Today's Essential

May 14, 2026 marked the beginning of the third round of direct negotiations between Israeli and Lebanese delegations in Washington at the State Department headquarters. Contrary to expectations, the Israeli delegation was not headed by former Israeli minister Ron Dermer, who is close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but rather by Israel's ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, as had been the case in previous meetings. On the Lebanese side, however, the delegation was this time headed by former ambassador to Washington Simon Karam, an experienced negotiator who had already been appointed by Republic President Joseph Aoun to the ceasefire monitoring committee in South Lebanon (before the current conflict). According to reports from MTV's correspondent on the ground, the atmosphere as these negotiations got underway—set to continue until Friday—was far from optimistic. The Israeli side remains committed to Hezbollah's disarmament before any other progress, threatening to expand the war if no agreement is reached. The Lebanese side, according to the correspondent, finds itself forced to continuously exchange messages with Lebanon, which reflects internal Lebanese disagreements on the matter. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the progress represented by the holding of these meetings in themselves. In Beirut, these negotiations were clearly being followed very closely. Around 5 p.m. (Lebanese time), as talks had barely begun, President Aoun received Prime Minister Nawaf Salam at Baabda Palace to discuss the ongoing negotiations. They decided to "remain in continuous contact" going forward, according to the official statement. Joe Raggi sets the record straight A different official tone came from Lebanese Foreign Minister Joe Raggi, who sought to clear up the confusion by clarifying that for Beirut, the current stage is not about concluding a peace agreement but rather ending the war. On the Hezbollah side, there has been no change in positions. Statements hostile to direct negotiations continued, as they had in previous days. Notable in this regard is a quip from deputy Hussein Hajj Hassan: "The Resistance is still in full force, and no one will be able to turn American and Israeli wishes into reality." But what should stand out most from this day are the comments by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry, who is also leader of the Amal movement (a Shiite ally of Hezbollah). In an interview with a local newspaper, he stated that "everything will collapse" if there is not a genuine ceasefire. He even laid out the following conditions: complete withdrawal from occupied territories; reconstruction; deployment of the Lebanese army; and the return of southern residents to their homes. This was a way of reasserting his prominence just days after a Hezbollah official, Mahmoud Comati, accused President Aoun of disregarding the Parliament Speaker in his decision to pursue negotiations. Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea responded to this in an MTV interview: Berry can offer his opinion on the results of negotiations, but he cannot manage them; the matter is in the hands of the President of the Republic. Meanwhile, the South continues to burn. On Thursday, Israeli evacuation notices even reached villages in the Bekaa Valley, such as Sohmor, once again demonstrating that the expansion of fighting is underway. Raids, drone strikes, and targeted assassinations continue at a frenzied pace, just as Hezbollah attacks continue as well. Trump's visit to China The other event of the day is global in scope and could have consequences on multiple fronts. US President Donald Trump is being received with great ceremony in China by his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. With his usual exuberance, Trump called Xi his "friend" and promised a "fabulous future" for relations between the two giants. Xi called the visit "historic." But beyond these grandiose declarations and the impressive reception featuring numerous Chinese and American flags, strenuous discussions have marked these two days of official visit. The Americans came well prepared, with an impressive delegation accompanying the president and bringing together, in addition to senior Trump administration officials, around fifteen heads of the largest US companies. Controversial topics and issues involving international stakes abound: Taiwan (on this point, Xi Jinping's statement was particularly firm); trade war; the war in Ukraine... But the topic of greatest interest to the Middle East is undoubtedly the war with Iran, which was extensively discussed between the two delegations, as suggested by the statements that followed. In the evening (Levantine time), President Trump told Fox News that "the Chinese president has offered his help regarding the Strait of Hormuz," and he "committed to not sending military equipment to Iran." Until now, Tehran had been receiving weapons from this ally to whom it was selling oil at preferential prices. Apart from these statements, what could be the "deal" that was struck behind the scenes? There is no doubt that this summit should have significant repercussions on the Middle East conflict, which the coming days should clarify. The American website Axios published information indicating that upon his return from China, President Trump's options would include resuming the "freedom of navigation" project, which consists of escorting vessels through the strait under the protection of the US military. Another option being considered: new strikes on Iranian infrastructure. In this context, one piece of information that could give a clue about coming changes: a prospect of China being supplied with oil by the United States in order to reduce dependence on the Strait of Hormuz and, consequently, reduce dependence on Iran. The other notable development on May 14 was the meeting of foreign ministers from BRICS countries in New Delhi, India, which included participation by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Emirati Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, among others. During this meeting, Araghchi launched a fierce attack on his Emirati counterpart (as he himself announced on his Telegram account), accusing the United Arab Emirates of participating in Israeli-American strikes on Iran, and urging him to revise his policy toward Tehran after realizing that the alliance with Israel had done him no good. Ironically, it is Iran that has been conducting daily strikes against the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf countries since the start of this war. Are the UAE paying the price for their withdrawal from OPEC since early May and their alignment with the American-Israeli axis?

An unprecedented Lebanese initiative practically stole the spotlight locally on Wednesday from two major events: the resumption of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations in Washington and the Trump-Xi summit in Beijing. On the eve of these two crucial meetings due to their impact on the regional conflict, Beirut submitted a memorandum to the UN in which it challenges claims made by Tehran to protest to the UN Security Council against the Israeli strike that killed four of its diplomats at the Ramada Hotel in Raouché last March. In this memorandum, Lebanese diplomacy criticizes the Islamic Republic, accusing it of violating the Geneva Convention on diplomatic relations and interfering in Lebanese internal affairs, according to Independent Arabia, which reported on it. Lebanon also accuses Tehran of drawing it into a destructive war that does not concern it through its military arm, Hezbollah. This initiative by the Lebanese Foreign Ministry, aimed at putting facts in their proper context, is part of a continuing effort by the government, which had banned Hezbollah's paramilitary activities and declared Tehran's ambassador to Beirut, Mohammad Reza Chibani, persona non grata. Its significance on the eve of the third round of Lebanese-Israeli talks in Washington lies in the dual message it sends: on one hand, the determination of the Lebanese state to move forward with the process supposed to allow it, in due course, to restore its sovereignty over the entire territory. On the other hand, an official, though implicit, Lebanese acknowledgment of Hezbollah's allegiance to the mullah regime. In the text, Lebanon affirms its right to hold Iran internationally accountable and to ensure it bears the consequences of its repeated violations of its international obligations, according to Independent Arabia, which said it had access to the document's contents. The media reported that Lebanon had filed a complaint with the UN. However, in a clarification issued in the evening, the Foreign Ministry specified that it was actually a response to Iranian letters addressed to the Security Council. Beirut chose to respond because Tehran had presented inaccurate information in its name. Iran's ambassador to the UN had seized the Security Council after the attack, accusing Israel of a serious violation of international law by targeting four Iranian diplomats who were exercising the functions of official representatives of a sovereign member state on the territory of another sovereign state. Lebanon, for its part, explained that the so-called diplomats killed were actually members of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It based its claims on photos of them in military uniforms with their ranks clearly displayed. Beirut provided these clarifications to the UN because in its letter, Iran had stated it had informed Lebanese authorities of the four diplomats' travel to the Ramada Hotel before their assassination. Lebanon, however, stated there was no coordination, citing an official note from March 16 in which the Iranian embassy acknowledged that it had not been able to inform the Foreign Ministry of the presence of the four diplomats at the Ramada Hotel. Furthermore, the ministry recalled that it had requested an updated list of Iranian diplomats in Lebanon twice without receiving a response. Beirut also detailed in the document the harmful interventions of the IRGC in the country and reminded, to illustrate a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention, the launch of the first coordinated attack with Hezbollah since the beginning of the war in February. It was on March 11, a week after the government's decision to ban Hezbollah's paramilitary activities. That day, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps itself announced the coordinated strikes during which about fifty sites were targeted in Israel. A Political Lever Far from having a direct impact on Thursday's Lebanese-Israeli dialogue, the Lebanese initiative is nonetheless likely to serve as a political lever for a Lebanon eager to prove it wants to regain control of decisions on war and peace, heretofore mortgaged by Hezbollah. This signal is all the more critical as Israel remains focused on securing its communities on the northern border with Lebanon. For now, Lebanon's main concern remains halting hostilities that have already claimed at least 2,882 deaths, including 200 children. It is around this objective—rejected so far by Israel—that Thursday's two-day talks between the Lebanese and Israeli delegations will open, led respectively by former ambassador Simon Karam and Yechiel Leiter, head of the Israeli diplomatic mission in Washington, and composed, among others, of military officials. The discussions are expected to be difficult due to divergent priorities. Lebanon wants above all strict respect for the ceasefire of April 17 and an end to Israeli destruction in border villages to allow the return of displaced southerners. Israel, for its part, demands a clear plan for Hezbollah's disarmament, a condition it had already set in November 2024 in the ceasefire agreement that ended the war also launched by this pro-Iranian group in support of Hamas in Gaza. Tel Aviv had already made clear it will not withdraw from the buffer zone it continues to expand in the south as long as Hezbollah remains considered a threat. To reaffirm its determination to neutralize this group, the Israeli military intensified strikes Wednesday against Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon. It also targeted four vehicles in the Chouf and southern Lebanon coastal areas. A total of nine people were killed, including two children. Evacuation calls were also issued for villages. Residents of nine localities in the Israeli line of fire were ordered to leave toward open areas. The Beijing Summit At the regional level, attention is focused on the talks that U.S. President Donald Trump will have with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping during his two-day visit to Beijing, where he arrived Wednesday. A summit with major global stakes, from international trade to war in Iran to Taiwan. The American president should notably seek China's help in his diplomatic confrontation with Iran, especially since it risks leading to a resumption of military operations should Tehran maintain its positions, which are unacceptable to Washington. Central to the negotiations is the fate of the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran remains determined to control because the revenue from tolls exceeds that from oil sales, Tehran stressed Wednesday. An option practically unacceptable globally due to its strategic geopolitical and commercial impact. Another important matter on the agenda of the Beijing discussions is economic cooperation, to which Donald Trump attaches particular importance, as evidenced by the composition of the delegation accompanying him, made up of about fifteen top business executives.

As political circles await clearer indications of President Donald Trump’s true intentions regarding the trajectory of the standoff with the Islamic Republic – following Washington’s outright rejection of Tehran’s response to the latest American “peace” proposals (though what kind of “peace” is actually being discussed remains an open question) – attention on Tuesday, May 12, turned to reports of an Israeli incursion north of the Litani River, the first such move in the current context. Since the disastrous war launched by Hezbollah in July 2006 – for what many viewed as purely Iranian considerations – every international and regional initiative, negotiation and security arrangement had focused on stabilizing the area south of the Litani. United Nations Resolution 1701, as well as the ceasefire brokered in November 2024 following yet another self-destructive war initiated by Hezbollah, centered on ending all militia presence within that clearly delineated southern zone. Following the third frenzied – and no less self-destructive – war launched by the pro-Iranian party on March 2, 2026, ostensibly in retaliation for the death of the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, Israel immediately signaled its intentions, stressing its determination to establish a buffer zone in that same area south of the Litani River. The high-profile announcement of an Israeli military incursion north of the river, along with the establishment of a permanent position on the outskirts of the town of Zawtar al-Sharqiyeh, marks, in many respects, a “break” with the entire international diplomatic and security process governing southern Lebanon since August 2006, when the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1701. Tel Aviv also reported clashes in the area with Hezbollah militants, fighting that it said lasted three days. The significance of the disclosure of this major development lies in its timing: it comes on the eve of the third round of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel, scheduled for Thursday, May 14, in Washington under the auspices of the Trump administration, and in the presence of former ambassador Simon Karam – a participation that lends a new political dimension to the bilateral discussions. The message directed at the Lebanese authorities appears clear: if no tangible progress is made toward the disarmament of Hezbollah’s militia, as stipulated by Resolution 1701 and the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, the Israeli army will not limit its operations to the area south of the Litani, as initially indicated, but will not hesitate to expand its campaign by crossing the river northward. Israeli political leaders in Tel Aviv have, in fact, raised that possibility explicitly. Some sources have even gone so far as to suggest that the Israeli military could advance as far as the Zahrani River, south of Saida. The Jewish state could justify such an escalation of its military operations in southern Lebanon by citing the renewed attacks carried out by the pro-Iranian party against northern Israel. As recently as Tuesday evening, several explosive-laden drones launched from southern Lebanon crashed inside Israeli territory near the border, wounding a number of soldiers. The Regional Dimension As tensions rise on the Lebanese front, uncertainty continues to surround developments on the Iranian front. The explosive issue is expected to feature prominently during President Donald Trump’s visit to China later this week, as Beijing maintains close ties with the Islamic Republic. Speaking on the matter Tuesday, the White House chief said he had no intention of acting “rashly” regarding Iran, stressing the importance of the naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports. At the same time, however, the American president made clear that he is under no illusion about what he described as Tehran’s delaying tactics. The remark echoed previous statements by Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly argued that the time has come to put an end to what he describes as the Islamic Republic’s long record of deadly and destabilizing aggression against Western nations and Middle Eastern states alike. Iran, the president said earlier this week, has been “leading us on for 47 years.”

Saturday in Lebanon was marked by the visit of Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to Damascus, where he was received by Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa. This visit is particularly significant in the current circumstances for several reasons: firstly, the outstanding issues between the two countries, such as border security, the resolution of the issue of Syrian prisoners in Lebanon, and others; secondly, the Israeli offensive in southern Lebanon, even as Israeli incursions into southern Syria have taken place in recent months; and finally, the context of the direct negotiations process between Lebanon and Israel, initiated by the Lebanese authorities and sponsored by Washington, within which Lebanon would benefit from expanding its contacts in the region. Not to mention that Syria has recently dismantled, on several occasions, networks that Syrian authorities say are linked to Hezbollah and which, according to them, were working to destabilize the Damascus regime, at a time when Lebanese authorities are struggling to disarm Hezbollah and regain control of Lebanese territory. At the close of his brief visit to Damascus, Nawaf Salam asserted that the visit aimed "to strengthen bilateral relations at all levels," emphasizing that "the talks allowed for the discussion of outstanding issues." In a statement to the press, he specified that the two countries had suffered from mutual interference in the past, that they had turned "a new page," and that he was there to "move relations forward." The Prime Minister specifically mentioned “the common challenges facing Lebanon and Syria within the context of rapid regional developments,” as well as the issues of Syrian prisoners in Lebanon (in accordance with an agreement to return them to Syria, which is currently being implemented), the fate of Lebanese detainees in Syrian prisons of the former regime, whose whereabouts remain unknown, and the fight against smuggling across the borders of both countries. And, of course, the “safe and dignified” return of Syrian refugees to their country. Lebanon hosted nearly two million of them during the Syrian war, and hundreds of thousands remain within its borders. Israeli strikes of rare violence While the Prime Minister was busy “strengthening” relations with the eastern neighbor, the southern one continued to bomb an increasing number of Lebanese towns and villages. Saturday was even more violent and deadly than the days that preceded it. It began with an Israeli call for the evacuation of nine more villages in the south. Israeli strikes continued throughout the day, in the south and in the Bekaa Valley, including in Nabi Chit, resulting in several more deaths and injuries, adding to the already heavy toll of over 2,700 victims since March 2. The most notable strike on Saturday was the one that targeted a car passing through Jahiliyeh, a town in the Chouf Mountains of Mount Lebanon, the first such attack since the start of the war on March 2. Three people in the car were killed. Adding to this the numerous drone strikes that targeted vehicles and buildings outside the border region, in the Sidon area and further north, should we conclude that the Israelis are expanding their offensive in Lebanon? Hezbollah is not to be outdone: on Saturday, it intensified its drone strikes toward northern Israel, particularly targeting military gatherings. These "explosive" drones pose a real challenge for the Israelis because they are difficult to detect, and they injured at least two people in the north of the country: an officer and a soldier, the latter seriously wounded according to the Israeli army. The Iranian response is still pending On the Iranian front, the day was relatively quiet. US President Donald Trump stated Friday evening that he was awaiting an Iranian response to the latest American proposal, which has apparently not yet been given at the time of writing. Is Iranian diplomacy trying to set its own pace, or have the internal divisions within Iran become too significant to produce a clear response to the American proposals? This second option, at least, is the one favored by an American report relayed by the media. A key takeaway this Saturday: the skepticism expressed by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who voiced his doubts about the "seriousness of American diplomacy in the ongoing negotiations for a solution to the conflict in the Middle East," citing "multiple ceasefire violations." Exchanges of fire had taken place the previous day in areas near the Strait of Hormuz, still

As a brief naval confrontation between American and Iranian forces unfolded in the Strait of Hormuz, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, declared on Friday that this maritime passage, through which 20% of the world's crude oil transits, represented 'an opportunity as valuable as an atomic bomb'. 'We have neglected for years the advantage that the Strait of Hormuz represents. Having a position that allows us to influence the global economy with a single decision is a major opportunity,' said Mohammad Mokhber, who is considered close to the hardline faction of the clerical regime. This statement raises questions about Iran's true strategy, as every declaration is scrutinized in light of suspicions—whether founded or not—of divisions within the ruling elite in Tehran. This rift becomes apparent whenever the moderate positions of the Iranian regime's 'doves' are contradicted by inflammatory statements from Revolutionary Guards officials. In the contested strait, from Thursday night to Friday, American forces claimed to have 'retaliated' after three of their guided-missile destroyers came under attack from 'missiles, drones and small boats' while transiting through Hormuz toward the Gulf of Oman. Tehran denounced 'a blatant violation of international law and the ceasefire,' while an Iranian official reported ten sailors wounded and five missing following an American attack on an Iranian cargo ship. The attack on American ships was dismissed as a 'minor incident' by U.S. President Donald Trump, who judged that it did not undermine the maintenance of the ceasefire. However, clashes continued on Friday, further threatening the truce, as Washington still awaits a response from Tehran to its latest proposal aimed at sustainably ending hostilities. As usual, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ismail Baghaei, indicated that Iran was 'still studying the proposal,' projecting a stance of firmness or apparent composure, even as the country has suffered significant destruction and its economy is drained. Lebanese-Israeli Negotiations in Washington In Lebanon, President Joseph Aoun received diplomat Simon Karam and 'gave him his directives' before his departure for Washington, where a meeting with the Israeli delegation is scheduled for May 14, according to a statement from the presidency. The Lebanese ambassador to Washington, the deputy chargé d'affaires, and 'a military official' will be part of the delegation, the same source clarified. 'Lebanon expects three essential objectives from these negotiations: to consolidate the ceasefire, to secure Israel's withdrawal (...) and to extend the state's full sovereignty over national territory,' said Foreign Minister Youssef Raggi. The first meeting between the two countries, which do not maintain diplomatic relations, took place on April 14 in Washington. It was the first such encounter since 1993. Following the second meeting held at the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a three-week extension of the ceasefire that has been in effect since April 17 between the two countries. In southern Lebanon, Hezbollah, which drew Lebanon into the war on March 2 in support of its Iranian ally, claimed on Friday two attacks against military bases in northern Israel, in response to Israeli strikes carried out in Lebanon that killed ten people that same day. Hezbollah had previously stated it launched missiles against a military base near the city of Nahariya, in retaliation for Israeli strikes. Israeli bombardments killed ten people on Friday, including two children and three women, in four localities in southern Lebanon, according to the Lebanese Ministry of Health. Civil Defense also announced earlier the death of one of its rescue workers, killed in a strike.

Faced with the impatience of US President Donald Trump, eager to make progress on negotiations with Iran before his visit to China next week, Tehran is playing a carefully calculated game of detachment. As of Thursday, the Islamic Republic had still not responded to the American proposal, announced Tuesday by President Trump, for a lasting end to the war launched on February 28. According to CNN, the response is expected within the next few hours. Two explanations can be given for the apparent nonchalance displayed by the Islamic Republic. The first lies in the fact that Tehran still believes it can maneuver and play on the element of time, hoping to minimize the concessions it has to make to the Americans or, at the very least, to get them to lower their demands. The other explanation could be related to internal divisions within Iran, which are preventing the development of a unified response, despite the efforts of the mullahs' regime to emphasize what it calls internal cohesion. It is within this context that we can understand the announcement made Thursday by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian regarding a "two-hour" meeting he said he held "recently" with the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, "in an atmosphere of trust and direct dialogue." It should be noted that Khamenei has not been seen in public since his appointment in early March and was wounded during the war in the strikes that killed his father and predecessor, Ali Khamenei. While Iran believes the United States sought to force its "surrender," it refrained from slamming the door shut. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghai stated that his country was "still examining the American plan and proposal." In the same context, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held a telephone conversation with his Pakistani counterpart, Ishaq Dar (whose country is mediating between Tehran and Washington), during which he reportedly emphasized "the importance of maintaining dialogue and diplomacy," according to Iranian news agencies. These agencies indicated that the discussion focused on "regional affairs and efforts to strengthen cooperation among countries in the region." Over the past two days, Tehran has sent mixed signals regarding dialogue with the United States, which, along with the Gulf States, is preparing to submit a draft resolution to the UN Security Council demanding that Iran cease its attacks, disclose the location of its mines, and refrain from imposing shipping tolls. A vote is expected in the coming days. This initiative, it should be noted, follows the Iranian attack on the United Arab Emirates, launched when Washington decided to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and escort ships trapped in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of ​​Oman. Moreover, the United Arab Emirates announced on Thursday the creation of a committee tasked with documenting the attacks carried out by Iran in the Gulf country and their consequences, with a view to possible legal action. The American operation, dubbed "Project Freedom," launched on Monday, reportedly lasted less than 24 hours, as President Trump decided to suspend it pending Tehran's response to his proposals. But according to NBC News, Mr. Trump's reversal on his plan to escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz came after Saudi Arabia refused to allow US forces to use its airspace and bases for the operation. However, according to the Washington Post, Riyadh and Kuwait have lifted this ban. In any case, should the Islamic Republic respond favorably to Trump's latest proposal, the announcement of the end of the war should normally be accompanied by a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, the American president remains determined, at least in his statements, to resume targeted strikes against Iran, despite domestic opposition to this war. In this context, Democratic lawmakers have called for Washington to end its silence on Israel's nuclear posture. A possible sign of a shift on the ground, the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle will be pre-positioned in the Gulf region, according to French authorities, as the coalition formed by London and Paris prepares to secure the Strait of Hormuz following a potential settlement. But signs of European goodwill stop there. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot suggested on Thursday that lifting sanctions against Iran is not currently being considered. It would depend on what might be decided regarding theThe Strait of Hormuz will remain closed as long as this strategic maritime passage remains closed, he told French radio station RTL. The French minister reiterated that a strait is "a common good of humanity that cannot under any circumstances be blocked, subject to tolls, or even used as leverage," thus indirectly expressing reservations about a possible Iranian-American agreement for the exploitation of this strait. Lebanese-Israeli dialogue next week While the Iranian-American issue remains stalled, the Lebanese-Israeli talks appear to be progressing rapidly. According to the Lebanese channel MTV, a third meeting is scheduled in Washington next Thursday and Friday, this time with the participation of former ambassador Simon Karam, tasked by the Lebanese authorities with leading the negotiations with the Israeli delegation. The primary objective of this round of talks will be to halt Israeli attacks and destructive operations in southern Lebanon. This ambition may be considered difficult given Israel's determination to weaken the pro-Iranian group as much as possible and to continue, in this context, eliminating its leaders. The assassination of Ahmad Ghaleb Ballout, commander of Hezbollah's elite al-Radwan force, risks further complicating the task of the Lebanese negotiators. This is especially true since Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear on Thursday, in claiming responsibility for the operation, that Israel remains determined to hunt down Hezbollah leaders. "I say to our enemies in the clearest possible terms: no terrorist has immunity. Anyone who threatens the State of Israel will die for their actions," he said. This was a way of clearly signaling to Iran that the Hezbollah issue remains separate from the upcoming negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Meanwhile, on Thursday, Israeli aircraft launched a series of attacks against several towns in southern Lebanon, particularly targeting the city of Nabatieh and the surrounding villages in the district of the same name. As is the case almost every day, the Israeli army ordered residents of three southern villages, located far from the border, to evacuate, while Hezbollah claimed responsibility for a series of attacks against Israeli positions in southern Lebanon. Aside from the war, a key element of the day deserves mention: the official visit that Prime Minister Nawaf Salam is scheduled to make on Saturday to Damascus, leading a delegation from his government. On the agenda for the discussions are a series of issues related to bilateral cooperation. The agenda had been pre-established, but the war prevented the government from adhering to it. Another noteworthy event was the attempted assassination of Hadi Aboul Hosn, a member of parliament from the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) bloc, in Qubbei, Mount Lebanon. A man who was identified and arrested threw a grenade at the parliamentarian, but it failed to detonate. On the international stage, Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited the Vatican. His mission was to ease tensions between the Holy See and Washington following Trump's criticism of the Pope over the pontiff's stance on the war in the Middle East. According to a State Department source, Pope Leo XIV and Marco Rubio held a "friendly and constructive" meeting at the Vatican on Thursday.

On the Iranian-American front, May 6 unfolded as a day of sustained rhetoric escalation and conflicting statements. These developments followed the surprise announcement by US President Donald Trump declaring the end of the offensive phase of the conflict – an operation dubbed “Project Liberty” – in the Strait of Hormuz, while maintaining a blockade on Iranian ports. A report widely cited across the media, published earlier in the day by Axios, pointed to the possibility of an imminent agreement between Tehran and Washington. It highlighted what it described as a highly consequential 48-hour window for reaching a peace deal. The report outlined key issues likely to lie at the heart of any prospective talks, including a suspension of nuclear enrichment for an as-yet undetermined number of years, in exchange for the release of Iranian funds and the lifting of sanctions. This would, in turn, be followed by the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The prospect of a near-term agreement was also echoed by a Pakistani source – reportedly acting as a mediator in the conflict – in comments to Reuters. In his multiple statements throughout the day, Trump said that a deal appeared to be within reach, that enriched uranium in Iran would be exported to the United States, and that monitors would be allowed into Iranian territory. While he appears eager to secure a breakthrough on the Iranian front ahead of his trip to China next week, the US president ruled out the possibility of direct bilateral talks in the near term, given the current state of contacts. He nevertheless maintained his threatening rhetoric, saying he would bomb Iran with unprecedented intensity if no agreement is reached. Separately, a US intelligence report cited by Reuters said the Department of Homeland Security believes the war in Iran may have been a “possible motive” behind the latest assassination attempt against Trump on April 26 in Washington. On the Iranian side, signals remain equally mixed. A source at the Foreign Ministry said the US proposal was under review, according to an Iranian news agency. Later, the ministry confirmed that exchanges of proposals were continuing through Pakistan. However, earlier in the day, an Iranian MP wrote on X that the Axios report “reflects American wishes” rather than reality. Mohammad Ghalibaf, the speaker of parliament, also adopted a more confrontational tone, accusing the United States of attempting to pressure Iran into submission through economic coercion and of relying on internal divisions in anticipation of the effort’s failure. Is Ghalibaf, who has become a central figure in Iranian political life, seeking to conceal what numerous reports have suggested are deep internal divisions within a regime strained by war? On the ground, a vessel operated by French shipping company CMA CGM was struck on Wednesday by Iranian fire, a sign of rising tensions and persistent risks in the Strait. In other developments, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi traveled to China after visiting Russia. His remarks underscored Tehran’s emphasis on its Chinese ally. He said he had told his Chinese counterpart that Iran was “serious” about negotiations with Washington, but would accept nothing less than a “fair and comprehensive” agreement. For his part, China’s foreign minister said Beijing was “ready to help reduce tensions.” The two countries are bound by significant commercial ties, including Iranian exports of hydrocarbons to China at preferential prices. Some observers argue that China is the real strategic focus of the broader confrontation, and it is also the destination of Trump’s upcoming visit in the coming days. Lebanon-Israel: Talks Move Forward Amid Ongoing Israeli Strikes On the Lebanese front, direct negotiations are moving ahead, with reports of a possible new meeting next week between Lebanese and Israeli delegations in Washington, at the State Department. The talks would reportedly be led by former ambassador Simon Karam, likely accompanied by a military representative, in addition to Ambassador Nada Mouawad. The question of a potential meeting between Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – sought by US President Donald Trump at the White House – has not yet been decided. The Lebanese position remains unchanged, with Aoun saying such a meeting is not justified at this stage. May 6 also saw a brief easing of tensions between two key poles of power in Lebanon, President Joseph Aoun and parliament speaker Nabih Berri, who also heads the Amal Movement, an ally of Hezbollah. The first sign of this thaw was a meeting between prime minister Nawaf Salam and Berri at the parliamentary headquarters in Ain el-Tineh, Beirut. It was seen as a preliminary step toward a postponed trilateral meeting at the presidential palace in Baabda. A second sign came in remarks by Berri to the pan-Arab broadcaster Al Jazeera, in which he said relations with the presidency were “solid and important for stability.” He also stressed that any agreement with Israel would require guarantees, arguing that Tel Aviv does not respect its commitments. Nawaf Salam also addressed the issue on Tuesday during a press conference, saying the negotiations were not aimed at “normalization” but at “peace.” He emphasized the need for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory according to a defined timeline. Asked about a possible meeting between Aoun and Netanyahu in Washington, he said such a meeting would be premature, stressing the importance of consolidating the ceasefire, which he said is being violated daily by both belligerents – Hezbollah and the Israeli army – in southern Lebanon. Another key part of the prime minister’s remarks concerned a review of Lebanon’s plan on the state monopoly of arms, in other words the disarmament of militias, particularly Hezbollah. The plan was initially adopted in August 2025 and implemented by the Lebanese army, but those efforts have been undermined since the resumption of hostilities. Salam also raised an option that has been increasingly discussed in political circles: the deployment of an “international force” in southern Lebanon, as the mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) nears its end. Evacuation Warning in West Bekaa and Strike on Beirut’s Southern Suburbs Tensions between daily Israeli violations of the ceasefire and Hezbollah attacks continue to play out in southern Lebanon. This cycle of confrontation has persisted since the truce took effect on April 16. Two serious developments marked May 6: an evening airstrike on Beirut’s southern suburbs – the Ghobeiri area, the first since April 16 – and the inclusion of a village in West Bekaa, Zallaya, in Israeli evacuation warnings, the first such warning outside southern Lebanon. This village was subsequently targeted in strikes, with at least one fatality reported, including the municipality’s mayor, whose home was directly hit. Regarding the strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, the Israeli military quickly issued a statement saying “the operation was carried out with the approval of Netanyahu,” and that it targeted the head of Hezbollah’s Radwan Force, Malek Ballout. Netanyahu also announced shortly afterward the target of the strike, saying it aimed to “thwart the plans” of the Hezbollah elite unit. Later, Israel’s Channel 14 reported the killing of the official and other members of the unit, all of whom were present in the targeted compound. As for the situation in southern Lebanon, it remains unchanged, with evacuation warnings affecting at least a dozen villages and continued fighting. Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, who toured the border area, said the Israeli military was prepared to expand its operations against Hezbollah, with the aim of contributing to its dismantlement and weakening. A more unexpected development came from the Vatican. Pope Leo XIV personally called priests in Christian villages still holding out along the border area already under Israeli control. The initiative, coordinated with Apostolic Nuncio Paolo Borgia – who has visited these villages despite the risks – was described as “moving” by the priests, according to the Al-Markazia news agency. The pope reportedly reassured the clergy and encouraged them to remain patient.

After a day marked by incendiary statements from all sides, the United States, through the voice of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, assured late Tuesday evening (Beirut time) that the offensive phase of the conflict with Iran was “over”. During a press conference at the White House, the US Secretary of State stated that Washington was now in a “defensive” phase, referring to the new operation announced by Donald Trump and dubbed “Project Liberty”. “Operation ‘Epic Fury’ is over, as the president signified to Congress. We have passed this stage,” he added. Marco Rubio clarified that this operation aimed to rescue the crews of ships stranded in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States will not open fire, but will retaliate “with deadly effectiveness” in the event of an attack. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth confirmed during another press briefing that the ceasefire was not over, despite recent exchanges of fire between the US and Iranian navies, as well as missiles targeting the United Arab Emirates on Monday. Iran has “categorically” denied any involvement in these strikes.  US President Donald Trump refrained from directly accusing Iran of violating the truce in effect since April 8: “They know what they have to do (...) and what they must not do,” he stated. “We are in a minor military skirmish. I say ‘skirmish’ because Iran has no chance,” he added, having previously referred to a “mini-war” and even a “little excursion”. “Hezbollah, the main obstacle to peace” Marco Rubio also stated that a peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel was “imminent”. “The problem between Israel and Lebanon is neither Israel nor Lebanon, it is Hezbollah,” he affirmed. “What must happen in Lebanon is the establishment of a government capable of taking on Hezbollah and dismantling it,” he added. Tehran demands, for its part, that any agreement ending the war with Iran also include the cessation of Israeli attacks in Lebanon, a position Washington rejects, asserting that these issues are separate. In Berlin, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar stated, after a meeting with his German counterpart Johann Wadephul, that “Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon” and seeks to “protect its citizens” as long as “Hezbollah and other terrorist factions” are not dismantled. He recalled that Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005. Saar also criticized the Lebanese government for not having “cleared southern Lebanon of Hezbollah's weapons”, estimating that “efforts have been very limited”. These remarks received nuanced support from Berlin: Johann Wadephul deemed the stationing of Israeli troops in the area “necessary” and condemned Hezbollah's attacks “in the strongest terms”, while emphasizing that “Lebanon must not become a theater of war where civilians pay the price”. An Israeli source cited by CNN indicated that Israel would consider intensifying its strikes against Hezbollah if the truce with Iran collapsed. According to the same source, Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly informed Donald Trump of Israel's willingness to resume high-intensity combat, while the army is pushing to lift certain American restrictions in order to resume its strikes north of the Litani River. In Israel, the new air force chief, General Omer Tischler, said he was ready to deploy “the entire air force” against Iran “if necessary”, during his assumption of command ceremony. A “Hezbollah-linked cell” dismantled in Syria The Syrian Interior Ministry announced on Tuesday the dismantling of a cell linked to Hezbollah, accused of plotting assassinations of officials. According to authorities, the cell was ready to take action, notably to carry out targeted assassinations. Eleven people were arrested, with no details provided on their nationality. Weapons, ammunition, grenades, explosives, and surveillance equipment were seized. Hezbollah “categorically denied” these accusations, asserting that it conducts “no activity” in Syria, recalling that it had already rejected similar accusations on April 12 and 19.

The week opened with a new diplomatic back-and-forth and a risk of military escalation between Iran and the United States. Washington stepped up its pressure on the Islamic Republic, which reacted by firing missiles at... the United Arab Emirates. At the heart of this new standoff is, once again, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, which the US Navy managed to unblock on Monday, to Tehran's great dismay, by escorting ships into Emirati territorial waters, which were quickly targeted by the Iranian army. According to various American media sources, the latest Iranian proposal submitted by Tehran for a resumption of talks with Washington was not too bad. But it did not really meet Donald Trump's expectations, especially regarding the nuclear issue, which the Iranians are seeking to postpone as much as possible, and the control exercised by Iran over the Strait of Hormuz, blocked since the beginning of the war. Moreover, in his comments on Friday and Saturday, the American president had not rejected it. He had only expressed his “dissatisfaction” and considered that the Iranian conditions were not yet “acceptable”. Amendments to the document were submitted, via the Pakistani mediator, to the Iranians, who are expected to respond during the week. But pending this response, Trump increased the pressure on Tehran. He announced, with great fanfare on Sunday evening, a military operation dubbed “Project Freedom” aimed at restoring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. The operation in question consists of helping ships stuck for two months in the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman to cross “safely”. This impromptu decision, explained by Trump's exasperation with Iranian stalling, immediately raised tensions in the region. Iran reacted immediately by threatening to attack ships that venture into this passageway that it controls. Above all, it raises questions about its true motivations, presented by the American president as being of a “humanitarian” nature. Is Donald Trump seeking to disorient his adversary to push them to engage, without wasting time, in talks according to American conditions? Is he trying to show Tehran, pending the resumption of negotiations in Islamabad, that it has no power over this passageway which falls under international law, at a time when the Islamic Republic imposes a toll on the cargo ships it authorizes to cross? Is he seeking to drag Tehran into a new war that his Israeli ally is ready to resume? Or is he trying to ease pressure on the markets to initiate a drop in oil prices? The answer may be the sum of all four. Oil prices moreover stabilized on Monday on Asian markets, with a barrel of Brent, the global benchmark for crude, at $109.29, far from Thursday's $126. According to the news site Axios, citing an American official, Donald Trump is mostly fed up with this “neither war nor peace” situation and wants an agreement as quickly as possible with Tehran, without ruling out a major military strike should the Islamic Republic continue to bank on the time factor. Missile salvos against the UAE Determined not to be intimidated, Iran reacted with threats that it quickly carried out, without however daring to target American warships directly. Following the warning from the Iranian military command, which had cautioned that it intends to “target and attack” the US army if it approached the Strait of Hormuz, cruise missiles, rockets, and Iranian combat drones were fired a first time “as a warning” against the Arabian Gulf, supposedly targeting US army frigates. In a serious development, these shots were however followed by at least three other salvos that targeted different sites in the United Arab Emirates. The Emirati Ministry of Defense announced that cruise missiles were intercepted “over their territorial waters and Dubai”. Three Indian nationals were injured in a strike that targeted the Fujairah oil site on Monday, where a fire broke out. The salvos occurred after the US military command for the Middle East (Centcom) announced a first successful naval escort mission. “Guided-missile destroyers of the US Navy are currently operating in the Gulf after crossing the Strait of Hormuz as part of 'Project Freedom'. US forces are actively contributing to efforts to restore commercial maritime traffic,” the US command for the region wrote on its X account. “Initially, two commercial vessels flying the American flag successfully crossed the Strait of Hormuz and are continuing their journey,” it specified. It then went on to promise to react to Iranian attacks “in accordance with the instructions of President Donald Trump”. The latter, for his part, threatened to “wipe Iran off the face of the earth if it strikes American military ships”. In his war of attrition against Iran, the American president had, however, just scored a new point by depriving Tehran of an important leverage tool, at the risk of triggering a new round of fighting. Donald Trump had warned on Sunday evening, when announcing the “Project Freedom” operation, that he would “deal with by force” any Iranian attempt to disrupt it. According to Centcom, the operation in question involves guided-missile destroyers, over a hundred aircraft, and 15,000 soldiers. It remains to be seen how the Iranians will react over the coming days to this new American challenge, which has elicited mixed reactions on a European scale. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed his skepticism, considering that the framework of the American operation “is not clear” and that the reopening of the strait should be the result of a “concerted decision between Iran and the United States”. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer judged that the reopening of this maritime passage represents a “vital economic priority” but remained reserved regarding the “Project Freedom” operation. And in Lebanon? In Lebanon, a showdown of a completely different kind continues to unfold, against the backdrop of upcoming direct negotiations between Beirut and Tel Aviv. Washington remains determined to accelerate this process meant to put an end to the war, which for now remains limited to southern Lebanon, between Israel and Hezbollah, and to settle for good the obstacle that this group, completely subservient to Iran, represents for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty. The United States Ambassador to Lebanon, Michel Issa, met with President Joseph Aoun to encourage him to move forward in this process and to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. “An opportunity to present his country's demands to him,” he argued during the press conference that followed the meeting. According to him, such a meeting would be “neither a loss nor a concession for Lebanon”. “Is Benjamin Netanyahu a bogeyman? He is merely a stakeholder in the negotiations,” he declared, before announcing that he also intends to visit the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri. The ambassador's move earned him an outcry from Hezbollah, which called on the authorities to declare him persona non grata. But the head of state is standing his ground. Joseph Aoun reaffirmed in a statement published by his press office that a meeting with Netanyahu remains “inopportune” for the time being. According to him, the priority goes to a security agreement and the cessation of Israeli attacks on Lebanon. In southern Lebanon, exchanges of fire between Hezbollah and Israeli forces were raging on Monday. The pro-Iranian group launched a massive salvo of rockets against northern Israel late in the day and announced hand-to-hand combat with Israeli soldiers in an area between Deir Seriane and Zawtar al-Charkieh, while its leader, Naim Qassem, once again denounced Israeli military operations in the south of the country in a statement and reiterated his opposition to direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel. While he said he was in favor of a diplomatic solution, he deemed that the talks should be indirect, which would in practical terms allow his group to have a say in the process, as had been the case during the indirect negotiations for the demarcation of maritime borders with Israel. These had been led, as is known, by his ally, the Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri. Naim Qassem, whose group had decided to attack Israel to avenge the death of the Iranian supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, killed in a targeted Israeli strike, thus estimated that “it is Lebanon that is being attacked and that needs guarantees for its security and sovereignty”.

The main news this Saturday is not about the conflict between Tehran and Washington, but one of its consequences, namely the emerging crisis between Europe and the United States, which is considering significantly reducing its military presence in Germany. Washington indeed plans to withdraw about 15% of the 36,000 troops stationed in Germany, or nearly 5,000 soldiers, a withdrawal that the Pentagon estimates can be completed in the "next six to twelve months," according to its spokesperson, Sean Parnell. This plan, announced by the Pentagon, would thus be the first consequence of the showdown between the American president, Donald Trump, and the NATO countries, whom the latter has repeatedly criticized for their passivity in the war that has pitted him against Iran since February 28. Donald Trump expressed his annoyance with the German chancellor this week, after a heated exchange between them regarding the war in Iran. On Friday, he also criticized Italy and Spain for the same reason. Could the withdrawal of American troops from Germany be the first step towards a total American disengagement from the Atlantic Alliance? It is still premature to answer this question. Because, while Berlin took note on Saturday of the American decision and called on Europe to strengthen its security, NATO intends for its part to talk with Washington to "better understand" it. According to the Wall Street Journal, this decision surprised several European countries, and even some American military officials who did not think the American president would carry out his threats. Germany, however, seemed to expect it, as announced by the German Defense Minister. "That United States troops would withdraw from Europe and also from Germany was expected," commented Boris Pistorius. "We Europeans must take more responsibility for our security," he added. NATO, for its part, is "working" with the United States to "better understand" Washington's decision, an alliance spokesperson said on Saturday. Donald Trump came to this announcement after Chancellor Friedrich Merz estimated on Monday that "the Americans clearly (had) no strategy" in Iran and that Tehran was "humiliating" the world's leading power. "He thinks it's OK for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. He doesn't know what he's talking about!" Donald Trump retorted on Tuesday. Without responding directly, Friedrich Merz called on Thursday for "a reliable transatlantic partnership." On Friday, Donald Trump also said he was considering a reduction in American troops stationed in Italy and Spain, considering that Rome "has been of no help" to Washington and that Madrid "has been obnoxious." He also indirectly attacked Germany and its significant automobile exports by announcing his intention to raise tariffs on vehicles imported to the United States from the European Union to 25% "next week." An American disengagement from NATO would, however, have disastrous consequences for Europe on both the defense and financial fronts. The United States is the main funder of the Alliance. Its withdrawal from it would force member countries to review their defense strategy, particularly in the nuclear field, and to release colossal sums to compensate for a possible end to the American financial windfall and defense equipment. This development came as efforts for a resumption of talks between Tehran and Washington in Islamabad remain stalled, with Donald Trump stating on Friday that he is not satisfied with the new Iranian proposals. Resumption of the war? This standstill primarily raises fears of a resumption of military conflict, deemed very likely by Mohammad Jafar Asadi, deputy inspector of the Khatam Al-Anbiya armed forces command, quoted by the Fars news agency. According to him, the Iranian armed forces are perfectly prepared for any new American attack, while the American president seems instead to favor economic pressures, through the blockade imposed on American ports. These remain less costly than the military option for the United States, but ruinous for Iran, which suffers from a high inflation rate and whose oil trade is literally blocked. Tehran, whose oil depots are already saturated, has moreover begun to reduce its oil production. Meanwhile, its supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, urged the country's companies in a written message to avoid layoffs as much as possible. Faced with the deadlock, some analysts do not rule out the possibility that the Iranians might try to break the American siege through a military operation that would disrupt Washington's plans, just as Donald Trump had reassured Congress that the war is over and that he is preparing to impose a "long" blockade on Iranian ports. "The ball is currently in the United States' court. We have presented them with a plan to permanently end the war," Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi announced on Saturday. "They must choose between the path of diplomacy or the continuation of a confrontational approach. Iran, in order to guarantee its national interests and security, is prepared for both options," he added before ambassadors and heads of diplomatic missions in the Iranian capital. War of words and images in Lebanon On the Lebanese front, the abject campaign led by Hezbollah's electronic army against the head of the Maronite Church, Patriarch Bechara Rai, has somewhat overshadowed the violence of the exchanges of fire between Israel and this militia in southern Lebanon, where, according to the Ministry of Health, at least 41 people have been killed in less than 24 hours. Ali Barakat, nicknamed the "Hezbollah singer," posted humiliating images of the patriarch on his X account, supposedly in response to a caricatural video of the militia leader, Naim Qassem, published by the LBCI channel. The images, meant to illustrate the patriarch's subjugation to Israel, were quickly relayed by supporters of Hezbollah on social media, sparking fiery reactions in Lebanon. The campaign was strongly denounced by many officials, notably the Presidents of the Republic, Joseph Aoun, and of the Parliament, Nabih Berri, as well as by the Mufti of the Republic, Sheikh Abdel Latif Derian. At the same time, a caricatural portrait of President Aoun, depicting him as an Israeli rabbi, continued to be widely relayed on social media. A behavior that ultimately reflects the total bankruptcy of a group which, to mask its inability to put forward the slightest sensible argument for the suicidal adventure into which it has dragged the country, and for its rejection of the authorities' efforts to end the spiral of violence for which it bears responsibility, falls back on smear campaigns, threats, and accusations of treason.