Weekly essentials

While Iranian-American talks remain stalled amid fierce rhetoric on both sides, it is the front in southern Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah that has seen a gradual escalation this week, reaching a peak on Saturday — pointing to potentially unpredictable developments in the days ahead. The week of August 10–16, 2026 was marked in South Lebanon by an escalation that built steadily until the bloody Saturday of August 15. There is a sense of déjà vu — the center of gravity of a regional conflict shifting once again toward a small country, at a time when, on the main front with Iran, the belligerents' war of words has replaced actual hostilities… at least for now. Southern Lebanon has thus been the scene of a steadily intensifying Israeli escalation as the days passed. It also marks the first time since last June's fragile ceasefire that the Israelis have reported Hezbollah operations against their troops — although the Shiite militia has not claimed responsibility for these, continuing to maintain the appearance of respecting the truce. The targeting of Ali el-Taher continued throughout the week in a very sustained manner by the Israelis, culminating in the particularly bloody events of Saturday. That day, the Israeli military claimed to have struck two senior Hezbollah commanders: Ali Fakhreddine in Deir Zahrani, and Ali Hajj Hassan (of the elite Radwan force), killed along with his entire family at a Hezbollah military headquarters in Ansar (on the outskirts of Sidon — a position deep in the south). The strikes that day killed 11 people, including women and children, and wounded around twenty others. Regarding these strikes, the Israeli military cited an operation against its soldiers in the yellow zone (the area it occupies in the south), in the Ali el-Taher region. Hezbollah did not confirm anything but issued a statement on Saturday containing a threat of an "appropriate response" should the violations continue. The sense that the now-infamous hill of Ali el-Taher represents a key flashpoint in the conflict was reinforced on Saturday by remarks from Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf, the lead negotiator, who claimed to be "in contact with fighters on the front lines at Ali el-Taher." Not only does this statement signal Iran's desire to maintain its grip on Lebanon through Hezbollah, but it raises the question of whether he is simply referring to Lebanese fighters or whether they are being backed by senior Revolutionary Guard officers — as public rumors have suggested since the conflict began. How far is Iran willing to go to support Hezbollah in such an unequal confrontation with Israel? Verbal escalation between Hezbollah and the United States Another notable development of the week was the war of words between various senior American officials and Hezbollah. This verbal escalation peaked with a statement by U.S. Ambassador Michel Issa on Friday, who stressed, in response to a journalist's question, that Israeli military action would not stop until Hezbollah had surrendered its weapons. On Sunday, a U.S. State Department source declared that Hezbollah "bears sole responsibility" for the situation the country finds itself in. Michel Issa's remarks drew an almost immediate response from the party's secretary-general, Naïm Qassem, who delivered a scathing speech on Friday targeting Lebanese authorities, accusing them of allowing themselves to be "humiliated" and of bowing to American and Israeli dictates. He called on them to "stop piling up failures," arguing that every round of negotiations with Israel has yielded nothing for Lebanon. He shifted the focus back to Iran's role, contending that only the Islamabad agreement — now effectively on life support — has ever brought a ceasefire to the country. A statement issued by Hezbollah on Saturday, following two deadly Israeli strikes, echoed that speech, declaring that placing any bet on the Americans and their promises amounts to "certain failure." The past week was also marked by a dispute between Israel and the United States over Lebanon. It came to a head primarily through Washington's outraged reaction to comments made by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, who stated that his army "would not withdraw" from southern Lebanon. Washington warned that such remarks were endangering talks between Lebanon and Israel. It is worth noting in this context that U.S. President Donald Trump dispatched his envoy — and son-in-law — Jared Kushner to the region. He is expected to travel to Israel in the coming days for talks centered on Gaza, though the situation in Lebanon is also likely to be on the agenda. The past week was further marked by a tour of Lebanese officials conducted by Lieutenant General Joseph Clearfield, who chairs the ceasefire monitoring committee (established in November 2024) under U.S. leadership. He was accompanied by Ambassador Issa. The American officer discussed the trilateral negotiations with his counterparts, drawing on a visit he had made to Israel the previous week. On the other front: the Strait of Hormuz On the front of the U.S.-Iran conflict, there were no major developments this week — neither in terms of armed confrontation nor direct negotiations (which remain nonexistent) — with just days to go before the sixty-day deadline set in the framework agreement signed between the two sides in Islamabad in June expires. Next week therefore appears wide open to any and all possibilities. All eyes are on the Strait of Hormuz. The week ended with promises of an Iranian-Omani agreement on the waterway's management — a stark contrast to the bellicose statements coming from both sides. The U.S. president repeatedly insisted that the area is entirely under American control and that the blockade on Iranian ports is airtight. For their part, the Iranians continued to make provocative statements toward the Americans. The latest came on Sunday from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who declared that his country has no intention of resuming negotiations with the United States at this time. The Iranians are thus continuing to act as if they have won, while quietly pressing ahead with their brutal domestic crackdown — executing opponents in ever-growing numbers, including young people and even teenagers. It is also worth noting that Iran's supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei — still conspicuously absent from public view — made six major appointments within Iran's military and security apparatus on Tuesday. Observers interpreted these changes as a further tightening of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' grip on key defense positions, deepening the impression of a hardening posture amid ongoing regional tensions. Finally, it should be noted that the Yemeni Houthi front remained very active this week. In addition to several Houthi attacks in the Red Sea (on top of Iranian attacks on vessels at the Strait of Hormuz), major strikes took place against a refinery belonging to Saudi oil giant Aramco, as well as against a port controlled by official Yemeni forces backed by Saudi Arabia.

The Trump Administration displayed a troubling and unusual passivity last week in the face of aggression (and arrogance) from the radical wing of the Iranian regime and its proxies — both in the Strait of Hormuz and on the front opened by the pro-Iranian Yemeni Houthi militia against Saudi Arabia. It was against this backdrop that a mutual defense pact was sealed this week between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey, widely seen as a kind of Sunni NATO against Iran. The past week in the Middle East will likely be defined by a single image: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signing a mutual defense pact on Friday in Mecca — a location of profound symbolic significance. It is hard not to see this as an alliance of Sunni powers arrayed against the mullahs' regime — weakened by its recent war with the United States, yet still capable of causing considerable harm, as demonstrated by its attacks on neighboring Arab states and the aggressive posture of its proxies. The signing of this trilateral defense pact coincides with the activation of the Yemeni front against Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb area, and with the blockade the pro-Iranian Houthi militia is attempting to impose on Saudi ports. This new alliance has also become a priority for its signatories because the American ally appears to be seeking a way out — one that would not be too humiliating — that would allow it to disengage entirely from the Iranian conflict in order to protect its own interests. If this apparent US withdrawal actually materializes (which has yet to be demonstrated at this stage), it would mean that the Trump Administration had effectively given up in the face of the Iranian regime, leaving its radical wing free to stage a comeback by rapidly rebuilding its military apparatus and infrastructure — not only economic, but above all nuclear and ballistic. The scope of the defense pact Returning to the trilateral defense pact: it sends a message in several directions. Ankara was quick to clarify that the alliance is not directed against any particular party, while Riyadh stressed that it was not linked to any nuclear ambitions — given that Pakistan is a nuclear power and that the US Secretary of Energy recently announced a forthcoming agreement with the kingdom on civilian nuclear development, something the US president has made contingent on peace with Israel. The development of this landmark alliance will need to be closely watched in the weeks and months ahead, especially since the signatories speak of "deterrence" — by what means, and against whom? The three signatories also stated that the pact is open to other nations. Already on Saturday, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan declared that Egypt could soon join the new alliance, according to AFP. No reopening of the Strait of Hormuz in sight Friday's signing came at the end of a week of truce — or rather, American military passivity. That did not stop the mullahs' regime and its Yemeni ally, the Houthis, from continuing their aggression. A guided-missile destroyer patrolling the operational area of the US Navy's 5th Fleet in the Gulf. (Centcom) The Revolutionary Guards launched an attack over the weekend on an oil tanker belonging to the United Arab Emirates in the Strait of Hormuz, and over the past twenty-four hours, the Houthis first struck a refinery at Aramco's facilities in Saudi Arabia, before firing multiple missiles and drones on Saturday against the area around the Yemeni port of Mokha, targeting both port infrastructure and civilian facilities (homes, a hospital, etc.). According to an initial toll, the bombardment killed seven people and wounded 35 others. Late on Saturday evening, the Houthis resumed their intense shelling of the Mokha port area. It is worth noting that this week's attacks — on the Emirati tanker, the Saudi Aramco refinery, and positions held by the Yemeni government allied with Saudi Arabia — prompted no American response. As for the negotiations that were supposed to resume on Monday, as President Donald Trump had announced in exchange for calling off a US military operation against Iran, they never took place — the Iranians having refused any contact with the US administration! Iran's conditions put to Washington Regarding the hypothetical reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards stated over the weekend that it does not depend on an agreement with Oman, but rather on the United States accepting their conditions — thereby putting the ball back in Washington's court, which continues to refuse the imposition of any toll on maritime passage. The Iranian conditions announced on Friday included: an end to all "threats and insults directed against Iran" (!), a halt to all wars on all fronts (including Lebanon), the lifting of the blockade on Iranian ports, the withdrawal of all American forces from Iran's neighborhood, the payment of compensation for damages caused during the war, the lifting of all sanctions, and the unfreezing of Iranian assets. Two young Iranian women pose for a photographer while eating ice cream at a summer fashion event — an unusual sight in Tehran as residents take advantage of the ceasefire. (Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via AFP) This unchanged belligerent rhetoric can likely be explained by the fact that American threats have remained empty all week, despite Iranian attacks (direct or through proxies) on vessels in the strait — at least six — with no response whatsoever from the US military. In this context, it is worth noting that according to Israel's Channel 13, the head of US Central Command, who has been visiting Israel since the end of the week, conveyed a message to the Israeli government indicating that Washington wants the Jewish state to put an end to military operations in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza. Israeli leaders reportedly responded that Israel will not hesitate to directly strike the Iranian regime if it resumes building up its nuclear and ballistic arsenal. Finally, to close out this regional file, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei made headlines three times on Saturday. He reportedly held a meeting with Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, appointed Mohammad Bagher Zolghadr as political adviser, and designated Mohsen Rezaei — a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war and former head of the Revolutionary Guards — as his representative on the Supreme National Security Council. Lebanese-Israeli negotiations at an impasse This week was also significant on the Lebanese front. Over three days, from Tuesday to Thursday, the seventh round of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel took place, held for the second time in Rome (at the US Embassy) rather than in Washington. This seventh round was already off to a bad start, given Israeli statements — particularly those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — that suggest a clear lack of intention to withdraw from Lebanon. While the unofficial reason is a hardening of rhetoric ahead of the Israeli legislative elections scheduled for October, and Netanyahu's desire to distance himself from anything that might upset public opinion or his hardline allies, the official reason is concern over a potential rebuilding of Hezbollah's military capabilities in evacuated areas. All indications coming out of the Rome talks point to a lack of meaningful progress and no new concrete measures, even though the Lebanese delegation's primary objective was to define new pilot zones for Israeli withdrawal and Lebanese army deployment (under the framework agreement signed in June). So much so that the next round of talks, scheduled for early September, now appears to be in jeopardy. One might have thought all was (nearly) lost, were it not for a Reuters report on Friday citing an unnamed "Lebanese official." According to this official, Lebanon and Israel "have agreed on a shortlist of countries capable of sending troops to verify Hezbollah's disarmament." He did not reveal which countries are on the list, but the agency noted that the final decision rests with the United States. Meanwhile, southern Lebanon has seen a genuine escalation over the past few days. Hezbollah continues to act as though it is observing the ceasefire, but it appears to have unofficially resumed operations. This was evidenced by an explosion in the village of Taybe that killed two Israeli soldiers and wounded others earlier this week. It was the second such incident in just a few days. Israel's response came swiftly. For the first time in several weeks, the Israeli army issued an evacuation order for a southern Lebanese village — Mansouri in Tyre — which has since been subjected to near-constant bombardment. Israeli strikes, which never truly stopped, are intensifying daily, particularly around what is described as a major Hezbollah military complex on the hill of Ali el-Taher. Even more worrying, Israeli incursions into Lebanese territory are resuming. The one drawing the most attention this week is a growing incursion near the village of Zawtar el-Charqiya, just steps away from one of the pilot zones evacuated in July where the Lebanese army deployed — Zawtar el-Gharbiya. As a result, the two armies have found themselves dangerously close in recent days, at a time when a Lebanese soldier was wounded by Israeli fire in Mansouri while attempting to reopen a road.

Once again — and for the umpteenth time (the previous instances on this front are too numerous to count!) — President Donald Trump announced in the early hours of Sunday, August 2, the "cancellation" of the "large-scale" attack that had been described as "imminent" against the Iranian regime. In recent days, the US Administration had fueled — through extensive media fanfare — an atmosphere suggesting that a major attack targeting the Islamic Republic's energy infrastructure was planned for that weekend. The announcement of these large-scale military operations was accompanied by statements from President Trump and senior American officials condemning the conduct of Iran's leaders and denouncing, in very harsh terms, their negative attitude and deceptive behavior during talks with US negotiators. Setting aside this hard-line stance entirely, however, President Trump announced in the early hours of Sunday that the attack had been called off "at Iran's request" (!) and at the request of certain countries in the region, indicating that an agreement had been reached regarding Iran's nuclear program and the immediate, unimpeded reopening of the Strait of Hormuz… except that Iran's official news agency shortly afterward denied any agreement concerning that strategic waterway! One must acknowledge — and above all lament — that these repeated U-turns by President Trump, which have led him, on numerous occasions, to back down at the last minute after threatening to attack Iran, can only do serious damage to his credibility and, by the same token, serve to strengthen the radical wing of the Iranian regime. That said, in announcing the cancellation of the planned strikes, the head of the White House once again declared that "if a deal is not negotiated very quickly, we will carry out the most powerful strikes the world has seen since World War II." Yet the public tends to no longer take the American president's threats seriously. This decision, announced on the social media platform Truth Social , came after a week filled with tensions and developments. On Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had held a meeting with President Trump in Washington, on the sidelines of a ceremony honoring the late American Senator Lindsey Graham. The absence of a joint press conference between the two men reignited speculation about the persistence of disagreements between the two leaders. Iranian threats Regardless, it was becoming increasingly clear as the week wore on that Israel and the United States were preparing for a new attack against Iran, even as the Jewish state had been sidelined from the most recent military escalation against Tehran. On Saturday, strikes against Iranian energy sites were being discussed — the very same strike threats that had preceded the first ceasefire announced by Trump on April 8. US embassies in the region had warned American citizens on Saturday against any travel to the Middle East. It is worth noting, in an attempt to explain President Trump's reversal, that the announcement canceling the attack was preceded by contacts initiated on Saturday by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his Saudi and Turkish counterparts, as well as with the commander of the Pakistani army. At the same time, Mr. Araghchi issued threats against the United States, warning Americans against "any hasty decision." Meanwhile, sources from the regime's radical wing launched a campaign of outright blackmail, warning on Saturday that if the US military followed through on its threats, the populations of Gulf countries, Jordan, and Israel would no longer know peace. Against this backdrop of Iranian blackmail, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated Saturday evening in an interview with Fox News that "the Iranian regime must change, as it is a regime that was not seeking to govern its own country but to govern the entire region." Rubio went on to emphasize that "Iranian leaders must be made to pay a heavy price for these practices, so that they abandon their aspirations for regional hegemony." The Iraqi question and Hamas's weapons In any case, the Iranian regime has once again demonstrated its capacity for disruption through its proxies in recent days. Yemen's Houthi rebels opened a new front on the Red Sea and raised the threat of a complete closure of another strait — the Bab el-Mandeb. However, beyond Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, another actor entered the fray this week. The pro-Iranian Iraqi group Hashd al-Shaabi carried out drone strikes against Saudi territory, prompting a joint American-Saudi response earlier in the week targeting the group's sites in Iraq. Regardless, by the end of the week, despite repeated pledges by Iraqi authorities to prevent any strikes from being launched from their territory, Jordan threatened to attack pro-Iranian Iraqi groups if its territory were targeted again. This widening of the conflict zone was confirmed by an unprecedented strike on Wednesday against an Egyptian port, targeting a gas tanker owned by an American company — the first time Egypt has been drawn into this conflict. Another major development concerning Iran's regional allies: Hamas, now led by Khalil al-Hayya, approved an agreement leading to its disarmament, which, according to the group, stipulates a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. An agreement that is expected to be implemented by the Peace Council established by Trump in January. Finally, it is worth noting that Lebanese President Joseph Aoun was received mid-week by his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in Ankara.

The past week came to a close on Sunday with two undeniably significant developments. The first was Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's visit to Baghdad, where he held talks with Iraqi leaders focused primarily on economic matters. Accompanied by Energy Minister Joe Saddi, the prime minister discussed with his Iraqi counterpart the possibility of including the Tripoli refinery in the reactivation of the oil pipeline linking Iraq to Syria, with a view to exporting Iraqi oil. An agreement to that effect was signed between Syria and Iraq just days ago, and the Lebanese government is seeking to revive the Tripoli refinery's role in this context. The second development has a macro-political and supranational dimension: an exchange of messages between Hezbollah and the elusive and mysterious Iranian Supreme Guide Moujtaba Khamenei. The document reveals that Hezbollah reaffirms its allegiance to the Iranian Supreme Guide, emphasizing that the current conflict in the region is 'a continuation of the Battle of Karbala.' Reaffirming its determination to pursue 'armed resistance,' Hezbollah stresses its 'full solidarity with Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards,' adding that the party 'remains under the leadership of Sheikh Naim Qassem' and stays 'loyal to the leadership of Moujtaba Khamenei.' In the wake of Hezbollah's renewed pledge of allegiance, a message attributed to Moujtaba Khamenei and addressed to the pro-Iranian party states that 'perseverance on the path of resistance will bring the divine victory promised to the mujahideen who walk the path of truth.' A lull on the American-Iranian front On the military operations front, the American-Iranian front has been experiencing a fragile lull since Friday evening. After 13 consecutive days of American bombardments on Iranian soil and Iranian retaliatory strikes on neighboring Gulf countries, Friday and Saturday nights were calm, even as the Yemeni front flares up and southern Lebanon remains, for now, far from the brink of escalation. The American war against Iran has just taken a new turn toward an uncertain future. After roughly 13 days of palpable escalation, marked by massive American bombardments on Iranian territory and continuous Iranian retaliatory strikes on neighboring Gulf countries and Jordan, the military tension suddenly subsided on Friday. Iranians have now experienced their second calm night, as could be observed Sunday morning. According to American media outlets, this lull stems from an order issued by President Donald Trump on Friday. The Iranians have also halted their strikes against neighboring countries. This development has raised several questions in the media. Is this lull temporary or here to stay? What might it lead to — new negotiations, or an escalation of the conflict, with ground combat, for example? And what truly motivated Trump's decision? That last question is crucial. According to numerous American media outlets, including the New York Times and CNN , the American government fears the depletion of its stockpile of interceptor missiles used to protect Gulf countries. It also reportedly fears a broader conflict spreading across the Middle East. Trump, for his part, continues to send mixed signals. While insisting he is considering even more significant strikes on Iran, he nonetheless assured that he is 'talking to them right now,' suggesting they are 'getting more and more serious' for 'an obvious reason' — an apparent reference to the devastating blows dealt by the American air force. This sudden lull stands in stark contrast to Israeli behavior in recent days. Kept out of the latest strikes against Iran — despite being the preferred partner (if not the instigator) at the start of this war against Iran in late February — Israel took extreme precautionary measures this week, asking its population to be ready to take shelter at any moment. Several airlines suspended their flights to Tel Aviv in recent days. According to some reports, Israel had expressed readiness to carry out targeted strikes on Iranian soil, but was held back from doing so by President Trump. Yet on Sunday morning, the Israeli government approved extending the state of emergency until August 11. In any case, one key appointment to watch next week is the planned meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the American president in Washington on Tuesday. Netanyahu had struggled to secure this meeting, a sign that tensions between the two men over the war in Iran remain. Will the Israeli PM manage to influence his American partner's decisions, given that both men must contend with crucial domestic electoral deadlines in the coming months? For President Trump, the midterm elections could prove difficult, as rising oil prices and inflation linked to the war in Iran have seriously dented his approval ratings. As for Netanyahu, he is once again gambling with his political future. That said, these disagreements and calculations do little to alter the strategic relationship between the two countries. One development this week reinforced that point: on Thursday, the U.S. Secretary of Energy announced an upcoming agreement with Saudi Arabia to develop a civilian nuclear program, drawing worried reactions from Democratic lawmakers and Israeli parties, who said they feared a new nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Later that same day, President Trump posted a message on his social media platform Truth Social , with a surprising message: he insisted that this deal with the Saudis could only move forward if Saudi Arabia recognized Israel and signed the Abraham Accords, already ratified by several Gulf states. Satisfaction on the Israeli side, with Netanyahu calling it "a historic step forward." On the Saudi side, silence. A troubled first deployment of the army in South Lebanon On the ground, it is clear that while Iran observed an implicit truce with the United States by holding back its missiles and drones for two days, the Yemeni front — on the side of the pro-Iranian Houthi rebels — continues to flare up. The Houthi rebels proved threatening throughout the week, directing missiles toward Saudi Arabia for the first time since 2022, and disrupting the passage of ships through the Red Sea. They targeted two Saudi oil tankers during the week (only one, according to Saudi authorities). In response, the pro-Saudi legitimate Yemeni government launched attacks against rebel-controlled areas. This Yemeni front, activated by Iran, appears for now to be overshadowing the South Lebanon front. Hezbollah continues not to respond to Israel's ongoing operations in occupied areas and even beyond. While they claim to be respecting the ceasefire — specifically the one brokered by the Iranians as part of the Islamabad process, rather than the one secured by the Lebanese authorities in the framework agreement signed directly with the Israelis in Washington — the pro-Iranian militia's leadership is mindful of their fighters' exhaustion, but also, and above all, of the war-weariness among their supporters, a large portion of whom remain displaced. Also in South Lebanon, a pivotal development took place on Tuesday in connection with the Lebanese-Israeli framework agreement: the deployment of the Lebanese army in a village on the edge of the occupied zone, Zawtar el-Gharbiya. The Lebanese army's entry into the village did not go smoothly: the Israeli army fired toward Lebanese soldiers—without causing casualties—claiming that the Lebanese vehicles had moved outside the designated area. The Lebanese army flatly denied these allegations. Aoun in Washington Nevertheless, the Lebanese authorities, regularly criticized by the Iranian axis, continue to pursue the path toward lasting peace. This is evidenced by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's visit on Wednesday to Zawtar el-Gharbiya, where he planted a Lebanese flag in the village and delivered a reassuring message to the people of the south, affirming the state's commitment to stand by them. The visit by army commander-in-chief Rodolphe Haykal the following day reinforced that impression. This message is more critical than ever for people living in the devastated areas. The first reactions from Zawtar residents upon seeing the destruction—after being allowed to return and inspect their properties following the army's deployment—have been heartbreaking. However, the key event of the week in terms of restoring the state's prestige took place in Washington. In the United States since Saturday, with a packed schedule of meetings with American officials—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday—Lebanese President Joseph Aoun was received by President Donald Trump at the White House on Tuesday. In terms of optics, the joint press conference between the two presidents revealed genuine chemistry between the two heads of state, with the message conveyed being one of a relationship moving in the right direction. On the substance, all signals were equally positive. That same evening, the American president announced a symbolic yet significant measure: the resumption of direct flights between the United States and Beirut, which had been suspended for more than 40 years. The Lebanese president, for his part, expressed on multiple occasions after the meeting his confidence that the country is on the right track. Doubts certainly remain and the challenges are still enormous, but this Washington meeting will not have been a missed opportunity. Unsurprisingly, the president's visit to the American capital and his performance there earned him broad support from within Lebanon's political class. Even Nabih Berry, the Speaker of Parliament and leader of Amal—a Hezbollah ally who had distanced himself from the president's decisions in recent weeks—called him upon his return. Hezbollah, on the other hand, continues to attack Aoun relentlessly: in a scathing statement on Thursday, the party accused the president of having 'failed to secure a single national sovereignty-related demand,' asserting that he 'did not obtain any American commitment regarding an Israeli withdrawal.' On this front as well, the Shia militia appears increasingly isolated. On Saturday, the president received an additional boost of confidence during the beatification Mass of the 'father of Greater Lebanon,' Patriarch Elias Howayek, held at the patriarchate's summer residence in Dimane (Bcharre, northern Lebanon), through the words of Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rai. At this religious and political gathering—which brought together figures from all communities (with the surprising exception of Nabih Berry)—the patriarch hailed 'the positive signs' that emerged from the Washington meeting and reiterated his support for the president.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun arrived in Washington on Saturday, ahead of a scheduled meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday. On the regional front, the United States intensified its strikes throughout the past week against Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) positions and infrastructure, prompting retaliatory attacks by the latter against Gulf countries (!), while the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen once again entered the fray. As the week drew to a close, attention in Lebanon was firmly fixed on the long-awaited visit of President Joseph Aoun to Washington. The head of state, who arrived in the U.S. capital on Saturday accompanied by his wife and advisors, held a meeting on Sunday afternoon (Beirut time) at the State Department with Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He is set to meet with several other U.S. officials before his appointment on Tuesday with President Donald Trump at the White House. President Joseph Aoun's meeting with the Secretary of State lasted an hour and a half. During the talks, the Lebanese president stressed the importance of swiftly establishing the pilot zones that Israel should evacuate, in order to allow the Lebanese army to deploy in those areas. Rubio reaffirmed the United States' commitment to working toward implementing the framework agreement concluded between Lebanon and Israel. The U.S. Secretary of State also praised the efforts of President Aoun and the Salam government in restoring Lebanese state sovereignty and dismantling the Hezbollah militia. In this context, sources cited by the al-Hadath channel reported on Sunday that the Trump administration is seeking to establish "an alliance between Lebanon and Iraq in order to reduce Iranian influence in the region." Regardless, this official visit by a Lebanese president to the United States — the first in many years — carries particular significance given the current context, not only in terms of domestic developments, but especially at the regional level. The sixth round of direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, held this week in Rome, did make progress regarding the initial implementation of the framework agreement signed on June 26 in Washington. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar announced on Tuesday from Jerusalem that the Israelis "are ready to move forward" with implementing the pilot zones in southern Lebanon. The two-day talks in Rome between Lebanese and Israeli negotiators were described as "productive and positive" on Wednesday by the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon. However, the devil remains in the details, which were to be discussed on Friday during technical exchanges between the Lebanese and Israeli sides. Those consultations were postponed, as Lebanon insists that the pilot zones must clearly consist of villages currently occupied by Israel, while Tel Aviv is demanding stronger guarantees regarding the systematic destruction of all Hezbollah infrastructure in areas handed over to the Lebanese army. The Israelis have submitted requests to that effect to the Americans. In any case, the Lebanese are not the only ones facing a "mixed" situation. Relations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump are reportedly not on solid footing. Israeli media reported this week that Netanyahu would soon travel to Washington to meet with the U.S. president, but American officials denied that any appointment had been secured. What's more, U.S. pressure on Netanyahu is mounting, according to Axios , who revealed that President Trump asked Israeli PM, during a phone call on Thursday, to redeploy his army in Syria and Lebanon. Escalation with Iran On the ground in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has still not resumed fighting, though this appears to be only a brief respite. Indeed, judging by statements from its leadership, the pro-Iranian militia "has no intention of returning to the situation that existed before March 2." In other words, Hezbollah will not indefinitely absorb Israeli attacks without responding; yet the airstrikes and the blowing up of tunnels and militia infrastructure have not stopped. Another significant indicator: Syrian armed forces seized, this week, a large shipment of drones originating from Iran and destined for Hezbollah. The Shia party appears, in this context, to be increasingly stretched to its limits, with a popular base that is either displaced or left in uninhabitable villages. Moreover, funerals for fighters have been taking place by the dozens in southern villages since the relative lull of the latest ceasefire. However, it cannot be ruled out that Hezbollah may once again drag its popular base and Lebanon into a new conflict if Iran finds itself, once more, at the center of a major escalation. Indeed, American strikes on Iran have continued relentlessly throughout the week, and nothing appears to be stopping them, especially as the U.S. military deploys 50,000 troops in the region and has airlifted aircraft as reinforcements from Europe. According to information reported by media outlets this week, President Trump notified Congress on July 10 of the resumption of U.S. military operations against Iran, describing them as "defensive" and "limited" strikes, planned in a way to minimize civilian casualties. Since this notification comes after an interruption due to a ceasefire and the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Iranian side in June, the ongoing escalation can be considered a new conflict, which gives the American president 60 days of freedom to act before needing to seek congressional approval, analysts note. On the Iranian side, the Revolutionary Guards now appear to be clearly running operations. Even the statements of the chief negotiators — Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi — have become more aggressive in tone, yet they seem to be fading into the background as the voices of hardliners grow louder. Iran accordingly took the initiative on Friday of announcing the suspension of its memorandum of understanding with the United States. Divisions within the Iranian regime It is against this backdrop that rumors of deep internal divisions within the Iranian regime are multiplying, particularly as Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei remains more elusive than ever — a situation reflected in the fact that messages are attributed to him without any certainty as to their true origin. The latest such message issued threats toward the Americans, promising them on Saturday "a lesson they would never forget." The week's most notable anecdote came in the form of a statement from an "Iranian source" to the Russian news agency TASS on Saturday: according to this source, Khamenei has no plans to make any public appearance until the war with the Americans is over (!), and when he does, it would be a phone call or a meeting… with Russian President Vladimir Putin. For now, it is the Revolutionary Guards who are issuing communiqués reporting strikes against Gulf countries, targeting the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and now Jordan. These countries have become daily targets of Iranian missiles and drones, much like the vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Increasingly, American strikes inside Iran and Iranian strikes on neighboring countries are hitting civilian targets, including energy infrastructure. Gulf states condemned these Iranian strikes on Saturday, labeling them "war crimes." Appearing to keep Hezbollah on the sidelines for now, Iran is attempting to draw Yemen's Houthis into the fight, with its trump card being a potential closure of another maritime chokepoint — the Bab el-Mandeb strait — should Iranian infrastructure be targeted on a large scale. An incident occurred in this context on Monday: the legitimate Yemeni government struck Sanaa airport, controlled by Houthi rebels, targeting a plane that had arrived from Iran carrying passengers who had attended Ali Khamenei's funeral. The Houthis retaliated by striking an airport in Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, the Houthi front has not yet truly ignited. The Iraqi PM's visit to Washington Against this grim backdrop, some nuances are nonetheless emerging. On one hand, the Americans have not completely shut the door on negotiations, as President Trump emphasized on more than one occasion this week, giving the impression that he prefers talks "in the heat of the moment" over an endless war. That said, any misstep under such circumstances becomes far more dangerous. On Saturday evening, two American soldiers were killed in an Iranian strike on Jordan, bringing the situation dangerously close to a point of no return. On the other hand, despite what appears to be a suicidal stance, Iran seems intent on avoiding the worst-case scenario — which would explain why it has not yet launched any attacks against Israel since hostilities resumed. And it is not for lack of Israeli willingness to enter the fray: media leaks on Saturday evening reported that Israel had requested to join in the strikes against Iran, a request that was reportedly rejected by the Americans. It is worth noting in this context that President Trump returned this week to his demand that Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa intervene in Lebanon against Hezbollah. For the time being, these statements have not translated into concrete action — but how long can President al-Sharaa hold out against American pressure? That said, it is Iraq that has truly dominated the news in recent days. New Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi was given a high-profile reception by President Trump at the White House this week, with numerous lucrative agreements reached between the two sides following their meeting. The press also reported an Iraqi willingness to impose banking restrictions on militias sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury, including Hezbollah. For now, Iraq appears to be skillfully playing both sides — meeting American pressure to the bare minimum while avoiding antagonizing Iran and its affiliated militias, including those operating on Iraqi soil.

Tensions have been rising since the beginning of the week between Washington and Tehran following new Iranian strikes on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The negotiation process is not dead, but appears weakened. Hezbollah, for its part, is threatening to re-engage in southern Lebanon if war breaks out again, as attention turns to Lebanese-Israeli talks scheduled for next week in Rome. On Sunday morning, U.S. forces announced they had carried out, overnight, a third wave of strikes targeting more than 140 sites in Iran, in retaliation for a new attack by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on a commercial vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Following the U.S. raids, the IRGC wasted no time in launching — and expanding, as is their custom — attacks against several Gulf countries, specifically Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Kuwait… as well as Jordan, a country that Iran added to its list of potential targets amid the escalation of recent days. Even the Omani mediator was not spared. The attack on the Sultanate of Oman came just hours after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi's visit to the sultanate! These attacks reflect the atmosphere of the past week, during which tensions steadily escalated until the flare-up recorded over the weekend. On Sunday evening, U.S. forces launched fresh strikes against Revolutionary Guard military infrastructure, which in turn resumed their attacks on Gulf countries, most notably Kuwait. Tensions between Iran and the United States were already evident at the start of the week. Growing increasingly frustrated with Iran's behavior, President Donald Trump had nonetheless stated that he wanted to give them a reprieve until the burial of their former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, scheduled for July 9. The Iranians, for their part, used this event — postponed since March (Khamenei had been killed in joint Israeli-American strikes on February 28, at the start of the war in Iran) — to stage a show of force from July 4 to 9, claiming that "millions" of "supporters" took part in gatherings marked by weeping and lamentation, both in Iran and in certain regions of Iraq. Particularly striking were the slogans chanted during these popular and official demonstrations: they directly called for the death of President Trump. In this context, leaks to American media this week reported Israeli warnings passed to the U.S. president regarding an Iranian plot to assassinate him. Another sign added to fears for Trump's safety: he arrived at this week's NATO summit, held in Turkey, aboard his new presidential aircraft — a gift from Qatar — but departed on the older presidential plane (considered far more secure), "for security reasons," according to U.S. media. Indeed, Trump's statements reflected the escalating mood throughout the week, with American strikes resuming even before Khamenei was buried on July 9. As early as July 6, the U.S. president warned: "There will either be a deal with Iran, or we will finish the job." To that was added a pointed remark on July 8: "The ceasefire is over." On top of that came sharp criticism of Iran's leaders, whom he called "liars" and "sick people." His anger not only reflects his outrage over threats against him personally, but also serves as a response to the repeated attacks by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the Guards' stubborn determination to maintain their grip over this crucial waterway. Talks under fire On July 10, Trump did walk back his position somewhat, stating that "the Iranians have asked to resume talks, and we agreed." Indeed, Pakistani and Qatari mediators worked intensively throughout the week to prevent the negotiations from collapsing altogether. Reports suggest that talks are continuing in some form in Oman, a claim backed by a statement from Iran's Foreign Ministry on Sunday. What appears to have changed, however, is that negotiations will now proceed under fire rather than under a ceasefire. Regarding Iran's internal situation, the absence of new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei from his father's funeral has drawn attention from numerous media outlets and political circles, raising the question of who is actually governing Iran today. That question is becoming increasingly pressing, especially as the hardline wing of the regime appears to be gaining the upper hand over the moderate camp. In recent days, bellicose statements have come almost exclusively from the Revolutionary Guards. The rhetoric of chief negotiator Mohammad Ghalibaf, the Parliament Speaker, has followed suit: on July 10, he declared that the war in the Middle East "will not end with Iran's surrender," then doubled down on Sunday with another jab: "The era of unfair deals is over." How far can Iranian intransigence go? The country's economic situation is dire, yet the Revolutionary Guards appear intent on playing for time by exploiting rising oil prices through threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. In any case, the escalation remains relatively contained for now, as all sides wait either for a new truce or for a miscalculation that could throw the doors wide open to a broader conflict. Lebanese-Israeli negotiations in Rome On the southern Lebanese front, the situation remains unchanged, with the Israeli army continuing to dismantle Hezbollah infrastructure. The Shiite militia's leadership has nonetheless announced that it "will not leave Iran to face this alone if the war resumes." The attacks over recent days on the Lebanese scene have been largely verbal, with the pro-Iranian camp lashing out against the Lebanese state's decision to engage in direct talks with Israel. These attacks drew a firm response from Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea, who traveled to the Baabda Palace on Friday at the head of a sizable parliamentary delegation to express support for Lebanon's legal framework governing direct negotiations. Those talks are set to continue next week in Rome, despite Lebanese reservations about the change of venue, amid fears that Washington's involvement might diminish — something American officials have flatly ruled out. US Ambassador Michel Issa moved to dispel those concerns on Thursday during a round of meetings with senior officials, including President of the Republic Joseph Aoun. In that context, the US Ambassador announced the arrival of an American military delegation in Lebanon to oversee the implementation of the framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon (signed on June 22), particularly regarding the gradual Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of the Lebanese army in two pilot zones in the south. The US delegation met with the army command on this matter toward the end of the week. Presumably to improve the chances of these talks succeeding, the Israeli military command ordered Israeli units to freeze "sensitive operations in southern Lebanon" at the request of the Americans. The other major news of the week was the confirmation of the Lebanese president's visit to Washington on July 21. It is worth noting that Joseph Aoun still refuses to include a direct meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as part of the visit — Netanyahu having announced earlier in the week an upcoming meeting with President Trump. Macron in Syria The past week was also marked by the NATO summit in Turkey, attended notably by President Trump, but above all by President Emmanuel Macron's visit to Damascus on July 6 — the first by a Western head of state since the change of regime in December 2024. The visit was an opportunity to discuss cooperation and economic matters, at a time when the new regime is seeking to consolidate its ranks and engineer a recovery. But it also provided an opening for terrorists — apparently the Islamic State group, according to Syrian authorities — to carry out a double bombing not far from the hotel where the French president was staying. A reminder that the security situation in Syria remains precarious.

The past week gives a vague sense that fire is smoldering beneath the ashes. Tensions between the Americans and Iranians persist; they are erupting openly within the mullah regime itself, and in Lebanon, Israeli ceasefire violations continue without, for now, drawing a response from Hezbollah. Days of waiting, almost of a standstill, defined the past week. It was less eventful than the weeks that have followed one another since the start of the war in Iran and the opening of the parallel Lebanese front, yet it remains no less significant. Cracks are appearing here and there — not only in the memorandum of understanding signed between the Americans and Iranians, but within the Iranian regime itself. The Strait of Hormuz was a flashpoint this week between Iran and the rest of the world. The Iranian insistence on treating the strait as territory to be controlled by the regime — and the firing on vessels crossing the waterway without its approval — has earned the mullahs condemnation from all sides. On Thursday, at Bahrain's request, the UN Security Council convened to address the issue, and the remarks made by various representatives, including the American ambassador, strongly rebuked Iran for its conduct and actions. On Friday, NATO leaders, following the European Union earlier in the week, sharply criticized the Tehran regime, rejecting any fees imposed on ships under the guise of "services rendered." Even more notable were the words spoken by U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday, during celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of American independence. "We hit them very hard — they're dying to make a deal with us — but we're going to give them a week for the funeral of (their Supreme Leader) Khamenei, out of kindness," he told the crowd. Does this statement signal that he is losing patience? In any case, negotiations on this front will not resume until after July 9, when the mourning period ends. The Americans would also clearly prefer to let the World Cup period pass — a tournament being held partly on their soil. A show of force and internal divisions The funerals of Ali Khamenei and his family members, killed alongside him in the Israeli-American strike of February 28, 2026, that ignited the war in the Middle East, are one of the defining moments of this week and are expected to stretch over several days, culminating in the burial on July 9. The ceremonies honoring the late leader began — and it is hard to believe this was a coincidence — on July 4, American Independence Day. For the mullah regime, this is, as one might expect, a show of force and an opportunity to reassert the regime's cohesion. Except that, so far, it has not quite played out that way. To be sure, the show of force succeeded on the surface. Hundreds of thousands of regime loyalists turned out to pay their final respects to the religious (and political) leader who ruled that vast country with an iron fist for more than three decades. Tears, cries, self-flagellation — all the outward signs of grief and of a determination to continue on the path of the "master" were on display. Official representatives from several allied countries, such as Pakistan, made the trip. Despite the strained relations of late between official Lebanon and Iran, Beirut sent Defense Minister Michel Menassa to represent it. Unsurprisingly, a large Hezbollah delegation bowed, in tears, before the ayatollah's coffin. Yet what was meant to be a moment of tremendous unity around a beloved unifying figure has ultimately exposed growing cracks — not only between conservatives and reformists (which would be expected in Iran), but within the conservative wing of the regime itself. According to several media outlets, including an article in the New York Times and a report by al-Arabiya , the signs clearly indicate that the unity displayed by Iran's leaders is nothing more than a façade. While President Massoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Ghalibaf continue to defend the deal with the Americans, other conservative voices are questioning how such talks can take place when Washington — along with its allies — is responsible for the assassination of the Supreme Leader. A power struggle Also this week, a televised interview with Ghalibaf, in which he laid out the details of the agreement with Washington, was abruptly cut off by state television — run by an ultra-conservative — prompting outrage from the chief negotiator. In Iraq, where he was taking part in preparations for ceremonies honoring Khamenei in a country with a large Shia population and many supporters, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was booed by Iranians… who blamed him for his role in the negotiations with the United States. The article in the New York Times explains that these divisions are not focused solely on the deal with the United States, but above all reflect an internal struggle for power. A struggle, too, to win the favor of new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei… who has yet to make any public appearance, despite reports of his determination to attend the funerals of his father and other family members. His continued absence is fueling the wildest rumors about his health (he is said to have been seriously wounded in the same strike that killed his father) and his ability to lead the country. This week also saw revelations from the New York Times and the Washington Post about an alleged Israeli intention to eliminate Iran's two chief negotiators, Ghalibaf and Araghchi, during the talks with the Americans. According to the American newspapers, Washington was so concerned about losing these interlocutors that it reached out to countries in the region to warn Tehran of the threat. Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stepped forward to deny these allegations. Demolitions in southern Lebanon While the preliminary agreement signed between the Americans and Iranians continues to divide opinion in Tehran, the framework agreement signed by the Lebanese and Israeli delegations on June 22 in Washington is also drawing criticism in Beirut. The Shia duo continues to voice its opposition to the document, which calls for the establishment of pilot zones where Israeli troops would hand over control to the Lebanese army. Faced with criticism from the Hezbollah-Amal tandem, sovereignist factions are increasingly showing their support for head of state Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who had the political courage to opt for direct negotiations with Israel. Opponents of the framework agreement are primarily pointing to one of its articles — Article 13 — to justify their position: this article stipulates that neither Lebanon nor Israel shall file complaints before international bodies against the other country for any potential war crimes. Hezbollah, which has so often paralyzed and undermined international and domestic judicial proceedings — as seen with the international tribunal into the 2005 assassination of Rafic Hariri and the 2020 Beirut port explosion — now suddenly presents itself as a fervent champion of international courts. Those who support the text argue that the inclusion of such a clause is standard practice in ongoing negotiations. The document is certainly not perfect, but as President Aoun has emphasized on multiple occasions this week, this framework agreement reflects Lebanon's determination to negotiate on its own behalf, with the understanding that the government cannot under any circumstances cede a single square meter of national territory. It must be acknowledged, in this context, that following the successive defeats suffered by Hezbollah against Israel in the wars of 2023 and 2026, official Lebanon finds itself with few options for recovering the lost territories. On the side of the Shiite tandem, the outward show of unity is giving way to telling "nuances" in their respective positions. While Hezbollah unequivocally rejects the direct negotiation process, Amal leader and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry appears to be blowing hot and cold. In one of his statements this week, he indicated he was open to compromise on the matter. In any case, the plan to form a four-party coalition — Hezbollah, Amal, the Free Patriotic Movement, and the Progressive Socialist Party — to defeat the framework agreement in Parliament has come to nothing. Although a visit by FPM leader Gebran Bassil to Berry this week fueled speculation on the matter, a statement by former PSP leader Walid Joumblatt, the Druze chieftain, dashed the hopes of those counting on such a scenario. While critical of the framework agreement, Joumblatt made clear he would not be part of any such coalition, should it come to that. On the ground, the situation in the south remains tense, though it has not yet escalated into open warfare. Israeli forces continue their attacks, the targeted killings of Hezbollah figures, and the demolition of homes and tunnels. The Shiite party, for its part, is largely adhering to the ceasefire, which it views as the outcome of Iran's stance ahead of the framework agreement's signing in Washington. That truce remains more fragile than ever. Shaibani in Beirut The other major development this week was the visit of Syrian Foreign Minister Assaad al-Shaibani to Beirut on Thursday — a visit that appears to open a new chapter between two countries with a deeply complicated shared history. The statements made reflected a mutual commitment to respecting each country's sovereignty and building equal-footing relations across various areas, particularly in trade. The visit culminated in the signing, by Shaibani and Nawaf Salam, of an agreement establishing a bilateral cooperation commission. The Syrian foreign minister, who met with all parties except Hezbollah and also traveled to Tripoli, the predominantly Sunni capital of northern Lebanon, likely reassured Lebanese officials that Syria would not interfere in the disarmament of the Lebanese Shiite militia — something President Trump has called for on multiple occasions. A coincidence of timing? The Syrian capital Damascus was rocked on Thursday by a powerful terrorist explosion at a café near the Palace of Justice, killing at least 9 people and wounding many more. The blast, caused by a makeshift explosive device according to Syrian authorities, has not been claimed, but bears the hallmarks of the Islamic State terrorist group. L’attentat à la charge explosive «artisanale», selon les autorités syriennes, n’a pas été revendiqué, mais il porte les empreintes du groupe terroriste Etat islamique.

After the displays of joy and goodwill following its supposed "victory" against the Israeli-American camp, the pro-Iranian axis quickly bared its teeth when confronted with ground realities, as revealed by the chain of events since the signing of the memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington on June 18, followed by the agreement between Beirut and Tel Aviv on June 26. Iran, which believed it could call the shots after successfully getting its key priorities included in the text of the agreement with Washington, quickly revealed the limits of the "goodwill" it had touted throughout the negotiations that led to the signing of the document presented as a prelude to a regional peace deal. The vehemence of its reaction to the normalization of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and to the return of IAEA inspectors to its nuclear sites, has laid bare — as if any further proof were needed — the true intentions of the Islamic Republic: to concede nothing on the essentials, including the Lebanese file. Yet the United States had lifted the naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports and authorized the production, delivery, transport, and sale of crude oil and Iranian petroleum products during the 60-day negotiating period. On Saturday night into Sunday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps carried out strikes against Kuwait and Bahrain, in response, according to their statement, to "American aggression." Yet if there is an aggressor in this affair, it is clearly Iran. Indeed, ever since the Sultanate of Oman decided, in coordination with CENTCOM, to secure a navigation corridor along its coastline in the Strait of Hormuz while the issue is being resolved, Tehran has been conducting drone attacks against tankers using the route that falls outside its control. On Saturday night into Sunday, a Panama-flagged oil tanker was targeted, prompting an immediate response from U.S. forces, who carried out retaliatory strikes against military installations on the Iranian coast near Hormuz. Disregarding CENTCOM's warnings, Tehran retaliated by launching a series of drone attacks against Kuwait and Bahrain. Most of the projectiles were intercepted. Trump's Threats U.S. President Donald Trump responded by warning on his Truth Social platform against Tehran's continued ceasefire violations, once again suggesting he is prepared to resume hostilities if the impasse continues. But the Islamic Republic appears unwilling to listen. Its Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, reaffirmed on Sunday that his country alone is "responsible for managing this strategic waterway" and warned that any interference in Iran's management of the strait risked "escalating tensions." Araghchi made these remarks during an unannounced visit to Baghdad to discuss the memorandum of understanding with the United States with Iraqi officials and to coordinate with them the details of the funeral ceremonies for Ali Khamenei, scheduled from July 4 to 12 at the Shia shrines of Najaf and Karbala in Iraq. Ironically, regional cooperation also came up, as the Iranian minister welcomed a Baghdad initiative — presented by his Iraqi counterpart, Fuad Hussein — to organize a summit bringing together Iran and the Gulf states, which the Islamic Republic continues to bombard. Iranian Legal Action Against the U.S.? Meanwhile, Tehran continues to refuse inspections of its nuclear sites damaged or destroyed in Israeli-American strikes during the war — a condition Washington has set for releasing an initial tranche of frozen Iranian assets. Tehran's argument is straightforward: IAEA inspectors are not neutral. Against this backdrop of renewed tensions, Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has stepped into the fray. In a statement released on Sunday to mark Judiciary Week in Iran, he called for legal proceedings to be launched — both domestically and internationally — against the United States, which he holds responsible for his father Ali Khamenei's death as well as for strikes carried out against his country. These remarks were tempered, however, by Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian, who declared his support for "stability, security, and dialogue in the region." Pezeshkian also expressed hope that "all parties will honor their commitments under the agreements reached" — an apparent reference to the Israeli-Lebanese accord. On the Lebanese file, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' displeasure has been plain to see since the signing of the Lebanese-Israeli framework agreement, which is expected to gradually pull Lebanon out of Tehran's orbit by neutralizing the operational capacity of its military arm, Hezbollah, and curtailing its destabilizing influence. The IRGC, like Hezbollah, recognizes only what the memorandum of understanding with Washington stipulates for Lebanon. In Baghdad, Abbas Araghchi — a figure close to the Pasdaran — stressed that all parties must abide by every clause of the memorandum of understanding signed with the United States, including those relating to Lebanon, "where, unfortunately, the Zionist entity continues its airstrikes." He called on Washington to "take responsibility and pressure Israel to withdraw from the areas it occupies in Lebanon," adding, "That is the first clause of the memorandum of understanding" — without making any mention of the Lebanese-Israeli framework agreement. Tehran, like Hezbollah, considers itself in no way bound by that document. One of the pro-Iranian movement's MPs, Hassan Fadlallah, again made his position clear. He not only repudiated the Washington framework agreement but insisted that "Hezbollah's weapons will be maintained through a regional equation stretching from the Strait of Hormuz to southern Lebanon." It is against this backdrop of uncertainty surrounding the pro-Iranian movement's actions on the ground that the Israeli army was set to begin a tactical withdrawal from two "pilot zones" beyond the Blue Line in southern Lebanon, where it continues nonetheless to target Hezbollah fighters. At the same time, Israeli officials continue to emphasize that their military will press on with operations in the southern part of the country to eliminate any Hezbollah threat. The week now beginning thus remains fraught with uncertainty and tension. Also worth noting is a major development on the sidelines — or perhaps as a direct outgrowth — of these events: on Saturday evening and throughout Sunday, Iraq was swept by a wave of arrests targeting more than fifty prominent political figures, including numerous members of parliament as well as businesspeople, who have been charged with corruption but who are reportedly close to the Iranian regime, according to sources that have yet to be confirmed.

Lebanon was at the center of talks on Sunday between Iran and the United States in Switzerland. While Tehran claimed to have closed the Strait of Hormuz and U.S. Vice President JD Vance delivered remarks in an upbeat tone, President Donald Trump responded to the strait's closure with threats against Iran, prompting the Iranian negotiators to suspend the discussions. As for Lebanon, all eyes are on the direct negotiations with Israel, which have drawn the ire of Hezbollah. Sunday, June 21: the start of U.S.-Iran talks in Lucerne, Switzerland. The American delegation was led by Vice President JD Vance, and the Iranian delegation by Parliament Speaker Mohammed Ghalibaf. After a false start — the talks had originally been scheduled for Friday at the same venue — they finally got underway two days later. They were far from smooth, once again laying bare the deep divisions between the former adversaries. On the surface, the negotiating session featured plenty of handshakes and smiles, particularly among the Americans, Qataris, and Pakistanis. JD Vance's remarks were optimistic. "President Trump has asked us to turn a new page in order to transform our relationship with the Iranian people," he said, pointing to "significant progress made in recent hours." The first session was marred by diplomatic friction, as the Iranians refused to be photographed with the American delegation — and made a point of keeping Mr. Vance waiting by deliberately arriving late to the meeting room. On substance, the Lebanese question was at the heart of the talks, according to reports that reached the media suggesting the issue carried considerable weight in the discussions. In stark contrast to Vance's upbeat words, President Donald Trump posted a blunt message on his social media platform, warning that Iran must "immediately stop supporting its proxies" — including Hezbollah — or else "we will strike very hard." Shortly afterward, the American president told Fox News that he had warned unnamed Iranian officials overnight against closing the Strait of Hormuz, asserting that he could "take control of it." These firm positions sparked sharp tension inside the meeting room and led the Iranian delegation to walk out. In Lebanon, Iran's stance gave Hezbollah a new boost. The party "must take advantage" of Iran's support, declared Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah. The pro-Iranian party reserved its harshest criticism on Sunday for the direct talks between Lebanon and Israel, with a new round expected to take place on Tuesday in Washington. "American diktat," "capitulation" — a party statement spared no words in condemning the continuation of direct negotiations initiated by the Lebanese authorities on behalf of Lebanon, which are nonetheless set to proceed in Washington with both political and military delegations. Sunday evening, Tel Aviv sent a conciliatory signal to Washington, from which it had appeared to be drifting in recent times: Israeli Channel 12 reported that the Israeli army would be prepared for "limited" withdrawals from southern Lebanon. Was this a goodwill gesture toward the Lebanese authorities, or part of the broader negotiations between Iran and the United States? A week full of twists and turns The previous week had ended with an announcement by the American president of an imminent deal with Iran. He was able to head to France for the G7 having secured what he considered a diplomatic victory. The agreement was signed online by the American and Iranian presidents on Wednesday evening. Trump was in Versailles attending a dinner hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron on the sidelines of the G7, where leaders welcomed the agreement and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, as well as what they called a "unique opportunity" to get Iran to give up its nuclear arsenal. The terms of the agreement were leaked to the media on that same date, before any official announcement had been made. Under the deal, both parties agreed to an "immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon," and committed to no longer initiating war against each other while respecting each other's territorial sovereignty. The text references a renewable 60-day window to reach a final agreement. The American naval blockade would be lifted, and the Strait of Hormuz fully reopened within 30 days. One of the most significant and contentious points in the text is the commitment by the United States and its "regional partners" to draw up a reconstruction and development plan for the Islamic Republic with a budget of "at least $300 billion." The United States would end "all types of sanctions" against Iran, while the Islamic Republic reaffirmed that it "will not acquire or develop nuclear weapons," with both countries agreeing to resolve the fate of enriched uranium stockpiles still located on Iranian soil. The US Treasury would be required to "issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil and derivative products," and the United States committed to "making fully available and usable the funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran that are frozen or subject to restrictions." Finally, the final agreement, once reached, "will be enshrined in a binding UN Security Council resolution" — a longstanding Iranian demand. The terms of this agreement were almost universally seen around the world as far more favorable to Iran than to the United States, given that Iran obtained on paper everything it had asked for, while all the clauses that matter most to the US remain to be negotiated during the 60-day period — and are therefore still uncertain, particularly on the nuclear issue. Trump denied that a single cent would be paid to Iran until the country had fulfilled all of its commitments. The Iranians, for their part, did not hold back in claiming victory. Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei's response to the memorandum of understanding came on Friday in the form of a blessing wrapped in skepticism, as he suggested that his approval did not mean his views aligned with those of the other party. Mojtaba Khamenei remained, as ever, elusive and out of sight. Finally, it should be noted that despite Pakistan's diplomatic success, Qatar's role in these negotiations is becoming increasingly apparent: when the deal appeared to be in jeopardy during the week — largely due to Israeli strikes in Lebanon — a visit by Qatari mediators to Iran is said to have been decisive. Lebanon: a regional bargaining chip or a sovereign state? The text of the Iran-US agreement makes no clear mention of ballistic missiles or Iranian influence in the region. On the contrary, the text allows Iran to reassert its hold over the Lebanese card, as it managed to insert the Lebanese ceasefire as an essential condition for the agreement to take effect — even as Lebanese authorities are conducting their own separate negotiations with Israel in Washington, and even though the United States has repeatedly insisted on keeping the Iranian and Lebanese files separate. Tehran's attachment to its protégé Hezbollah shows no signs of weakening: the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament went so far as to acknowledge that the Lebanese Shia movement had fought for 104 days on Iran's behalf, while Iran itself only fought for 38 days… an unbreakable bond that neither side is trying to conceal anymore. That was without accounting for Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who, while welcoming the ceasefire, strongly reaffirmed Lebanon's determination to negotiate on its own terms and reclaim its sovereignty. This week also dealt a blow to Hezbollah and its allies on Saturday, when former minister Sleimane Frangieh — their preferred presidential candidate — and one of his most vocal associates, Mahmoud Comati, were hit with US sanctions. This would appear to be Washington's way of signaling that, despite its willingness not to jeopardize the deal with Iran, its priorities in Lebanon remain unchanged. On the ground in the South Meanwhile, on the ground in southern Lebanon, the intensity of the fighting did not let up throughout the week, and even escalated toward the weekend. The Israeli military and Hezbollah traded accusations of ceasefire violations. Israeli troops continued their attempts to seize the strategic hill of Ali Taher in Nabatieh, inflicting multiple casualties on the Lebanese side while also losing soldiers of their own. On several occasions, Iran threatened to freeze negotiations if Israeli attacks in Lebanon did not stop. It was at this point that differences of opinion between the Israelis and Americans came into full view, with Washington applying strong pressure on Tel Aviv to respect the ceasefire — a highly unusual scenario in the relationship between the two allies. In the end, it was not until Saturday evening that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formally ordered his military to "halt operations" in Lebanon, while reserving the right to retaliate at the slightest provocation from Hezbollah and warning that a withdrawal from territories occupied during the conflict was not on the table. The ceasefire that had come into effect still appeared very fragile on Sunday: despite an outward calm, some Israeli violations were reported, while Israeli forces announced the discovery of a large tunnel beneath the village of Majdelzoun, near Tyre. Statements from Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir all pointed toward a possible resumption of hostilities at the first opportunity.

A heavy, anxiety-filled suspense gripped the entire day and evening of this Sunday, June 14, which was supposed to be marked by the virtual, online signing of the framework agreement (or memorandum of understanding) intended to "suspend" hostilities between the United States and Iran for a period of 60 days, with the aim of launching a negotiation process over the dispute — nuclear, ballistic, financial, and geopolitical — with the Islamic Republic. Over the past 48 hours, both President Donald Trump and the Pakistani Prime Minister repeatedly and insistently affirmed that the framework agreement would indeed be signed on Sunday. The signing was expected to take place "virtually," in the presence of U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Qalibaf. Yet well into the late evening (Levant time), the ceremony planned for this purpose had still not taken place. Two factors accounted for the delay: internal Iranian disagreements and a military escalation on the Lebanese front. Regarding the latter, a snowball effect triggered a serious escalation in military operations. On Sunday morning, air raid sirens sounded multiple times across northern Israel, signaling missiles or drones launched from Lebanon and landing on Israeli territory. This attack was carried out by Hezbollah despite the fact that Tel Aviv had repeatedly made clear that any rocket or drone fire hitting northern Israel would immediately trigger a retaliatory strike on the southern suburbs of Beirut. Indeed, the Israeli air force conducted a raid on that area around noon, killing a senior Hezbollah military official responsible for the party's telecommunications. From early afternoon onward, media outlets and political circles across the region engaged in all manner of speculation about the possibility of an Iranian retaliatory strike against Israel following the raid on the southern suburbs. In an apparent bid to "save" the framework agreement — to which he seems (mysteriously) fiercely committed — President Trump reportedly exerted heavy pressure on the Iranian regime to refrain from launching its retaliation against Israel. According to multiple consistent sources, he even offered the Iranian leadership a major concession — the lifting of the naval blockade — in exchange for Iranian military restraint. To no avail. Late in the evening, an adviser to the Iranian Supreme Leader announced that "Iran will respond forcefully to the raid on the southern suburbs." The head of the influential National Security Commission of the Iranian Parliament echoed this, also stating that an Iranian response was in the making. The Iranian military command likewise indicated that a strike against Israel would take place shortly. At the same time, the Tasnim news agency — close to the Revolutionary Guards — reported the closure of airspace in eastern Iran. Critics of the Iranian President The second factor that likely explains the delay in signing the framework agreement is the emergence of serious internal divisions within the Iranian regime over whether a deal with the United States is advisable. These internal rifts were publicly confirmed by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who openly criticized the accusations of treason leveled against the Iranian Parliament Speaker (the principal negotiator with Washington) and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who is at the center of the ongoing talks. President Pezeshkian also condemned the fact that Iranian state television had broadcast remarks attributed to the Supreme Leader opposing dialogue with the United States. It is worth recalling in this context that demonstrations hostile to any agreement with the Americans were held on Saturday in Tehran, most likely at the instigation of the Revolutionary Guards. Protesters went so far as to demand the resignation of the Speaker of Parliament and the Foreign Minister, even issuing death threats against any official who might support the deal in question. These demonstrations lend weight to analysts and media outlets who claim there is a faction within Iran convinced that the country has achieved a 'symbolic victory' over Washington and therefore has no need to sign any agreement with the United States. Trump's grievances and uncertainty over the deal In any case, and on a completely different note, President Trump published a post on his social media platform stating that 'this morning's strike on Beirut should not have happened.' In his message, he placed equal blame on Israel and Hezbollah, urging both sides to stop the escalation, as it 'could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace' that no one should stand in the way of. It is worth recalling that this week was marked by severe military tensions between Iran and the United States. American strikes on multiple targets in southern Iran followed the downing of a US Apache helicopter by the Revolutionary Guards. President Trump had even threatened a major strike during the night of Thursday to Friday (Levant time), before calling it off at the last minute. The world woke up on Friday to news of an imminent deal between the warring parties — announced, of course, by Trump himself on his social media platform. Even as encouraging news was being picked up by the media, numerous 'leaks' in Iranian outlets systematically contradicted the wave of optimism. One Iranian tactic in this regard has been to spread rumors about the terms of the deal that directly contradict what Washington has disclosed. According to these 'reports' circulating in Tehran, Iran would retain control over the Strait of Hormuz, preserve its right to enrich uranium, and recover all Iranian funds frozen in banks around the world — which prompted President Trump to post an angry message on Friday accusing the Iranians of 'lacking honor.' Unexpectedly, it was Minister Araghchi who stepped in, urging Iranian media to stop publishing unfounded reports, drawing a favorable response from Trump. What about the enriched uranium? While the exact terms of the deal remain uncertain, American sources cited by pan-Arab channels suggest that frozen Iranian funds will not be released until the agreement is implemented, that the Strait of Hormuz would automatically remain open, that uranium stockpiles would be removed from the country, and that nuclear facilities would be dismantled. As for the nuclear file, it is expected to be the subject of future negotiations beginning as early as next week, should a deal be signed. However, on Saturday, a CNN report raised alarming concerns on this matter. According to the network, during the current ceasefire period, Iranian authorities have reinforced the storage of their enriched uranium in ways designed to make access more difficult and more dangerous. They reportedly buried 450 kilograms of enriched uranium in tunnels rigged with mines — measures taken in response to President Trump's threats to task the US military with seizing the uranium. Israeli discontent and the Lebanese unknown One of the major unknowns surrounding this proposed Iran-US "deal" is its implications for Lebanon, particularly given Israel's clear displeasure on this front. The Iranians were quick to reassure Hezbollah that a ceasefire in Lebanon and an Israeli withdrawal are included in the document — which explains the immediately triumphalist tone struck by certain Hezbollah MPs, who boasted about the deal's "implications" for the Lebanese arena. They also took a swipe at the Lebanese authorities, calling on them to abandon the direct negotiations process with Israel. Yet the next round of talks between Lebanon and Israel in Washington remains scheduled for June 22, according to multiple concordant sources. As for the Lebanese authorities, they are maintaining a firm stance against Iranian interference and remain committed to the direct negotiations process in Washington, as stated this week by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. Another murky point is whether the agreement will compel Iran to distance itself from its proxies in the region — foremost among them the Lebanese Hezbollah, the only one that truly fought to help keep the mullahs' regime afloat. Numerous reports coming out of Washington suggest that this is indeed the case, even as Iranian officials continue to issue declarations insisting they would never abandon Hezbollah. Meanwhile, the situation on the ground in southern Lebanon remains volatile, with clashes continuing between Hezbollah and the Israeli military. Clearly anxious about their freedom of movement in Lebanon, the Israelis are already pushing back against anything that might cause them to forfeit their "gains" in the South, particularly their territorial conquests. For its part, Hezbollah stands to benefit from a halt in the fighting, even though it has already been pushed back north of the symbolic Litani line — but it too has an interest in slowing Israel's advances. This would explain the ferocity of the fighting in recent days along specific axes, as both sides compete for control of two key areas: Nabatieh and Tyre. Israel's military is clearly attempting to make as many territorial gains as possible before any development forces it to scale back the intensity of its military operations in Lebanon. And as usual, it is Lebanese towns and villages that are paying the price. Evacuation orders are being issued in rapid succession for dozens of villages, some in areas that had until now been spared — such as Jezzine, for example. Deal with Iran or not, all eyes will also be on Monday's G7 summit in Évian, which Donald Trump is attending. The American president is planning a meeting with Middle Eastern leaders — one that Netanyahu has reportedly already decided not to attend.