach a final deal. Reports coming out of Tehran also indicated that a final decision had not yet been made by Iranian authorities, denying that the signing had been scheduled for Sunday. It was these media 'leaks' that proved to be the fly in the ointment, triggering Donald Trump's fury on his Truth Social platform. 'The conditions the Iranians leaked to their media have nothing to do with the terms of the deal we reached,' he thundered, stating that 'the Iranians are very dishonorable' and that it is impossible to negotiate in good faith with them. 'They had better correct course, and fast!' he also wrote. A U.S. administration official laid out Washington's position to the al-Hadath network's correspondent: no funds will be released until the agreement is implemented, enriched uranium will be removed from Iranian territory, and nuclear facilities will be fully dismantled. Another key clause, according to the Saudi network, will require Iran to stop funding proxies in the region — a matter of significant concern for Lebanon. The source confirmed that Iran has agreed to these terms. Netanyahu: Iran Will Not Get the Bomb Against the backdrop of statements regarding a potential deal to be signed soon between Washington and Tehran — a process from which Tel Aviv has been notably excluded — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to declare that he was "in full agreement" with Donald Trump that Iran would never obtain a nuclear weapon, adding that this would not happen "as long as he remains Prime Minister." Meanwhile, fighting in southern Lebanon continued on Friday with the same intensity between the Israeli army and Hezbollah. According to al-Hadath, the Israelis announced that they had seized control of all the hills overlooking the strategic city of Nabatieh in southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah continues its attacks, including through the use of drones. The fate of this front has been in question ever since talk of an imminent deal on the Iranian regional front began. On one hand, reports in Iranian media insist that any potential agreement would include a clause calling for a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon. On the other hand, Israeli sources have reportedly stated that a deal between Iran and the United States would not cover the Lebanese front, "given that Israeli authorities are engaged in direct talks with Lebanese authorities in a separate process in Washington," pan-Arab media noted. The question remained open on Friday in Lebanon, especially since the ceasefire in Iran in early April did not automatically lead to a similar measure in Lebanon — bearing in mind that ceasefires reached through direct negotiations have not fared much better. What is clear, however, is that this forthcoming agreement is already fueling domestic controversy. Unsurprisingly, Hezbollah voices have already begun adopting a triumphalist tone. MP Hassan Fadlallah, in his characteristically provocative manner, rushed to declare that a deal "will have repercussions" for Lebanon, "whether Lebanese officials accept it or not." The lawmaker was invoking his party's go-to argument that only a ceasefire negotiated by Iran stands any real chance of success. He also took a swipe at President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, suggesting they have been "exploited" by Washington. Admittedly, Hassan Fadlallah appeared to soften his stance somewhat by stating that "Iran does not seek to replace the Lebanese state." Such remarks nonetheless drew a response from Prime Minister Salam, who accused the Islamic Republic of trying to demonstrate that it holds decision-making power in Lebanon. The debate over Iran's role in Lebanon, exercised through its local ally, shows no signs of dying down. Yet Washington sources, cited by several media outlets, continue to stress the American president's determination to keep the two files separate. This point will be one to watch in the coming days, in light of regional developments. New Saudi Arabian Ambassador Official Lebanon, for its part, continues to pursue a path of rapprochement with its Arab neighbors, long neglected. Beyond Saudi Arabia's decision, made the day before, to reopen its market to Lebanese agricultural products — which is expected to have a major impact on Lebanon's agricultural sector — noteworthy as well is the visit of Saudi envoy to Lebanon Yazid bin Farhan to President Aoun at the Baabda Palace on Thursday evening. The new Saudi ambassador, meanwhile, arrived in Beirut on Friday. Another major story this Friday: after a lengthy controversy surrounding a possible Syrian intervention in Lebanon to dismantle Hezbollah — following remarks made by Donald Trump on the subject — Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa categorically denied any involvement by his country in Lebanon's internal affairs.

And here we go again. Tensions are rising in the region with a new wave of strikes on Iran, announced for this evening by U.S. President Donald Trump, who also threatened to seize control of the strategic island of Kharg — the linchpin of Iran's oil economy. However, in yet another reversal, Trump later posted on his Truth Social platform that he had decided to call off the strikes he had been threatening against Iran, asserting that "discussions with the Islamic Republic have been seen and approved by Iran's highest authorities." And, as is often the case, the news was quickly denied by Iran's Fars news agency. But according to Axios , senior Iranian officials confirmed that a "framework agreement" had been reached, but that they were "awaiting the approval of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei." Having exhausted all diplomatic avenues, Washington is now banking on a military approach to ramp up pressure on the Islamic Republic and force it to negotiate a deal that would neutralize the nuclear threat it poses, curb its destabilizing regional influence through its proxies, and resolve the dispute over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. The strategy, then, remains the same. It is the tactics that have changed — and hardened, as evidenced by the increasingly aggressive tone of President Trump's threats. "The war will only end with Iran's surrender," he said during a Fox News interview, shortly after posting on his Truth Social account: "The United States will strike Iran very hard tonight (Thursday). The Navy, Air Force, radar systems, air defenses, and all other forms of defense (belonging to Tehran), along with most of its offensive capabilities, will cease to exist." Overnight from Wednesday to Thursday, the U.S. military primarily targeted southern Iran as well as sites near the capital, including in Karaj, Nazarabad, and Pishva, according to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Donald Trump coupled his threats with others of an economic nature — far more significant for Iran: "At some point, in the not-too-distant future, we may take Kharg Island and other oil infrastructure locations. We will assume full control of their oil and gas markets, just as we did with Venezuela, which is working brilliantly for both Venezuela and the United States of America," he wrote, in what appears to be a blueprint for bringing an already economically battered Iran to its knees — a country further squeezed by the American blockade on its ports. He repeated the same threat on Fox News but expressed reservations about the American public's appetite for an escalation of the conflict. "You know, my preference has always been to take Kharg Island. I'm not sure America has the stomach for it," he said. Donald Trump also indicated that he does not intend to strike civilian infrastructure, so as not to harm the Iranian people, who are largely opposed to the mullahs' regime. All of these threats are putting the ceasefire in place since April 8 under severe strain, even as Tehran responds forcefully to U.S. hammer blows. Overnight from Wednesday to Thursday, the Iranian military targeted U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan. It spared the United Arab Emirates, which, according to Bloomberg, recently held its first security meeting with Iran since the war began. The aim of that meeting: to ensure the UAE's economic stability, according to the outlet. Tehran has also completely blocked the Strait of Hormuz, through which, until Wednesday, it had been allowing passage — albeit for a fee — to vessels from countries it considered friendly or neutral, while the US military announced on Wednesday that it had neutralized a third tanker that had attempted to breach the blockade of Iranian ports within the span of a week. A fool's game vs. diplomacy For now, this escalation in violence still appears contained — even calculated — though the risk of a spiral remains. Tehran and Washington remain locked in a kind of dangerous game of bluff, in which each side tries to maneuver with the leverage at its disposal to impose its terms within the framework of ongoing mediation efforts. The question is who will blink first. One telling sign that the violence we have witnessed over the past few days is measured and purposeful is the absence of Israeli involvement. The day Donald Trump asks his Israeli ally to join in strikes against Iran will mark the official return to the military option in pursuit of defined war objectives — at the risk of igniting a regional conflagration. Washington is thus continuing to bet on the diplomatic process. Donald Trump reaffirmed yesterday that this process remains his "preferred option," while Islamabad and Doha were working overtime to hammer out an acceptable formula for a statement of intent that would allow Iran and the United States to resume negotiations. Qatari negotiators left Tehran on Thursday, having arrived the previous day in an attempt to bridge the gaps between the United States and Iran, a diplomat familiar with the Qatari mission told AFP. The talks with Iranian officials were conducted in coordination with Washington, the diplomat confirmed, adding that they lasted "into the early hours of the morning." In Islamabad, Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Tahir Andrabi indirectly acknowledged that conciliation efforts have reached a deadlock, but stressed that his country has not yet given up. "It is difficult to remain optimistic in the face of renewed hostilities, but let us not draw the curtain on Pakistan's approach in favor of mediation," he said. He noted that Islamabad had conveyed a message to that effect to both parties. "We remain committed" to mediation, Mr. Andrabi insisted. Saudi Arabia also called for the continuation of Pakistan's mediation efforts and praised Qatar's role in supporting the negotiations. A similar appeal was issued by the Kremlin. Mediation is now proceeding in step with American strikes and threats — both military and economic. In this context, it is worth noting that US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that funds will be drawn from frozen Iranian accounts to compensate for damages caused by Iranian missile strikes against Washington's allies in the Gulf. "All tolls paid to the Persian Gulf Strait Authority will also be offset by funds drawn from their accounts. Every attack launched by Iran will only worsen the economic and financial consequences it faces," he announced — even as one of the main sticking points in the indirect Tehran-Washington dialogue concerns frozen Iranian assets. The Islamic Republic is demanding that these be unfrozen as a condition for agreeing, among other things, to return to negotiations. Could this high-wire strategy pressure Tehran into accepting American conditions for a "deal," or could it instead push it to escalate militarily, knowing that Trump is opposed to a full-scale war? The coming days should provide some answers. Lebanese exports to Saudi Arabia resume In Lebanon, the main news is of a political and economic nature, with the resumption of Lebanese exports to Saudi Arabia. Riyadh had suspended its imports from Lebanon in late 2021 due to the crisis triggered by the remarks made by then-Information Minister Georges Cordahi regarding Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen and the trafficking of Captagon into its territory. On the ground, exchanges of fire continue between the Israeli army, which is pressing forward around the perimeter of Beaufort Castle, and Hezbollah militants, of whom "10,000 are said to have been eliminated during the war," according to Tel Aviv. On the Lebanese side, the death toll is approaching 4,000. In what Israel has deemed a violation of the May ceasefire, the pro-Iranian group launched drones toward northern Israel on Thursday morning. The devices were intercepted before entering Israeli airspace, according to the Israeli military. Is this a message to the Americans and Israelis signaling Hezbollah's readiness to reopen the Lebanese front should the new standoff between Tehran and Washington escalate? The question is worth asking.

Tensions continue to rise in the region but remain, for now, under control. It seems as though Tehran and Washington — which are continuing to exchange messages through Pakistani mediators — have opted for a new tactic: diplomacy under fire. It is through this lens that the military actions launched by Iran in the region over the past forty-eight hours are being viewed today. Strangled by the maritime blockade Washington has imposed on its ports, the Islamic Republic — which had until now been playing for time — has no option left but the military one to ease the pressure bearing down on it from two directions. The first concerns the direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations toward a peace agreement. If concluded, such a deal would inevitably end Iran's grip on Lebanon through Hezbollah, at a time when Tehran is pushing to have the Hezbollah file placed on the agenda of any potential talks with Washington, in order to dictate its own terms. The second relates to its own negotiations with the United States over a lasting ceasefire. By shooting down a US Apache military helicopter on Tuesday as it patrolled the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran escalated its confrontation with the United States, which responded swiftly by carrying out two waves of strikes against air defense systems and radar installations around the strait, according to American outlet Axios. A series of explosions rang out through the night along Iran's southern coastline. According to the US military's Central Command (CENTCOM), these were "self-defense strikes, ordered by the commander-in-chief" — a reference to President Donald Trump. Iran responded by launching attacks against US bases in Bahrain, Jordan, and Kuwait. "Imminent strikes" Although he has not abandoned the diplomatic option, the US president — who had repeatedly insisted that a "good" deal with Tehran was nearly within reach — struck a radically different tone on Wednesday. He came across as threatening, signaling that he is well aware of Iran's game and has no intention of being drawn into it. During a press conference at the White House, Mr. Trump reaffirmed his intention to "strike Iran again today," on Wednesday, and said he was considering a large-scale attack targeting power plants and bridges. He issued these threats after denouncing Tehran's duplicity. "We're going to hit them, hit them very hard. We were really close to a deal, but they keep playing games, they're making fools of us," he declared from the Oval Office. On his Truth Social platform, he had written a few hours earlier that Iran "took too long to negotiate a deal that would have been great for them," and that it "will now have to pay the price" — this coming just the day before, prior to the Apache incident, when he had announced that a "very, very good deal" was coming within "two to three days." "Iran is all talk and no action. The tyrant of the Middle East is DEAD!!!" the US president added, underscoring that the Iranian military had been devastated. Yet Iran's military retains its capacity to cause harm, as demonstrated by the overnight missile strikes against Israel from Monday to Tuesday. That attack came in response to Israeli raids on Beirut's southern suburbs on Sunday, themselves launched in retaliation for Hezbollah strikes on northern Israeli territory. The escalation can be readily attributed to the mullahs' regime, which had threatened Israel with retaliation in the event of an offensive on the southern suburbs, while the Israeli state had promised strikes on the Hezbollah stronghold should the pro-Iranian group continue its attacks on Israeli soil. Feeling wronged by the Washington-brokered Lebanese-Israeli ceasefire agreement, and likely pushed by its Iranian patron, Hezbollah did not hesitate to fire rockets toward Galilee, triggering an Israeli response, followed by an equally anticipated Iranian counter-response. Despite the escalation, tensions remain contained, as evidenced by the ongoing Qatari mission in Tehran, carried out in coordination with Washington. Yet the fire smolders beneath the surface. Will Donald Trump follow through if Tehran continues to stall? On that note, it was reported late Wednesday evening that Iran had rejected a Qatari proposal to arrange a meeting with the United States to discuss points of disagreement. For now, the Islamic Republic is simply demonstrating that it remains torn between two factions. The first, hardline, is embodied by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), while the second, more moderate, is led by Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian. While Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who is close to the IRGC, raised his tone against Washington on Wednesday, President Pezeshkian set himself apart with a widely noted speech in which he advocated for dialogue. His remarks drew attention not only because it was clear he was addressing the Pasdaran, but also because of his reference to former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, "for whom dialogue is the only possible way out of the state of neither war nor peace in which Iran finds itself." This was an indirect call to follow the path laid out by the Iranian leader who was killed last February in an Israeli-American strike on Tehran. Free rein in Lebanon On the Lebanese front, however, there is no indication that Hezbollah will heed Pezeshkian's words, as the group takes its orders directly from the Pasdaran. Further rocket fire toward Israel could prove costly, however, as the Israeli military now has free rein to respond immediately with strikes on the southern suburbs, without consulting political authorities. This decision, taken on Monday by the restricted military cabinet, shows that the logic of immediate military response is currently prevailing, without necessarily having any influence on the processes already underway. It is as though each side is testing the other's red lines. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun thus reaffirmed on Wednesday his determination to "go all the way" in direct negotiations with Israel. On the ground in Lebanon, military operations remained limited on Wednesday to the south of the country, where the Israeli army killed two individuals by targeting their vehicle in Sidon. The two have yet to be identified. In Kfarchouba, it "abducted two men who had approached the area where Israeli soldiers are conducting operations (...) and took them to Israel for questioning," according to a statement sent to AFP.

It is once again the familiar stop-start pattern of diplomacy in the Iran conflict. After recent statements by American officials suggesting – yet again – the imminent prospect of a “deal” with the Islamic Republic, fresh storm clouds gathered on Tuesday evening. Late in the evening, President Donald Trump said he had received a report from U.S. military command indicating that Iranian fire had brought down an American Apache helicopter on Monday night in the Strait of Hormuz, while it was conducting a patrol in the area. The pilot and co-pilot were rescued unharmed by U.S. military teams after a two-hour search operation. “The United States must respond to this attack,” the White House chief said. Shortly after Mr. Trump’s statement, American officials told The New York Times that “it is not clear whether negotiations with Iran will resume following President Trump’s announcement that he is committed to retaliating for the helicopter crash.” In concrete terms, the American response to Monday evening’s Iranian attack is very likely to be limited, both in scope and duration. It would nonetheless help sustain, and possibly intensify, the climate of tension and mistrust that has come to define the Iran conflict. That tension was reflected in remarks made 48 hours ago by Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament (who heads the negotiating team with Washington), who not only stressed that the Islamic Republic “does not trust the United States” but also, bluntly – and not for the first time – described the United Sates as an “enemy.” In any case, all indications suggest that the Trump administration has no intention, at least in the current context, of engaging in a new large-scale confrontation with Iran. This is what likely led Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to say, during the latest meeting of the restricted security cabinet, that Israel “may be forced to face Iran alone.” Mr. Netanyahu also noted that “the battle with the Islamic Republic and Hezbollah” is not over. Joseph Aoun Takes a Harder Line on Iran On the military front, the Israeli air force operations continued at pace on Monday, with raids targeting Hezbollah positions and ammunition depots in several villages in southern Lebanon. At the same time, the Israeli army said it had killed a Hezbollah militiaman who had crossed the border from Lebanon and who, it said, appeared to have intended to infiltrate a locality in northern Israel. In parallel, Israeli forces issued an evacuation order for the city of Tyre on Monday, including the Christian quarter, where armed elements linked to the pro-Iranian party have reportedly taken position. In this context, Christian political figures issued an urgent appeal for the demilitarization of the area. On the political front, the Lebanese presidency published a transcript of the second part of President Joseph Aoun’s interview with CNN. The head of state reiterated his criticism of Iran’s conduct in Lebanon, stressing that Beirut seeks to maintain cordial relations with Tehran “but on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs,” while accusing the Iranian regime of “interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs.” Regarding Hezbollah, President Aoun said “it is time for the state to replace militias,” arguing that the Shiite community “is tired” and must be offered an alternative “through strong public institutions.” Addressing the issue of the party’s weapons, Mr. Aoun said that “the war in Lebanon should have ended in 2000” following Israel’s complete withdrawal from the security zone it controlled in southern Lebanon. He pointed out that, after this withdrawal, Hezbollah “made strategic mistakes.” Referring also to direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, President Aoun reaffirmed the Lebanese authorities’ desire to bring a definitive end to the state of war between the two countries.

Just when it seemed Iran had definitively shelved its war machines in their silos, Tehran launched around thirty ballistic missiles against the Jewish state late Sunday evening. Iranian authorities presented this attack as retaliation for an Israeli strike on the southern suburbs of Beirut, a Hezbollah stronghold, which killed two people and wounded twenty. The message is clear: Iran opposes the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations conducted under Washington's auspices and intends to position itself as a defender of Lebanon "against the Israeli enemy," even at the risk of further escalation. Tehran continues to insist that the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah be addressed within the same framework as the broader confrontation opposing it to Israel and its allies in the Middle East. On Monday at midday, Iran's armed forces command announced "the cessation of the operation," described as a "severe retaliation" against Israel. It warned, however, that "in case of continued aggression and hostilities, including in southern Lebanon, far more severe and punitive actions than before will be undertaken." "We have broken the equation of concluding a ceasefire on paper and systematically violating it on the ground," commented Iran's chief negotiator, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Tel Aviv was quick to react by destroying several Iranian defense systems. Against all expectations, however, Israeli retaliation was heavily restrained by its main ally, the United States. While President Trump had thrown himself wholeheartedly into the conflict when strikes against Iran were launched on February 28, he explicitly asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday and Monday to show restraint, lamenting that the negotiation process was hampered by "ignorance or stupidity." In recent days, Donald Trump has not hidden his disagreements with Benjamin Netanyahu. According to the White House, the two leaders spoke by phone on Monday, with the American president this time taking a firm stance to impose a suspension of hostilities. As midterm elections approach, the occupant of the White House is seeking an end to a conflict that has become particularly unpopular in the United States. His Monday intervention, as well as his repeated statements affirming that he remains the sole final decision-maker, have fueled speculation about the circumstances that led to the launching of attacks against Iran in February, even as negotiations were still ongoing. Several American analysts and elected officials thus accuse Benjamin Netanyahu of precipitating the United States into war, shortly after the first strikes by Israeli aviation. In an interview given to media outlet Axios on Sunday, the American president warned the Israeli prime minister against any retaliation following the Iranian missile strikes: "I'm going to call Bibi (Netanyahu's nickname, ed.) right now to tell him not to retaliate. Israel had its strike and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one." Netanyahu, at the risk of irritating his closest international ally, nonetheless gave the green light for new strikes. Since the ceasefire that took effect on April 8, this is the first time Tehran has directly targeted Israeli territory and Israel has bombed Iranian soil. On the Israeli side, the Prime Minister is also under strong domestic pressure to maintain a hardline stance toward Iran. In an interview given to the Financial Times on Sunday, Donald Trump argued that the Israeli leader should accept any agreement negotiated by Washington. "He won't have a choice," the American president told the business newspaper. "It's me who decides. It's me who decides everything. He doesn't decide…" Responding to remarks from the White House resident, Netanyahu assured that his country would retaliate "with force" against any new Iranian attack. The man who had ordered strikes against Iran despite the American president's objections also responded to him, "with respect," that Israel would exercise its right to defend itself "whenever necessary." Earlier in the day, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that his country "would continue to act" against Hezbollah. He promised that "any Iranian attempt to create a link between Lebanon and Iran to attack Israel would receive a response of great force." In an interview broadcast Sunday night on NBC, Donald Trump called for more "surgical" strikes against Hezbollah, saying he wanted "a better life" for Lebanon. Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into the war by attacking Israel to avenge the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, killed in an Israeli-American offensive. In another interview published last Wednesday by the New York Post, the American president confirmed having had a particularly tense exchange with Benjamin Netanyahu two days earlier. During this phone conversation, he reportedly reprimanded his close ally about the Israeli offensive being conducted in Lebanon. When asked about a possible integration of Lebanon into an agreement with Iran, the Republican leader responded: "no, no." "Not at all. I don't demand anything. I think they would like that, but I don't demand anything," he said. The risks of escalation were high Monday, with the intervention of Yemeni Houthi rebels, allies of Iran, which fueled fears of a new widening of the conflict. The Yemeni militia claimed an attack against Israel from its territory. It also decreed a ban on Israeli navigation in the Red Sea, another major strategic maritime axis along with the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. Hezbollah denies any contact with Washington Moreover, Hezbollah official Mahmoud Qomati indicated Monday, in response to a question from AFP, that his party had had "no direct" contact with Donald Trump, despite the American president's statements to that effect. "We spoke with Hezbollah for the first time," the American president said on June 3 to journalists. Two days earlier, when Israel was threatening to strike the southern suburbs of Beirut, the stronghold of the Islamist movement, he had claimed to have had "a conversation with representatives of Hezbollah leaders," who "agreed to stop firing on Israel and its soldiers." President Trump "may have been referring to the fact that the advisor to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri communicates with the American ambassador and conveys messages," explained the Hezbollah official. "These allegations show how ready the American administration is to abandon Lebanese power as soon as the slightest indication of contact with the strong and influential parties in Lebanon appears," Qomati assessed. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, for his part, reiterated Monday that "only the Lebanese state negotiates on behalf of Lebanon, and no one else." In Tyre, deaths and threatened heritage On the ground, Israeli strikes fell Monday on more than a dozen locations in southern Lebanon, particularly in Tyre, where 14 people were killed and 20 others injured. One of the strikes targeted a car near a Lebanese Red Crescent building in this coastal city. Four first responders were injured in the attack, hit by flying glass. For its part, Hezbollah claimed new attacks against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, but none against northern Israel. The Israeli army, for its part, stated that three projectiles were fired from Lebanon "in the direction of Israeli soldiers operating in southern Lebanon", and that a fourth projectile "landed near troops" without causing any injuries. Tyre is one of the oldest cities in the Mediterranean world and has two Roman sites under "provisional reinforced protection", inscribed on the Unesco World Heritage list. (AFP) Lebanese Culture Minister Ghassan Salamé again "called for avoiding targeting the country's archaeological sites, particularly the ruins of Tyre which are part of humanity's common heritage". The ruins of Tyre, listed as a Unesco World Heritage site, were damaged by Israeli strikes on Sunday. This is the "greatest damage to the site since the start of the war", Ali Badaoui, director of archaeological sites in southern Lebanon, told AFP. "Some archaeological artifacts were damaged when debris hit them, as a shower of rubble fell over a vast area", affecting notably "columns, capitals, column bases, mosaics", he listed. Ghassan Salamé stated that Israel "does not respect" the Hague Convention, which requires the preservation of cultural property during armed conflict, nor the "Blue Shields", a symbolic emblem established by a committee linked to Unesco to protect the Tyre site. Following the previous war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2023-2024, Unesco placed over 70 heritage sites in Lebanon, including Tyre, under "provisional reinforced protection". The city has been targeted by a campaign of Israeli strikes since the start of the war with the pro-Iranian Hezbollah on March 2, and was hit again on Monday. On Sunday, the Israeli military issued a new evacuation order for an area encompassing one of the two archaeological sites, containing Roman remains, before conducting strikes.