Weekly essentials

As negotiations on the American-Iranian front stall and security incidents multiply in the Gulf, Lebanese authorities stand out with a clearly sovereigntist strategic vision, while at the same time a military escalation occurred at the end of the week with a bombing of the southern suburb and an Iranian threat against Israel. "Lebanon is our country, not yours." These words spoken by Lebanese President Joseph Aoun during a widely-followed interview with CNN's renowned journalist Christiane Amanpour on Friday not only marked the week that just ended in Lebanon, but certainly reinforce the trend toward a clear shift in official discourse in the direction of the sovereigntist message that was central to the head of state's inauguration speech. President Joseph Aoun's sharp criticism of the Iranian regime and Hezbollah prompted violent attacks from certain Iranian media outlets against Baabda. Parallel to this verbal escalation, the week ended with a serious military development. In response to rocket fire launched by Hezbollah toward northern Israel, the Hebrew state's air force carried out three raids on Sunday afternoon against an operations center of the pro-Iranian party in the southern suburb. Recall that following recent intervention by President Donald Trump aimed at preventing, just days ago, a massive attack on the southern suburb, in exchange for a halt to Hezbollah's fire against Israel, Israeli leaders had warned that the southern suburb would be bombed if the Shiite party launched rockets against northern Israel. Yet at the end of the week, Hezbollah resumed its fire against Israeli territory, which prompted Sunday afternoon's retaliation that killed two (Hezbollah operatives) and wounded eleven. Tel Aviv was to indicate in the evening that it had warned Washington in advance of its decision to launch a raid against an office of the pro-Iranian organization. In fact, President Trump was to declare Sunday night that he supported Israeli attacks against Hezbollah, emphasizing that the United States was ready to help the Israeli army launch "a well-targeted attack against Hezbollah," specifying on this matter that he was prepared to ask Syrian President Ahmed Chareh to provide assistance to any operations against Hezbollah. Following the triple raid on the southern suburb, the Iranian regime openly threatened to launch missiles against Israel. To which Israeli leaders responded that if Iran attacks Israel, it risks relaunching the Iranian war. The sovereigntist positions of the regime Returning to the Lebanese authorities' condemnation of the Islamic Republic's attitude toward Lebanon, the remarks made by President Aoun to CNN were preceded by an equally sharp speech by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam at the launch of an appeal for international aid for those displaced from conflict zones in Lebanon. Mr. Salam notably emphasized on this occasion that "Lebanon cannot be a card in anyone's hands." Mr. Salam was referring to the Lebanese authorities' choice to launch direct negotiations with Israel starting in early April, rather than having the Lebanese issue integrated into Iranian-American negotiations, as the Shiite parties wish. These statements may be nothing new in themselves: since his election, Joseph Aoun has repeatedly emphasized his desire for a monopoly on weapons in the hands of the state, which must necessarily pass through the disarmament of the Hezbollah militia, and he is supported in this by the head of government. However, his determination to free Lebanon from Iranian influence has never appeared as clear and resolute as during this highly-watched interview on an American television channel. The Lebanese president directly attacked Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which were the first to reject a framework agreement on a ceasefire in Lebanon, obtained during the Lebanese-Israeli meeting of June 2-3 in Washington. Unsurprisingly, these remarks drew the ire of not only Shiite parties on President Aoun, but also certain Iranian media outlets. Notable was the jab launched by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, advising the Lebanese president to "save Lebanon from its real enemy," namely Israel, arguing that "it is not his country that occupies one-fifth of Lebanon" currently. Mr. Araghchi conveniently omits to mention that it was the front opened by Hezbollah in support of Iran against the Israeli-American attack of February 28 that plunged Lebanon into this new deadly conflict and brought about a new Israeli occupation of South Lebanon. The Failed Ceasefire The statements by Lebanese leaders further deepened internal divisions with the pro-Iranian camp. And it was not only public declarations that provoked the ire of this camp: the aforementioned meetings of June 2-3 in Washington between Lebanese and Israeli delegations under American sponsorship drew harsh responses from the Lebanese executive on the domestic front. From Hezbollah of course, notably through its Secretary General Naim Qassem, who called it a "capitulation," but especially from Parliament Speaker and Amal leader (the other component of the Shiite duo), Nabih Berry, previously seen as a potential proponent of a differentiated position from his pro-Iranian ally. The latter vehemently attacked the agreement, deeming it "rigged" and "unjust." The reason both parties were so virulent is that the statement following this agreement took the form of a joint Lebanese-Israeli-American communiqué. And it is not just the form: in substance, the three parties condemn Iranian attacks on Gulf countries and consider that Hezbollah must halt its operations first in this ongoing confrontation in the south. In any case, this agreement was quickly undermined, not only by Hezbollah's negative response to President Aoun, but also by an evident lack of Israeli willingness to end the fighting. Does Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have an interest in showing conciliation on this front if Hezbollah continues its attacks, especially as his disagreements with the American president come out into the open and he prepares for future elections in his country? In any event, despite ongoing negotiations, note that the intensity of fighting has not diminished in south Lebanon, on either side. Worse still, Hezbollah has resumed striking northern Israel (something it appeared to have renounced just days earlier). Israel, for its part, no longer hesitates to target the Lebanese military: it has done so more than once this week, notably in a deadly attack on Saturday, during which two officers and a soldier were killed in a military vehicle on a road in Nabatieh. Reopening of Qlayaat Airport For all these reasons, the declarations hostile to Iranian interference from Presidents Aoun and Salam seem like seeds sown for the future that struggle to germinate in a hostile environment. Even the declarations from the American president, who has repeatedly claimed to have "spoken to Hezbollah" (which many experts doubt, favoring the theory of third-party intervention, particularly Iranian), could embarrass Lebanon's official position. However, reality is more nuanced. Mr. Aoun's remarks have garnered support from several Arab countries, such as Bahrain. On social media, reactions are deeply divided, but the president is seen by many as embodying an unprecedented determination to "free" the country from all foreign interference. In short, the country appears torn between two powerful currents, walking a tightrope toward an uncertain future. But the camp opposed to Iranian control scored another point this week. On Saturday, the reopening of Qlayaat airport in Akkar, a region in the north that has become synonymous with neglect and underdevelopment, painted an entirely different picture of the country. Why is the reopening of this airport symbolic of emancipation? Because the prospect of a second airport in Lebanon has repeatedly been blocked by a Hezbollah veto and that of its allies, and governments aligned with it have never dared to pursue it. Indeed, Beirut airport, located in the southern suburbs (a stronghold of the yellow party), was under the unofficial control of the Shiite party, and any other infrastructure in a region not aligned with it would have escaped its control. This explains the enthusiasm for images of Saturday's inauguration, with the Prime Minister's arrival in a private plane landing on the runway. Images that were felt as a symbol of genuine change. Lastly, note the visit made by Lebanese army commander-in-chief Rodolphe Haykal this weekend to Pakistan, the country playing the primary mediator role between the United States and Iran. Meanwhile, on the Iranian-American front American-Iranian negotiations, in fact, appeared to stall throughout this week. Donald Trump's statements about an imminent deal (balanced by his threats of another attack) continued with the same regularity but without achieving breakthroughs. For their part, the Iranians continue to systematically deny any statement from the American president. In either case, words commit the region to no significant progress. This gray zone that is settling in coincides with the imminent start of a global sporting event that risks permanently diverting attention from the ongoing Middle East conflict: the FIFA World Cup, taking place partly in the United States… and in which the Iranian team is participating. The team is expected to play its first match in Los Angeles, and the players obtained their U.S. visas this week. Faced with this political stalemate, the situation on the ground is heating up increasingly. Clashes between the Revolutionary Guards and the American military are multiplying in the Strait of Hormuz, which remains partially closed. American strikes on Iran's Qeshm Island notably prompted an Iranian response, clearly directed mainly at Gulf states. Most notably, the strike on Kuwait airport Tuesday killed one person and wounded 63 others, some critically. It should also be noted that the situation in the West Bank and Gaza escalated this week as well, with several attacks on the strip causing numerous deaths. In the West Bank, abuses against the Palestinian people, especially by settlers often aided by soldiers, are multiplying. Such episodes of violence are raising tensions within Israel. On Sunday, gunfire was heard simultaneously in four Israeli regions, and the military said it was facing an "incident" that left one dead and several wounded. One attacker was killed and another arrested.

The past week was marked by failed attempts to reach an agreement protocol between Washington and Tehran, amid contradictory statements. Between Lebanon and Israel, a clear military escalation was recorded on the ground, accompanied by significant Israeli advances that reportedly crossed the Litani River. The recent days in the Middle East have been characterized by a statement made by U.S. President Donald Trump the previous weekend about the imminent conclusion of an agreement protocol between the United States and Iran, which would pave the way for 60 additional days of negotiations and allow for lifting the blockade on Iranian ports and reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Yet the optimism displayed by the American president on more than one occasion has had no effect: the week ends without any notable progress, and all options remain on the table, including another round of violence. A statement made by an "American official" to Axios on Sunday sums up the situation: There will be an agreement with Iran, but the date of its signing is not yet determined. A major moment this week occurred Friday afternoon, Levant time, when Donald Trump announced he would make his decision regarding the Iran deal following a meeting with his advisors in Washington. In one of his social media posts, he revealed details about the proposed document: an immediate lifting of the blockade in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and destruction of Iranian enriched uranium by the Americans under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. And most importantly, no disbursement of frozen Iranian assets for now. But he emerged from this meeting without announcing a decision that day. The American president repeatedly assured that he would not sign an agreement that does not respect the "red lines" he has defined. For their part, the Iranians repeatedly denied each of Donald Trump's statements, in the form of information provided by sources to Iranian state media outlets (notably those close to the Revolutionary Guards) rather than through official statements. According to these "sources," there is no question of nuclear destruction in the agreement protocol, and the Strait of Hormuz would remain under joint Iranian and Omani control. This prompted an American threat from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent against the Sultanate of Oman, who brandished the threat of "punitive measures" if the sultanate participates with Iran in collecting passage fees imposed on ships. The Strait of Hormuz thus remains the main sticking point, according to leaked information, just as the question of frozen assets and sanctions that the Americans are unwilling to lift except gradually. After such a week of mixed messages, the protagonists of this seemingly endless theatrical piece appear deadlocked, each on their own side. The American president and his team are facing mounting pressure due to this unpopular war in the United States and its economic consequences from rising fuel prices, yet cannot settle for an agreement that would be perceived as a step back from the pre-war situation (since February 28) and, above all, compared to the nuclear agreement previously signed by former president Barack Obama. In an interview this week, when asked by an American journalist about the pressure of midterm elections on his decisions, Donald Trump assured that democratic deadlines cannot deter him from pursuing his objective of preventing Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. For its part, Iran appears mired in its own internal struggles, and decision-making there seems increasingly difficult, despite recurring statements attributed to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, more elusive than ever. The hardline faction of the regime remains capable of blocking any agreement by showing intransigence on certain points, notably the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The specter of a new popular uprising triggered by the suffocating economic crisis would not be far from the concerns of the Pasdaran: with the partial restoration of the internet in Iran, videos of major protests are beginning to circulate on accounts of Iranians opposed to the regime abroad, with information about fierce repression being carried out against them. Reports of executions of opponents continue: this week it was revealed that two Kurdish brothers, suspected by the Revolutionary Guards of being part of the "instigators" of the January movement in Iran, were tracked down and killed. On the ground, despite the predominance of the possibility of an agreement, security incidents have not been lacking. On Thursday, explosions were heard in the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas and Iranian missile fire hit vessels attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Kuwait was targeted by Iranian fire this week, with the Guards claiming to have attacked an American base. But none of these attacks were of a nature to escalate into a large-scale confrontation, although they show how fragile the current truce remains. Israeli Concerns The memorandum of understanding taking shape between Iran and the United States has not overshadowed the Lebanese dimension of the conflict. Indeed, the statements of the two belligerents practically agree on only one point: the extension of the ceasefire on the Iranian front would be accompanied by an effective cessation of hostilities on the Lebanese front, between Israel and Hezbollah. Reports of Israeli concern about halting its operation in southern Lebanon without achieving the goal of dismantling Hezbollah are multiplying in the Israeli press. The Shiite party, for its part, took the opportunity, through its deputies, to criticize the direct negotiations conducted by Lebanese authorities with Israel, and assert that only negotiations with Iran could achieve a genuine ceasefire. Another source of concern for Israelis: in everything that has accompanied the leaks regarding the emerging Iran-US agreement, the two major points absent are Iranian regional influence through its armed wings and the fate of ballistic missiles in Iran. This week, another of these armed wings, Iraqi Hezbollah, announced it does not want to hand over its weapons to the Iraqi state and is seeking to strengthen its military capacity. Beaufort Castle Under Israeli Control On the Lebanese front, this week was marked by a clear advance of the Israeli army in depth. The Israeli army reportedly crossed the Litani toward the north after constructing five military bridges there. The week was further marked by two factors: Lebanese-Israeli military negotiations in Washington and an unprecedented escalation in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa. The talks at the Pentagon late in the week between the two military delegations lasted more than ten hours, and the feedback is not reassuring. In both Israeli and Lebanese press, there is consensus that no breakthrough resulted from these meetings. According to the Lebanese army, it is not possible to make progress without a ceasefire. The Israeli side, based on press analyses, complains that the Lebanese do not hold all the cards. Washington nonetheless called this session "constructive," and talks will continue. The coming week will see a new round of political negotiations in Washington on June 2 and 3. These negotiations are taking place under Israeli fire and Hezbollah escalation, making them extremely difficult. A difficulty underscored on Saturday by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. While denouncing Israel's systematic destruction of the South, he emphasized that "negotiations remain the least costly path" for Lebanon. On this map produced by the UN, one can clearly see the strategic position of Beaufort Castle, which serves as an observation point on the Lebanese side and even, to the east on the occupied Golan and the "Galilee Panhandle" (UN) The South, meanwhile, is ablaze more than ever. On Sunday, the Israelis announced the capture of the highly strategic Beaufort Castle and are moving toward controlling the Nabatiyé region. This move would cut off all supply lines for Hezbollah militants between the South and the Bekaa, and would reinstate the border strip line as it was before the 2000 withdrawal, but this time without its inhabitants. Evacuation calls "north of Zahrani" in recent days, the latest on Sunday morning, suggest an occupation of much larger territories in the coming days. It should be noted that Civil Defense announced on Sunday its decision to leave the city of Tyre and retreat to Sidon. Hezbollah, for its part, has also increased the intensity of its attacks, resuming the launch of missiles deep into northern Israel. In its statements, it asserts it is waging fierce battles on the ground, particularly around Nabatiyeh. Hezbollah's attacks are apparently forcing the Israelis to take stricter measures in northern Israel, closing schools and beaches and asking a northern hospital to set up an underground center. Israeli Channel 13 cited military sources who say they are "surprised" by the extent of Hezbollah's response, reiterating that maintaining troops in place in Lebanon would be a prerequisite for any further negotiations. This week was also marked by threats to Lebanese heritage, first and foremost Beaufort Castle, directly hit by missiles, a medieval marvel in turmoil. These threats prompted Foreign Minister Joe Rajji and Culture Minister Ghassan Salamé to speak out demanding international protection, particularly regarding the remains of Tyre. Facing this military escalation, French Foreign Ministry chief Jean-Noël Barrot announced Sunday evening that France has decided to call for an urgent UN Security Council meeting to examine developments in Lebanon. This meeting is expected to take place on Monday, according to diplomatic sources. The calls from Tyre and Nabatiyé Another major development this week: a dual appeal by more than a hundred intellectuals from Tyre and as many from Nabatiyé for the demilitarization of these two heritage-rich regions and their placement under the sole authority of the state, for their protection. A "rebellion" that shows a clear shift in mood among the southern population, and one that was therefore very poorly received by Hezbollah. In short, nothing suggests a decrease in tensions in the South in the coming week. On Sunday, Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir assured that the 'operation in Lebanon is far from over,' not to mention statements favoring escalation by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz, who emphasized that the capture of Beaufort Castle is a step within the framework of large-scale military operations that could be launched shortly and might no longer be limited to South Lebanon. The two protagonists on the front appear to be pressed for time, particularly in light of a potential Iran-U.S. agreement. While the Israelis seek to achieve maximum gains on the ground, Hezbollah is trying to hold its position in hopes of a ceasefire.

The first draft of the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran that was leaked to the press and media on Saturday evening sparked widespread outrage on Sunday. Many Republican senators, including several heavyweight members of Congress, as well as analysts, commentators, and influential circles warned against the serious geopolitical consequences of this proposal. Some did not hesitate to denounce on social media what they unanimously called a 'capitulation of the United States to the Islamic Republic of Iran'. Did this outcry and these warnings coming from all sides online push President Trump to apply serious brakes to the approval process for the memorandum, or did the White House chief realize that certain clauses were indeed unacceptable and detrimental to the credibility of the United States as a superpower? On his Truth Social network, Trump posted an AI image of an F-15 carrying a bomb with the words in English, 'thank you for your attention to this matter': a threat of possible return to war if Iran does not accept US conditions. It is certainly difficult to provide an answer to such a question, but this does not change the facts: on Sunday, President Trump clearly indicated that he had instructed US negotiators to 'not rush' in concluding the memorandum. 'Both parties (the US and Iran) must take their time to reach a well-studied text,' the American president clarified, indicating that 'negotiations are continuing on certain details and certain issues.' 'Time is on our side,' he asserted without further details. If the memorandum draft sparked so much criticism, it is because it appeared, according to the version that reached the media, to satisfy Iran across the board, namely: cessation of hostilities and unlocking part of Iranian assets (nearly $25 billion) without any formal and official Iranian commitment concerning the main American demands on nuclear matters, uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles, the fate of Iranian proxies, regional stability, or also the case—completely overlooked by US negotiators themselves—of political prisoners and mass executions of teenagers, young people, and university students. According to the version of the agreement disclosed Saturday evening, nuclear and enriched uranium matters were to be 'discussed' only during a 30 or 60-day truce period. Given that these matters have actually been under discussion for 20 years, the memorandum draft presented no guarantees regarding a definitive settlement of this dispute pending for more than two decades. Hence the wave of criticism that emerged on Sunday. It should be noted in this context that the preliminary agreement proposal would provide for the reopening, without conditions, of the Strait of Hormuz during the 30 to 60-day negotiation period, as well as an effective ceasefire in Lebanon, which Israel contests. In Lebanon, the ceasefire in question Questions remain open then, particularly regarding the other front, between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon. What is known is that there is a clause in this framework agreement on a ceasefire in Lebanon, 'with the right given to Israel to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its arsenal'. According to observers, Israel, which had thus far ignored ceasefires negotiated directly with Lebanese authorities in Washington, could hardly contradict a directive coming directly from the American president in the context of negotiations on the main front in Iran. All reports coming from Israel show growing concern about the outcome of this conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down, asserting that "Iran will never possess nuclear weapons." According to information provided to Israeli media on Sunday, Netanyahu allegedly pressed Trump for freedom of action on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon, and reportedly received his approval. Questions remain open. What does the cessation of hostilities mean? Will it include Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied during this conflict? What does this right granted to Israelis to prevent Hezbollah from rearming mean? Will it keep Lebanon in a perpetual state of neither war nor peace? And what about Hezbollah's disarmament, decided by the Lebanese government, if the party believes it owes the ceasefire to its Iranian ally rather than Lebanese authorities? And above all, what is the future of these direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel? It should be recalled that before Sunday's dramatic developments, all eyes were on the first Lebanese-Israeli-American security meeting in Washington on May 29, and the upcoming direct negotiations on June 2 and 3. Rubio threatens Qassem In Beirut, Hezbollah leader Naïm Qassem said in a speech that "the people have the right to take to the streets, overthrow the government, and resist with all their strength this Israeli-American project." Qassem again called on the Lebanese government to abandon direct negotiations with Israel, seeing it as a "gain without reciprocal benefit for Israel," and reaffirmed Hezbollah's refusal to disarm. Qassem's remarks provoked a sharp reaction from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who condemned "in the strongest terms Hezbollah's irresponsible call for the overthrow of the democratically elected Lebanese government." He denounced what he called "a deliberate campaign to destabilize the country and maintain power." Rubio stated in a statement that the movement "is actively attempting to plunge Lebanon back into chaos and destruction." According to Rubio, "the threats of violence and overthrow made by Hezbollah will not go unanswered. The era when a terrorist group held an entire nation hostage is coming to an end." American sanctions This week also saw American sanctions against numerous Hezbollah figures, including lawmakers and former ministers, as well as, for the first time, military officials from the Lebanese Army and General Security. The sanctioned military personnel are all considered close to Hezbollah or the Amal movement, with the American statement specifying that they owed allegiance to these parties as much as to their institutions and that they communicated sensitive information to them. The message to Hezbollah is nothing new, but the message sent to Parliament Speaker and Amal chief Nabih Berry is clear. His "grey" position in recent Lebanese developments has earned him this American warning. The message is also directed at the Lebanese Army, which is sending a delegation to Washington next week and which has often been criticized for "suspected complicity" with the Shiite militia. Will the army be forced to reconsider its delegation and reassess its positions? As for General Security, Interior Minister Ahmad Hajjar has asked the director general to conduct investigations into the officers in question. Meanwhile, on the ground, the situation remains explosive in the South as civilians pay the price: dozens of deaths have been reported this week. Entre-temps, sur le terrain, la situation reste explosive au Sud alors que les civils payent le prix: on déplore des dizaines de morts cette semaine. Civil Defense announced Saturday the collapse of its main building in Nabatiyeh under Israeli airstrikes. The Israeli military declared throughout the week that it had destroyed Hezbollah infrastructure and expanded its operations to the Bekaa Valley, while acknowledging casualties among its soldiers and officers caused by the Shiite party's drones. Over the weekend, Israeli evacuation notices multiplied for dozens of villages and towns, both in the South and in the Bekaa Valley.

Between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, the statements reflected a positive atmosphere, but the underlying realities of this summit between giants should become clearer over time. Iran, for its part, continues its provocations. Between Lebanon and Israel, an extension of the truce and future military cooperation. This week was marked by crucial talks whose repercussions will be felt during the next phase. From the very beginning of the week, attention was focused on preparations for the US-China summit in Beijing and the third round of negotiations between the Lebanese and Israeli delegations in Washington. At the Beijing summit, from a symbolic standpoint, the welcome reserved for US President Donald Trump was spectacular and commensurate with the importance of the event. In their different styles, the American and Chinese heads of state conveyed crucial messages regarding their future economic cooperation and talks on international issues of common interest. Among these issues were Taiwan, which China seeks to annex while the United States supports its independence, and Iran, a traditional ally of China. How are these two issues now interconnected? Time will tell. But certain signs are already pointing to emerging trends. In an interview, President Trump asked the Taiwanese authorities not to proclaim the country’s independence on the basis of Washington’s support, something Taiwan ignored by issuing a declaration asserting its independence immediately after the summit ended. As for Iran, the issue was extensively discussed during the summit, as expected. The American and Chinese presidents displayed a common position: the need to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump clearly stated that his Chinese counterpart — who had received Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi a few days earlier — is prepared to contribute to the negotiations. Another important indicator emerging from the summit is that China is now expected to purchase oil from the United States, which would reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil and the Strait of Hormuz… and, indirectly, on its Iranian ally. Although there is still not enough hindsight to properly assess the results of this summit, President Trump’s statements deserve close examination. Indeed, he told reporters at the conclusion of the summit that he could accept a “freeze” on uranium enrichment in Iran for a period of 20 years if he had “the necessary guarantees.” The process of indirect negotiations is not dead either, as indicated by the Pakistani Interior Minister’s visit to Tehran this weekend. But the tone seems to have changed abruptly over the weekend: the White House chief said in passing during a statement that “his patience with Iran is running out.” On his social network, Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself on Sunday with the US military in the background over the Strait of Hormuz, accompanied by the enigmatic caption: “The calm before the storm.” This aligns with persistent reports carried by Israeli media suggesting growing American conviction that a return to war is necessary — a “50% probability,” according to an Israeli official. European initiatives Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranians continue to assert their right to control this maritime route. Iran also claims to have received calls from European leaders to discuss the conditions for secure passage through the strait. In exchange for what? Another major event this week was the meeting of BRICS foreign ministers, also held Thursday in India. This ministerial conference addressed, among other topics, the Middle East and became the scene of a dispute between the Iranian and Emirati ministers, with the former taking the opportunity to accuse the United Arab Emirates of being “partners” in the Israeli-American attack against his country… even though, it should be noted, Iranian missiles have struck the UAE since the beginning of the conflict. No joint official statement was issued on the war in Iran, precisely because of the disagreements between the two countries. Another noteworthy development: another ally of Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin, spoke on Saturday with his Emirati counterpart Mohammed bin Zayed regarding the Iranian conflict, according to Reuters. The official statement specified that “both sides emphasize the importance of the political and diplomatic process.” An attempt to pull Iran out of its isolation? Finally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embarrassed the UAE this week by claiming to have made a “secret visit” to the country at the beginning of the war. Abu Dhabi quickly denied the claim. The country has been attracting increasing media attention, especially since its spectacular withdrawal from OPEC at the beginning of May. In Lebanon, extension of the ceasefire The Lebanese week was marked by negotiations in Washington on Thursday and Friday between a Lebanese delegation headed for the first time by the highly experienced former ambassador Simon Karam, and an Israeli delegation once again led by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter. The negotiations addressed both the political and military situations. This third round — since early April — began under intense pressure: fighting continues to rage in southern Lebanon, with Israeli advances beyond the Litani River this week; increasingly virulent statements from Hezbollah accusing President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam of “treason”; and reports of American “concerns” regarding the process. The results of these talks, however, were not reflective of this difficult beginning. On the one hand, the process did not collapse, as some had feared, since the next round has already been scheduled by the Americans for early June. On the other hand, even though the details of these closed-door meetings have not yet all been revealed, concrete results emerged: a 45-day extension of the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah, and the launch of a “security process” beginning with a meeting between military officials from both countries on May 29 at the Pentagon. Unfortunately, the announcement of the ceasefire was not followed by any action on the ground, even as Lebanese authorities attempt to implement a truce that would be respected “by all parties,” according to information leaked on Saturday. According to those same reports relayed by the local press, President Joseph Aoun reportedly asked Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to convince Hezbollah to cease its attacks so that the cessation of hostilities would be observed by both parties. The pro-Iranian party reportedly responded that it would do so if Israel also committed itself. Yet on the ground, tensions appear instead to have escalated: the Israelis issued evacuation orders north of the Litani, and sirens continue to sound regularly in northern Israel because of Hezbollah drones. These drones, precisely, which genuinely trouble the Israeli army by its own admission, are also likely to negatively affect Lebanon. According to a report cited by local media, the Israelis are considering a deeper occupation than the 10 kilometers already taken, given that the threat no longer comes only from missiles whose range can be calculated, but from primitive explosive drones that are difficult for defense systems to detect. Salam in Syria Another figure who drew attention this week was Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who stood out with a very firm statement reaffirming the Lebanese state’s position regarding the Washington negotiations process and rejecting all accusations of “treason” directed at him, just as they were directed at the president. Moreover, Mr. Salam was received on May 14 in Damascus by Syrian President Ahmad al-Chareh. In statements following the visit, he reiterated that “Lebanon will no longer accept remaining a platform for operations against friendly countries,” clearly pointing the finger at Hezbollah, even as Damascus regularly dismantles subversive networks linked to the group, which it accuses of seeking to destabilize the regime. At the same time, bilateral talks addressed coordination efforts regarding negotiations with Israel. The exact significance of these discussions should also become clearer in the coming period, especially given that Syria itself continues to suffer regular Israeli incursions in the south of the country. Also noteworthy this week regarding the situation in Lebanon was a strange episode revealed on May 15 concerning a Lebanese “complaint” filed with the UN and dated April 21, accusing Iran of interfering in Lebanese affairs and dragging Lebanon into the war with Israel. The information was not denied by the Lebanese Foreign Ministry for several hours, before it eventually issued a clarification that appeared aimed at softening the initial report. In a statement, the ministry asserted that it was not a “complaint” but rather a “letter” to the UN in which it responded to indirect Iranian accusations against the Lebanese state in the case involving the targeting of four Iranian “diplomats” in a Beirut hotel at the beginning of the war (the Iranian complaint against Israel insinuates that Lebanese authorities were aware of their relocation). A new episode further reviving the already well-established tensions between Iran and the Lebanese authorities.

The world is once again holding its breath as it awaits President Donald Trump's decision in response to Iran's counter-proposal (which he deemed 'totally unacceptable' on Sunday) to his conditions for resuming negotiations over an agreement aimed at bringing the war to a lasting end. Through its Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei, Iran stated Monday that it had merely 'demanded an end to hostilities across the region and the unfreezing of its assets.' Ismail Baghaei, responding to Donald Trump's rejection of Iran's response, claimed that 'the only thing required is Iran's legitimate rights'—namely, 'an end to the war in the region, including Lebanon, the lifting of the American blockade on Iranian ports, and the release of Iranian assets that have been unjustly frozen for years.' He made no mention of the nuclear issue, addressing it only through the lens of national sovereignty without responding to Washington's core demands. In other words, Iran's counter-proposal sidesteps American conditions and reflects a willingness to seize the diplomatic initiative. What stands out in this latest round of the standoff between the Islamic Republic and the United States is less Tehran's rejection of American demands than the defiant, even provocative tone marking Iran's 'no.' The clerical regime's response to Donald Trump was almost an 'over my dead body'—in other words, 'not on my watch.' The problem is that Donald Trump may very well take them at their word. Or perhaps not. Because the stakes and issues tied to this standoff, which has persisted since the ceasefire between the two belligerents took effect on April 8, 2026, are enormous. Concretely, both the United States and Iran find themselves in difficult straits. First, because this war, all things considered, weighs heavily on their respective populations. Second, because its effects extend globally, as evidenced by the fresh spike in oil prices when markets opened Monday. The Islamic Republic, literally fighting for its survival against the Washington-Tel Aviv duo determined to strip it of its nuclear program and neutralize its ballistic capabilities, believes it can stand up to Donald Trump and potentially bend him to its will by continuing to bet on the passage of time. Following the elimination of several high-ranking commanders in the US-Israeli airstrikes, divisions emerged within the Iranian regime between a moderate camp, favoring an agreement with Washington to salvage what was essential, and a hardliner led by the Revolutionary Guard, fiercely opposed to any concessions. It is likely that this latter camp is behind the Iranian counter-proposal. Tehran is going all-in, capitalizing on a dual domestic and international context unfavorable to the American president. In short, the Islamic Republic is primarily banking on political polarization in the United States, particularly the internal pressure Trump faces to withdraw from a war carrying both economic and political costs. The impact on the American economy has quickly translated, as we know, into severe inflation. As for the political cost, midterm elections are expected to be a major factor. On the international front, Iran is primarily counting on the following factors: America's failure to rally Europeans to the war, resulting in sharp tensions between Washington and NATO; the defensive neutrality of Arab nations; pressures stemming from maritime traffic disruptions for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, which has become a major pressure tool in Iranian hands despite the American blockade on Iranian ports. We must also not overlook the strategic significance of Donald Trump's visit to Beijing Wednesday, where Iran's ally is located, and its potential implications for the Iran-U.S. conflict. All of the above may explain the hardened tone Tehran adopted after submitting its response to the Pakistani mediator Sunday. Barely had it been delivered when Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Baghaei released a statement conveying a clear message to Americans about what he presented as Iranian invincibility: 'Throughout history, Iranians have stood not only against isolated invaders, but also against great powers and formidable legions, and they have always emerged with honor.' In 53 B.C., at the Battle of Carrhae, General Surena, commanding far fewer troops and resources, inflicted a resounding defeat on Rome's heavily armed legions in a display of perfect asymmetric mastery. Crassus, one of Rome's richest and most powerful men, lost his life there. The myth of Roman invincibility collapsed permanently, and Rome's imperial ambitions toward the East died on that battlefield. History, it is said, always repeats itself for those who refuse to face it or learn its lessons.' Shortly after, the Iranian news agency Tasnim, citing Iranian sources, downplayed the importance of America's categorical rejection of Iran's counter-proposals. 'This doesn't matter. Nobody in Iran draws up plans to please Trump (…) but for the good of the Iranian nation. If it doesn't please Trump, all the better. Trump dislikes reality, which is why he continues to lose in Iran.' Neither War nor Peace Iran's tactic thus consists of maintaining this state of neither war nor peace, ultimately more costly for Americans than an end to hostilities, in hopes of securing as many gains as possible. A high-risk gamble that, incidentally, recalls the suicidal venture into which Hezbollah dragged Lebanon following the death of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei, killed in an American-Israeli strike on February 28. How does the American president plan to respond? By reinforcing and indefinitely extending the blockade imposed on Iran to bring it to its knees, as suggested Sunday evening by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. He proposed 'Operation Project Freedom Plus' but without elaborating. An option Donald Trump has not ruled out Monday in a statement to Fox News. The operation in question has so far involved helping oil tankers and cargo ships stranded in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf transit the Strait of Hormuz, which remains closed by the Iranians. Will he return to the military option, with the backing of his Israeli ally? Once Iran's response reached him, the American president had a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is holding a consultation meeting this evening with several Israeli ministers and military officials. Israel remains ready to intervene and makes no secret of its determination to crush the clerical regime and end, once and for all, the Iranian threat. For now, Donald Trump continues to keep his intentions hidden. Calling the Iranian response 'stupid,' he merely stated during a White House press conference that he has a plan—'the best of all time.' 'Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. It has been militarily defeated, totally. There's a little left. They probably managed to rebuild during this period. We're neutralizing them in roughly a day,' he said, hinting that the truce risks collapsing. He accused Iranians of making promises and then reneging on them, vowing to quickly end the threat they pose. Another question weighing on minds in this context of heightened tension: will Iran, in its confrontation with the United States, seek to use Hezbollah to derail the Lebanese-Israeli negotiations scheduled for Thursday the 14th and Friday the 15th of May in Washington? This group, which has dragged Lebanon into the regional conflict against its will and has so far turned a deaf ear to all calls from authorities to end the escalation, has several levers to exert maximum pressure on them. President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam each held a preparatory meeting Monday with American Ambassador Michel Issa, who will attend the talks. Both called on Washington to 'pressure' Israel to cease its operations, while on the ground, fighting between Hezbollah and Israel continues with increasing intensity.

The past week in the Middle East was marked by maintaining a fragile balance while waiting for a major event in the next one: U.S. President Donald Trump's visit to China. The world's second superpower has yet to have its say in the conflict between its ally and one of its main energy suppliers, Iran, against its primary global rival. In any case, another ally—that of the Americans—once again made headlines: the Israeli prime minister ruled that the 'war is not over' as long as there are 'still nuclear materials—enriched uranium—that must be removed from Iran' and 'enrichment sites to dismantle,' Benjamin Netanyahu told American broadcaster CBS. Meanwhile, direct negotiations between Iran and the United States remain deadlocked. Iran finally announced on Sunday that it had responded to the American plan presented on Friday, aimed at ending the war. State television indicated that the response delivered on Sunday, via Pakistani mediator, was 'focused on ending the war (...) on all fronts, particularly in Lebanon, and on guaranteeing maritime navigation security,' without further details. Internal Iranian divisions were the subject of a notable article in the British newspaper Telegraph, mentioned on Sunday by Arab media. According to the newspaper, the most extreme elements in Tehran, currently representing a minority, are opposed to a peaceful solution. They even accuse Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of playing a role in the assassination, on February 28 last, of former supreme leader Ali Khamenei, in order to discredit him. In short, growing chaos that would explain the delay in responding to American proposals. In an interview recorded earlier in the week and broadcast on Sunday, Donald Trump estimated that the Iranians were 'defeated militarily,' but suggested that the U.S. military could 'stay for two more weeks and strike all identified targets' to provide a 'finishing touch.' Surprise strikes on Iranian ports In the absence of direct talks, the U.S. military carried out limited surprise strikes against Iran, mainly in the middle of the week. These strikes targeted, among others, the Iranian ports of Qeshm and Bandar Abbas, and were presented as a 'minor skirmish' by Donald Trump. He was quick to clarify that the ceasefire was not over. On Saturday, two Iranian oil tankers attempting to approach ports came under U.S. fire. A way of reminding that the blockade remains in place on Iranian ports. Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, now recurring targets of Iranian hostilities, were targeted by drones on Sunday. Also in the middle of the week, the American president decided to suspend his 'Project Liberty,' supposed to have the U.S. military escort blocked ships due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and those wishing to cross it safely. Escalation and assassination in the South and suburbs In Lebanon, eyes are on the third Lebanese-Israeli meeting in Washington, scheduled for May 14-15, as announced by an anonymous American official whose comments were relayed by media. According to information from local channel MTV, the head of the Lebanese delegation, former ambassador Simon Karam, would already be on his way to the American capital. The main claim from the Lebanese side should be to consolidate a genuine ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from occupied areas. According to sources cited by Israeli media and relayed by Lebanese media on Saturday evening, 'the talks will focus on the disarmament of Hezbollah, border issues, and a future agreement.' The message, in short, is that there would be no withdrawal without the disarmament of the pro-Iranian group. Twice this week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused it of being an 'obstacle' to peace between Israel and Lebanon. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar assured on Saturday that his country has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, but is trying to prevent 'another October 7.' Hezbollah voices continue to speak out against these negotiations. Once again, it is deputy Hassan Fadlallah who does so, arguing that such negotiations are 'unconstitutional,' and that only 'indirect' negotiations should be pursued. On the ground, the most notable event in the confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel was the assassination of Ahmad Ballout, commander of the militia's elite al-Radwane force, on Wednesday evening in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Not only was this the first time the suburbs were struck since the April 16 ceasefire, but this assassination resurfaced the question of the extent of security breaches within the party that had enabled major Israeli assassinations in 2024. In the south of the country, the population lives in a true nightmare: dozens of new villages forcibly evacuated by a simple call from the spokesman of the Israeli army on X, continuous raids and bombardments, dozens of lives lost. The escalation was not simply reflected in a growing number of raids and missiles, but in a geographical expansion of Israeli operations beyond South Lebanon, even to Mount Lebanon, with two strikes in the Shouf, killing three people. Signs of a widening of the war? For its part, Hezbollah continued its attacks at a very intense pace, increasingly relying on its explosive drones that Israelis are having great difficulty detecting, according to articles in the Hebrew state press. Salam in Damascus It is in this context that Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam met on Saturday with Syrian President Ahmad al-Chareh, accompanied by a delegation of ministers. Salam clearly explained in his statements that his visit aimed to 'resolve pending issues.' He especially assured that Lebanese authorities would no longer accept attempts to destabilize 'friendly' Arab countries from Lebanese territory. Coincidence? Syrian authorities, who recently dismantled more than one network they say is linked to Hezbollah and working to destabilize the new Damascus regime, declared that same evening that the pro-Iranian group harbors 'criminals from the old regime,' ensuring they want to 'recover those who have Syrian blood on their hands.' The Syrian president also carried out a major cabinet reshuffle that same evening, dismissing several ministers including his own brother, and appointing administrative officials from regions.

The past week can be characterized by procrastination in the US-Iran negotiations, where no major breakthrough was observed despite two Iranian proposals that the Pakistani mediator forwarded to the United States. Until then, many analysts argued that Iran was playing the time card, through the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz, against a Donald Trump who would be in a hurry to end the war, before having to answer to Congress after 60 days of war, as required by the US Constitution. But since then, there has been a turnaround: it is the American blockade on Iranian ports that is putting pressure on Tehran. The consequences are visible in the very significant devaluation of its national currency and an economic collapse that the Iranian authorities can hardly hide, despite their triumphant rhetoric. At the same time, the American president was able to bypass the obstacle of Congress this week by considering that given the ceasefire since April 7, the days of war are not counted as 60 but as 38. Is time therefore running out more for the Iranians than the Americans now? While the week had begun with an American refusal of a first Iranian proposal, Iranian negotiators sent a second one to the United States on Friday via the Pakistani mediator. The conditions put forward remain almost identical to the first: a one-month deadline to settle the main outstanding issues, a definitive cessation of hostilities on all fronts, notably in Lebanon, an adjournment of the nuclear talks, a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, compensation for war damages and a release of frozen Iranian funds… "Iran has not yet paid a high enough price" Donald Trump responded to this proposal with skepticism (even though the official American response has not yet been given). In front of reporters at the White House, he said he was not "satisfied". Then on his Truth Social network, he wrote: "Iran has not yet paid a high enough price". And even if the last few days have been marked by a wait-and-see attitude on the front of the Iran-US negotiations, the sound of boots has not completely disappeared. Thus, towards the end of the week, the Iranian army itself deemed a resumption of fighting with the Americans "probable", accusing them once again of not respecting any agreement. For its part, the American site Axios relayed information according to which the US Central Command for the Middle East had prepared a plan for short-duration and high-intensity strikes on Iran, in case it was necessary to unblock the negotiations. The Israelis, unhappy since the beginning of this truce in the fighting, are not to be outdone: on Thursday, their Defense Minister Israel Katz said that his country could act again against Iran. Exorbitant cost at all levels This week also saw the reappearance of another key player in the Middle East, who had kept a low profile until now: Russian President Vladimir Putin, who hosted Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi last weekend, had a phone conversation with Donald Trump this week. The Kremlin announced that Putin had outlined to Trump the serious consequences that a new military campaign against Iran would have. In any case, this war launched on February 28 has a cost at all levels. Globally, the rise in fuel prices is forcing governments around the world to take measures to limit the damage, and is weighing on all sectors: a glaring example this week is that of an American airline that grounded its planes. For the United States, this conflict has cost $25 billion so far, according to Pentagon estimates. A cost for Iran obviously, which is beginning to show signs of running out of steam. And for China too, indirectly, which imported a large part of its oil from Iran at a preferential price. Another consequence of the war in Iran is the frantic continuation of arrests of opponents and executions. This week, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights denounced 21 executions and nearly 4,000 arrests in Iran since the start of the previous conflict. Reports on the Revolutionary Guards' fears concerning a potential new popular uprising due to economic difficulties are multiplying in the media. Also within Iran, it is worth noting a report published this week by Reuters showing the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' grip on the country from now on, with a weakened Supreme Leader. The Lebanese scene, victim of the clash of agendas Parallel to the wait-and-see attitude in the Iranian dossier, the Lebanese scene is boiling on several levels. It remains marked by tensions between the camp that remains attached to Iranian influence, and the official Lebanese authorities who are trying to extricate the country from this stranglehold, at the risk of being subjected to increasingly insistent American pressure. These tensions were illustrated this week by the failure of a scheduled meeting at the Baabda presidential palace between President of the Republic Joseph Aoun, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri (also head of Amal, a Shiite movement allied with Hezbollah) and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, to discuss the modalities of direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, which began in the first week of March. The hesitation came from Berri, who had previously shown his preference for indirect negotiations, estimating in an interview with the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat that "it is not justified to negotiate under Israeli fire". President Aoun, for his part, is facing intense American pressure for a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. He continues to refuse it, however, as long as the ceasefire is not total, saying he prefers, according to Baabda sources to MTV, that the "photo" Washington is looking for eventually crowns an agreement, not precedes it. Faced with internal pressures, the president clearly stated this week that he would reject "a humiliating agreement for Lebanon". On the American side, impatience is being felt. Donald Trump mentioned, in one of his untimely statements, that an Aoun-Netanyahu meeting would take place "within two weeks". But the most insistent pressure came from a statement by the US Embassy in Beirut on Thursday, which highlights "the possibility for Lebanon to secure concrete guarantees of full sovereignty, recovery of its entire territory, security of its borders, humanitarian support, and reconstruction assistance" from the United States, if it accepts such a meeting. The text speaks of a "historic opportunity". There is no doubt that President Aoun is at the heart of all the tensions, just like Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. They are regularly the target of increasingly orchestrated and virulent smear campaigns by the "Resistance's public". This week, a report by Israeli intelligence services, relayed by Israeli media, spoke of "potential" threats to the life of the Lebanese president due to his commitment to direct negotiations with Israel. A threat "that Baabda takes seriously", according to its sources to Lebanese media, but which "will not make the president back down in his initiative to save Lebanon". "Angry Birds" and violence in the South Joseph Aoun is therefore clinging to his principles to weather the storm, which is also raging from within. Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc released a particularly virulent statement this week, denouncing the "decline" of the Lebanese authorities in their commitment to negotiations with Tel Aviv, accusing them of "submitting to American dictates". The tensions have also spilled over into the virtual realm: a parodic animated video published by the LBCI channel showing Hezbollah leaders, notably Naim Qassem, its secretary general, as "Angry Birds" characters, caused a great stir among the "Hezbollah public" and numerous insults. The latter lashed out against Maronite Patriarch Bechara Rai, victim of a smear campaign that crossed all possible red lines, and which was condemned by the three branches of power. This nervousness at Hezbollah's base is explained in particular by the situation in the south of the country: the week was extremely violent, with a growing number of airstrikes, bombings, dynamiting of entire villages and deaths. Even if Israel also seems caught in a quagmire, the damage is miniscule on its side compared to that suffered by Hezbollah and the Lebanese population. On Sunday, a call for the evacuation of eleven more villages was once again launched by the Israeli army. Noteworthy this week was a request by Netanyahu, during a phone call to Trump, to expand operations in Lebanon. A request rejected by the American president who does not want to jeopardize the negotiations on the two dossiers. The latter "advised" the Israeli Prime Minister to stop destroying buildings in Lebanon because it "harms Israel's image".

The negotiations between Iranians and Americans, which are in limbo after this long week of back-and-forth in Islamabad, were overshadowed Sunday morning (Levant time) by the news of a failed assassination attempt on US President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. President Trump, in an initial gut reaction, indicated he did not know whether the war in Iran is linked to this assassination attempt. The White House Correspondents' Association dinner, an annual tradition, was expected to unfold peacefully in the presence of President Donald Trump, members of his administration, and numerous political figures. But a (new) assassination attempt against the most powerful man in the world took place in this prestigious, highly secure environment of the Washington Hilton. A man armed with 'multiple weapons', according to initial reports, was able to bypass all security barriers to approach the hall where practically all the country's top leaders were gathered, and open fire. The incident left two injured, including an officer, and the man was captured alive: he is a 31-year-old American teacher from California, Cole Thomas Allen. The lone wolf theory seems to prevail for the moment, but others cannot be ruled out. During a press conference he held shortly afterwards at the White House, Donald Trump stated that he did not yet know whether the war with Iran was connected to the attack. He nevertheless insisted that this would not push him to give up on this war. Deadlock in Islamabad Far from this incident, the past week was marked by missed appointments in the negotiations between Iran and the United States. Early in the week, all eyes were focused on the April 22 deadline, the last deadline in the ceasefire conceded by Trump to the Iranians two weeks earlier. At a time when the Iranians announced their refusal to travel to Islamabad for a second round of negotiations, a surprise came from Washington just hours before the deadline expired: the US President himself announced the extension of the ceasefire with Iran 'until further notice' in order to give negotiations a chance. Interpretations of this decision were varied: was the American president feeling trapped by this war, or was he preparing a surprise attack?... The week passed to the rhythm of statements from both sides, notably from the Iranian side, which persists in refusing to attend negotiations that lead 'nowhere'. Clearly, the Iranians, furious about the blockade imposed by the United States, continue to resist American demands concerning ballistic missiles, nuclear energy, and armed proxies in the region... However, reports of serious dissensions between the centers of power in the Iranian regime are beginning to emerge, culminating in the resignation of the Iranian Parliament Speaker, Mohammad Calibaf, from the negotiating delegation. Is this American reprieve aimed at allowing time for these dissensions to settle? On Friday, the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abbas Araghchi, traveled to Islamabad, taking care to specify that he was only going there to hold talks with his Pakistani counterparts. He actually conveyed a new Iranian roadmap intended for the Americans, the content of which prompted President Trump to cancel the trip of his two envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to Pakistan, clearly signaling that he would only greenlight this trip if the Iranians showed more involvement in these talks. On the level of military operations, the American blockade of Iranian ports continues, and it appears to be effectively asphyxiating what remains of the Iranian economy, hence the growing aggressiveness of the Revolutionary Guards, whose rhetoric of threats against the US military and neighboring countries is crescendoing. The Strait of Hormuz remains de facto closed, with all the foreseeable consequences for the global economy. In this context, an incident involving Iraq was reported on Saturday: while the ceasefire has loosened the grip on the Gulf countries, targets of Iranian missiles since the beginning of this war, drone strikes, presumably from a pro-Iranian group in Iraq, hit border posts in Kuwait. Although Iraqi authorities strongly condemned the incident, it showed the lack of control Iraqi leaders have over the militias still operating on Iraqi territory. Second round of negotiations at the White House The week in Lebanon was more eventful than in Iran, particularly on the diplomatic front. The second direct Israeli-Lebanese meeting took place on Thursday in Washington, once again between Lebanese Ambassador Nada Moawad and Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter. This second meeting, however, took on a different dimension from the first, as it took place at the White House, in the Oval Office, rather than the State Department, and what is more, in the presence of President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the US Ambassador to Beirut, Michel Issa. What can be taken away from this meeting, described as 'historic', is the extension of the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel for a period of three weeks (Lebanon had asked for 60 days), as well as an announcement by Trump, who indicated that ending Iranian funding to Hezbollah would become a 'non-negotiable' condition in the Iranian-American negotiations. Beyond this moment, the continuation of these direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel raises several question marks: how far can Lebanese President Joseph Aoun go, knowing that the American president seems in a hurry to achieve a diplomatic success, insisting once again on the need to bring Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu together at the White House, an eventuality that the former continues to rule out? How can Joseph Aoun bypass the strong opposition of the Shiite duo to these negotiations? In any case, the Lebanese president expressed his determination to continue on this path 'to save the country' and to restore the Lebanese state's full sovereignty over decisions of war and peace, as he emphasized during his participation in a European summit in Cyprus on Friday. On the domestic scene, Hezbollah continued its verbal attacks against these negotiations, asking the state to put an end to them. For his part, the Speaker of Parliament and head of Amal, Nabih Berri, declared in essence this week that he is not against the negotiations, but that he prefers them to be indirect. Consultations in Cyprus The diplomatic ballet concerning the situation in Lebanon was also intense this week. In Cyprus, President Aoun held talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa and other Arab leaders. Prime Minister Nawaf Salam was received at the Élysée on April 25, and his speech in Luxembourg before the Council of Europe matched the firmness of tone of President Aoun's in Cyprus. As for the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, he was received by President al-Sharaa in Damascus on Saturday. Furthermore, the Saudi role was revived this week with the mission to Beirut of the envoy Yazid bin Farhan, following a visit by an envoy of Mr. Berri to Saudi Arabia a few days earlier. In any event, attention is focused on a meeting scheduled for Monday among the three pillars of Lebanese power, Joseph Aoun, Nabih Berri, and Nawaf Salam, at the Baabda Palace, to discuss the modalities of the negotiations, according to information from al-Jadeed. Will it be the beginning of a united common front on this issue, or will it cement the existing dissensions? Resumption of raids in the South Regarding the situation on the ground in South Lebanon, the week ended with the position of Mr. Netanyahu, who gave the order to the Israeli army to attack Hezbollah positions in Lebanon 'with force'. The IDF air force immediately resumed its raids against facilities of the pro-Iranian party in the southern region of the country, without, however, extending its attacks deeper and to the southern suburbs. On Saturday night, fifteen raids were thus carried out. Airstrikes continued throughout the day on Sunday, notably in the Nabatieh and Bint Jbeil regions. The end of the week was further marked by an Israeli drone attack that claimed the life of a journalist from the pro-Hezbollah daily al-Akhbar , Amal Khalil, in the village of al-Tiri, in the Bint Jbeil district. This tragedy was particularly poignant as the journalist, along with a colleague, was pursued by the drone into the house where she had taken refuge, and rescue workers were prevented from reaching her for several hours. Lebanon is expected to file a complaint with international bodies, according to the Minister of Information. Two other serious incidents took place, moreover, in Greater Beirut on Saturday evening: a brutal intervention by State Security against a generator owner (an official in Saad Hariri's Future Movement) in the Sakiet al-Janzir neighborhood ended in riots and road closures in several Sunni neighborhoods of Beirut. The officer who led the State Security unit that engaged in this untimely intervention is close to Hezbollah, which explains the popular revolt witnessed in the Sunni neighborhoods. Following this tension, the government commissioner to the military court opened an investigation and interrogated the officer in question and the security service agents involved in the case. Another serious incident occurred on Saturday evening: the assault suffered by a municipal agent of Fanar and the priest of the Fanar parish at the hands of two Hezbollah supporters, causing intense tension among the population of this Beirut suburb. The two attackers were apprehended and handed over to the Internal Security Forces' Intelligence.

Direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, unprecedented since 1983; a precarious ceasefire in South Lebanon; the Strait of Hormuz still at the center of Iranian-American tensions; a summary of an eventful week in the Middle East ending with two crucial developments. The past week ended this Sunday, April 19, with a double announcement of the highest importance. In a firm tone that contrasts with his traditional statements, President Donald Trump indicated Sunday afternoon (Levant time) that his representatives would travel to Islamabad Monday evening for a final round of talks on Tuesday, during which the Iranian regime would have to endorse a 'very fair and reasonable' agreement proposed by Washington. Failing that, the White House chief affirmed, the US army 'will destroy every power plant and every bridge'. 'Kindness is over,' President Trump declared. 'If they don't accept the deal, it will be an honor for me to do what should have been done by other presidents over the last 47 years. It's time to end the Iranian killing machine.' Second important announcement closing the week: the Elysée indicated in the afternoon that President Emmanuel Macron would receive Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on Tuesday. Ahead of these two major developments, Lebanon experienced a week as eventful as the previous ones, but punctuated by a historic event, in every sense of the word: the launch of direct negotiations with Israel, a first since 1983. Certainly, the meeting in Washington on April 14 between the ambassadors of Lebanon, Nada Hamadé Mouawad, and Israel, Yechiel Leiter, under the aegis and in the presence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and also in the presence of the American ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, was planned. The resulting photo, which went viral worldwide, nevertheless had a colossal effect, both on the Lebanese scene and in the capitals concerned. What emerged from this meeting lays the groundwork for longer-term negotiations. While Marco Rubio stressed the importance of the moment while acknowledging that the process 'will take time,' it was Israel's ambassador to Washington who was the most talkative, assuring that the two countries 'discovered they were on the same side,' speaking of border demarcation and a future of peace. Lebanon's ambassador merely described the meeting as 'constructive,' specifying that she had requested a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. In the joint communiqué, the United States expressed hope that the talks would continue and lead to a peace agreement. In Lebanon, the talks provoked diametrically opposed reactions, in line with deep political divisions. Unsurprisingly, Hezbollah called them a 'capitulation,' with its circles saying they preferred Lebanon to 'benefit from Iran's support' within the framework of its own talks with the United States. The sovereignist camp welcomed these talks with Israel, not only with a view to lasting peace but also for the Lebanese state to definitively separate from the Iranian axis, by enshrining Lebanon's right to negotiate its own future. In this uproar, one voice remained silent, that of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berry, who is also the head of the Amal movement, the other component of the Shiite duo with Hezbollah. In a gesture that many are still trying to decipher, he sent his second-in-command, former minister Ali Hassan Khalil, to Saudi Arabia, in parallel with the Washington meeting. While this first meeting concluded with assurances of future contacts, no new appointment was officially announced. But this step was expected to cause a snowball effect, as the ceasefire requested by Lebanon to continue the dialogue was to take place two days later. On Thursday, President Joseph Aoun had a day marked by crucial telephone conversations. While Secretary of State Marco Rubio proposed putting him in direct contact with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Aoun refused, maintaining his position of demanding a ceasefire. This attitude remained unchanged even when the occupant of the White House himself was on the other end of the line. With his usual fervor, Donald Trump announced that he would bring Aoun and Netanyahu together in Washington 'soon'. Firmness of tone in Baabda A ten-day ceasefire was to be the result of the contacts of the past week. It came into effect at midnight on Thursday night to Friday. According to information leaked in international media, President Trump reportedly somewhat forced the Israelis' hand to obtain this calm, which he considered necessary on the Lebanese and Iranian fronts. Although clearly announced by the American president following his phone call with his Lebanese counterpart, the Hezbollah camp was quick to try to claim credit, as a good champion of opportunistic recovery, a propaganda whose stars were cadre Mahmoud Qomati and MP Hassan Fadlallah. The latter even went so far as to say that it was the Iranian ambassador, the very one the Lebanese state considers persona non grata, who announced the ceasefire to him... One more sign of the party's absolute allegiance to Tehran, which prefers to attribute paternity to its patron rather than to the Lebanese government. On the ground, as usual, Hezbollah proclaimed 'divine victory,' with celebratory gunfire and rockets in the Beirut sky, causing at least two casualties. The familiar scenes of cars returning south on broken roads, Hezbollah flags in hand, were repeated, despite warnings about the fragility and provisional nature of this truce. Faced with this growing belligerent rhetoric from Hezbollah and its Iranian patron, it was a message addressed to the nation by President Aoun on Friday evening that was to set the record straight. Without including Iran in his thanks, Joseph Aoun assured that he would go wherever necessary to save his country and his people, in a clear allusion to the direct negotiations that would continue, emphasizing that these were neither a sign of weakness nor a surrender. In this speech with a firm tone, he clearly endorsed the separation from the Iranian axis, while reiterating the Lebanese state's determination to extend its sovereignty over the entire country, by negotiating the Israeli withdrawal from the newly (re)conquered territories. This speech was widely praised by those who were delighted to find the same vein as the president's inauguration speech in January 2025, while others remain circumspect, pointing to the inaction of the Lebanese authorities towards Hezbollah over fifteen months, the direct consequence of which was the opening of a new front against Israel in March 2026. On Hezbollah's side, the speech definitively sealed the break between the two parties, as vociferated by the inescapable Qomati, who threatened to bring down the government in the streets. But the confrontation is not limited to verbal accusations of betrayal and threats: on Saturday, a French UNIFIL peacekeeper was killed, and three others wounded, by direct fire in South Lebanon. Even if Hezbollah denied any involvement in the incident, French President Emmanuel Macron and UNIFIL itself immediately pointed the finger at them based on elements from the preliminary investigation. The French Minister of the Armed Forces spoke of an 'ambush'. The other surprise of the week was the 'reappearance' of Hezbollah Secretary General Naïm Qassem, in a recorded speech broadcast on April 13, on the eve of the direct negotiations in Washington, in which he rejected direct contacts with Israel and called them 'submission'. In another message broadcast on April 18, Qassem continued his attacks against the talks, but highlighted his party's openness to 'full cooperation with the Lebanese authorities'. Is this a division of roles within the party or real divergences between a harder line and a more conciliatory one? In Iran, uncertainties about the truce On the Iranian front, the week was punctuated by untimely and contradictory statements from the American president and Iranian leaders who continue to blow hot and cold. The mediating countries, led by Pakistan, are working to keep the direct negotiation process alive, which began two weeks earlier. Now, all eyes are on next week, which should be decisive in the sense that the truce decreed by Washington ends on Wednesday, and a new round of talks is expected to be held in Islamabad. Will it take place, and will the truce be extended in the absence of an agreement? The situation should clarify in the coming days, but the possibility of a renewed conflict is far from ruled out. At the center of concerns this week was the Strait of Hormuz, sometimes 'open,' sometimes 'closed,' in a saga that continues to weigh on oil prices and the global economy. As part of an ongoing American blockade on Iranian ports, Iran declared the strait open in the wake of the ceasefire in Lebanon, with strong statements on the cause-and-effect relationship between the two events, Tehran wanting to give the impression of reacting to an achievement it attributes to itself. However, the week ended on a distinctly more negative note, as the Revolutionary Guards resumed targeting merchant ships, justifying this new 'closure' of the strait in communiqués published via Iranian state media by the American refusal to end the blockade.

Between April 5 and 12, the past week has been particularly rich in events in the Middle East. It concluded on Sunday, April 12, at dawn, with the announcement of the failure of negotiations between the United States and Iran in Islamabad, while mid-week, Israel gave its approval for direct negotiations with Lebanon, scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, in Washington. On April 8, the Israeli air force launched a massive attack – about a hundred raids in 10 minutes – against Hezbollah leaders and positions in several districts of Beirut, as well as in the Beqaa and South Lebanon. April 5 had been primarily marked by statements made by President Donald Trump, who had issued serious threats against the Iranian regime, ordering it to end the obstacles it placed in the way of free maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump had given Iran an ultimatum that expired on Tuesday evening, April 7. While everything indicated, during the weekend of April 4-5, that escalation was hardly avoidable, the surprise came a few hours before the end of the ultimatum. A two-week truce was proclaimed, and negotiations were set for Saturday, April 11, in Islamabad, with a view to a settlement between the United States and Iran, focusing notably on the Strait of Hormuz. The offensive launched by the Americans and Israelis against the Iranian regime thus took another turn. In Iran, the cannons fell silent momentarily, even if the strait was only partially reopened. Both parties, Iranians and Americans alike, were quick to declare their camp's 'victory'. The Iranian regime boasts of a tactical victory against its two powerful enemies, based on the fact that its regime survived despite the blows received. As for Donald Trump, he multiplied 'posts' on his social network Truth Social, essentially stating that 'the regime has changed', that the new figures are more pragmatic and 'reasonable', and that the United States and its Israeli ally inflicted an overwhelming military defeat on Iran, its army and its infrastructure, bringing it to the negotiating table with the will to conclude a deal. Irreconcilable views The belligerents met on Saturday 11 for negotiations in Pakistan (the mediator), in Islamabad, with two contradictory working documents, 15 points for the United States and 10 clauses for Iran, with irreconcilable views. Indeed, on Sunday morning (Levant time), US Vice President J.D. Vance left Islamabad announcing the failure of negotiations, asserting to have made a 'final and best possible offer' to the Iranians (AFP). He regretted, before his return to Washington, 'the absence of a firm promise' to abandon the Iranian nuclear program. Iran, for its part, lambasted the American 'unreasonable demands', before its diplomatic spokesperson, Esmail Baqai, admitted that 'no one expected' an agreement after a single session. Nevertheless, the door to dialogue would not be entirely closed, as a senior official of Pakistani diplomacy was quick to clarify. According to some reports, the agreement stumbled on two points: the Iranian regime's desire to control the Strait of Hormuz and an Iranian commitment to stop uranium enrichment. For their part, the United States refused to unfreeze Iranian funds and grant Iran control of Hormuz. This strait, let us recall, is a natural maritime passage and therefore not subject to the control of riparian countries. In any event, the American delegation left Islamabad, leaving its Iranian interlocutors with a document outlining the conditions that Iran should accept to reach an agreement. The US delegation was led by US Vice President J.D. Vance, a man who had expressed reservations about the war against the Iranian regime, accompanied by US envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The Iranian delegation included Mohammad Ghalibaf, Speaker of Parliament and former general of the Revolutionary Guards, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The April 8 attack In Lebanon, the past week was mainly marked by the vast aerial attack launched by about fifty planes on Wednesday, April 8, in the early afternoon, against a hundred Hezbollah cadres and positions hidden in several districts of the capital as well as in Baalbek, Hermel, Saida, and other regions of South Lebanon. According to the version given by the Israeli army, an online meeting had been organized between officials and cadres of the Shiite party to prepare a militia coup in Beirut with the aim of overthrowing the government of Nawaf Salam, in which Hezbollah is a strong minority. Still according to Israeli sources, the intelligence services of the Hebrew state had been informed of this large online meeting, and the Israeli Services managed to target all participating cadres, directly or by their presence, in the meeting across different regions by interfering with the frequency and computer identity of the online links. This 'cyber' attack (by 'virtual' means) lasted 10 minutes in Beirut and other regions to precisely hit the numerous targets. Given the element of surprise and the peak hour at which the raids were launched (around 2 p.m.), this bombing caused numerous civilian casualties. The toll amounted to no less than 180 killed among Hezbollah cadres and nearly 200 killed among civilians, not counting the considerable material damage in certain districts of the capital. Since this bloody episode, the Israeli military operation against the capital and its suburbs has significantly decreased in intensity - apparently under American pressure to give negotiations with Iran a chance, as that country had protested against the non-inclusion of Lebanon in the ceasefire with the USA without reacting to protect its ally (Hezbollah) or jeopardizing its meeting in Islamabad. Fighting continues in the South, especially around critical points, such as the town of Bint Jbeil, which the Israeli army was seeking to completely control on Sunday. At the end of this week, eyes were focused on the preparations for the first session of direct Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, scheduled for Tuesday, April 14, in Washington, as well as the situation in the Strait of Hormuz where President Trump decided on Sunday to impose a naval blockade to continue demining operations, in which some European countries, including Great Britain and Germany, could participate.