Amidst the profound transformations witnessed by the Palestinian cause, and in light of the unprecedented political and religious challenges facing the city of Jerusalem, the meeting between His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III, Patriarch of Jerusalem and All Palestine and Jordan of the Greek Orthodox, and US President Donald Trump stands out as an event that transcends the boundaries of diplomatic protocol and traditional official meetings. It carries political, national, and humanitarian messages of exceptional importance, especially at this delicate stage where Christian and Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem are subjected to increasing pressures and continuous attempts to change the city's character and historical identity.

The importance of this meeting stems not only from the stature of the two personalities who met, but also from the nature of the issues discussed, and the regional and international circumstances under which it took place. Jerusalem today stands at a historical crossroads, while the Palestinian Christian presence faces accumulating challenges that threaten its continuity and historical role in the Holy Land. This makes any international move aimed at shedding light on this issue a crucial step that deserves attention and analysis of its political and strategic dimensions.

Patriarch Theophilos III carried to the White House the message of Christian Jerusalem with all its spiritual, national, and historical meanings. The man who leads one of the oldest churches in the world did not go merely as a representative of a religious denomination, but as a guardian of a universal Christian heritage rooted in Jerusalem for two thousand years, and a witness to the transformations taking place in the Holy City and the accompanying challenges affecting the future of the Palestinian and Arab Christian presence in the cradle of the Christian message.

In this context, the meeting represents a serious attempt to convey the reality on the ground to American decision-making circles, especially in light of the increasing pressures on churches and Christian endowments, and the political, economic, and security conditions faced by Palestinian Christians, which are driving increasing numbers of them to emigrate, threatening the erosion of one of the most important components of Palestine's historical and cultural identity.

The message carried by the Patriarch to the American administration goes beyond defending the rights of Christians alone, to affirm that targeting the Christian presence in Jerusalem and Palestine is a targeting of the religious and cultural pluralism that has formed the essence of this Holy Land throughout the centuries. Jerusalem has never been a city for followers of one religion or one culture, but rather a unique model of diversity and coexistence, which makes preserving all its components an international responsibility that transcends narrow political calculations.

This meeting gains additional importance in light of the United States' position in the international system and its direct influence on the course of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Regardless of the differing positions and assessments regarding American policies, Washington remains a key player capable of influencing many issues related to the future of Jerusalem and its religious holy sites. Hence, addressing the American President directly reflects a deep understanding of the importance of conveying the Palestinian Christian voice to the highest levels of international decision-making.

This meeting also reflects the continued political and national presence of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church in defending Jerusalem and its historical identity. The Church has never been a spiritual institution isolated from its national surroundings, but has played a pivotal role in protecting the Arab identity of the Holy City and in defending the rights of its people of various religious and national affiliations.

When discussing the implications of this meeting, it is necessary to pause at the historical role played by Patriarch Theophilos III over the past years in protecting Christian holy sites and endowments from various forms of targeting and Judaization. Since assuming the patriarchal throne, he has placed the issue of preserving church properties and endowments at the forefront of his priorities, realizing that Christian endowment is not just a property or a financial asset, but part of the historical memory and civilizational presence of Arab Christianity in Jerusalem and Palestine.

The Patriarch has fought complex legal and political battles in defense of the Church's rights, and faced immense pressures to preserve its historical properties. In all those stages, his position was based on a firm conviction that compromising Christian endowments or allowing them to be harmed constitutes a direct threat to the future of the Christian presence in the Holy Land.

Perhaps one of the most prominent aspects that gives this visit a special dimension is that it comes at a time when fears are escalating about attempts to impose new realities on the ground in Jerusalem, whether through restricting religious institutions, or through policies aimed at changing the historical character of some neighborhoods and holy sites. Hence, raising these issues before the American President carries a clear message that the protection of Christian holy sites is not merely an ecclesiastical demand, but an issue related to the protection of global human heritage.

The meeting also sends a message to the international community that Palestinian Christians are not an immigrant community or a temporary minority in this land, but rather original sons of Palestine, and an integral part of its national and historical fabric. From this land, Christianity spread to the world, and on this land, the oldest Christian communities continue to maintain their existence despite all challenges and difficulties.

From a political perspective, this visit can be seen as an attempt to re-highlight an issue that has often been marginalized amidst the major conflicts in the region. The world follows successive wars and crises, but the suffering of Palestinian Christians and the challenges facing their historical existence do not always receive the attention they deserve. Therefore, bringing this issue to the highest international political levels represents an important step in the path of defending the historical and religious rights of the Palestinian people with all their components.

It is no secret that Patriarch Theophilos III's international standing gives him a special ability to convey these messages. He is not just a religious leader, but a personality widely respected in international ecclesiastical and political circles, which makes his positions and actions an influential factor in shaping global public opinion on the issues of Jerusalem and its holy sites.

What also distinguishes this visit is that it is an extension of a consistent approach adopted by the Patriarch throughout his years of service, based on openness to various capitals and international decision-making centers in order to defend Jerusalem, its people, and its holy sites. The man realizes that the battle to preserve the city's historical identity cannot be fought only at the local level, but requires an active presence in all international arenas.

Hence, his meeting with the American President carries a strategic dimension that transcends the present moment, as it seeks to build international awareness of the importance of protecting the Palestinian Christian presence and preserving the holy places from any attempts aimed at changing their identity or their historical and legal status. It also reflects the determination of the Jerusalem Church to remain present in international discussions related to the future of Jerusalem and its spiritual and humanitarian status.

In conclusion, this meeting constitutes an important milestone in the efforts to defend Jerusalem and its holy sites, and confirms that the Jerusalem Orthodox Church continues to play its historical role in protecting the Christian heritage, preserving endowments and holy sites, and defending the Palestinian Christian presence in the land of their fathers and ancestors.

Through this meeting, Patriarch Theophilos III wanted to remind the world of a fundamental truth often lost amidst the clamor of politics and conflicts, which is that Jerusalem is not just a negotiating file or a title for a political dispute, but a holy city that carries a spiritual and humanitarian heritage belonging to all humanity. He also wanted to affirm that Palestinian Christians remain in their land, adhering to their rights, identity, and historical message, and that the Church will remain, as it has been for centuries, a guardian of holy sites and endowments, and a defender of justice, peace, and human dignity.

In a time when attempts to obscure facts and change landmarks are multiplying, the voice of Jerusalem emanating from its ancient patriarchate remains a testament that identity cannot be erased, and that holy sites are not just stones and buildings, but the memory of a people, the history of a nation, and a civilizational message that will remain alive as long as believers in the values of justice, freedom, and peace endure.

The revelation of the terms of the recent US-Iranian agreement sparked a wide wave of conflicting interpretations. Parties affiliated with Tehran rushed to promote a narrative of victory, while opposing voices in Washington considered that President Trump's administration made concessions disproportionate to the military superiority on the ground. This division reflects a state of political polarization that extends beyond the text of the agreement to the ideological aspirations of each party.

Domestically in Iran, a message attributed to Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei revealed a clear divergence of views within the hierarchy of power, with the Leader distancing himself from the direct outcomes of the agreement. Khamenei clarified that he authorized the step based on President Masoud Pezeshkian's full assumption of responsibility as head of the Supreme National Security Council, reflecting the supreme leadership's desire to disclaim any negative repercussions in the future.

Opposition was not limited to the supreme leadership but extended to the corridors of the Iranian parliament, where hardline deputies described the agreement as a state of national 'humiliation'. The deputy head of the National Security Committee warned that the conditions contained might turn the country into something akin to an 'American colony', accusing the negotiating team of crossing red lines and ignoring sovereign directives.

On the other hand, Israel appears cautious in its handling of this diplomatic path, with its leaders affirming that they are not bound by this agreement. Israeli sources emphasize that the army will not withdraw from the positions it controlled in southern Lebanon, but will use the period of calm to reorganize its ranks and prepare plans for unprecedented military strikes against Iranian facilities in the event of a breach of the de-escalation.

Observers believe that placing the agreement in its proper context requires defining it as a narrow framework aimed at establishing a ceasefire according to written and temporary controls. Despite some limited incentives and gains for the Iranian side, they remain very small when compared to the enormous destruction and economic losses Tehran has incurred during the past period.

The gains Iran has achieved are described as 'near zero' given the disruption of the economic lifeline due to the American naval blockade. The recent experience has proven the effectiveness of the cordon imposed on the Strait of Hormuz, which caused Tehran to lose approximately half a billion dollars daily, putting the regime in a very difficult negotiating position.

Phase two of the negotiations represents the real test of the parties' intentions, during which the possibility of reaching a final and comprehensive agreement or returning to escalation will be decided. Concerns remain that this transitional period may merely be an opportunity for Washington and Tel Aviv to rearrange logistical papers and secure the requirements for any upcoming military confrontation.

One cannot overlook the personality of US President Donald Trump in this equation, as he has a history of sudden withdrawal from international agreements if he senses any procrastination. This possibility places the Iranian side under constant pressure to meticulously implement commitments, fearing a return to the 'maximum pressure' policy, which this time could be more devastating to the exhausted economy.

Reports indicate that the naval blockade tested by the United States has proven its ability to completely paralyze Iranian exports and imports. Should military operations resume, Washington will be in a position to implement this blockade more effectively, reducing the maneuvering options available to decision-makers in Tehran.

Internally, the agreement faces challenges from active parties in both countries who do not wish to see any diplomatic rapprochement, as these forces believe their interests are linked to the continuation of the conflict. These affected parties may actively seek to derail the transitional agreement during the specified sixty-day period, putting the entire diplomatic process on a knife-edge.

The conflicting interpretations of 'victory and defeat' reflect each party's desire to market the agreement to its domestic audience as a political achievement. However, the reality indicates that the agreement is merely a mechanism to establish a ceasefire and avoid total collapse, not a final settlement that ends the long-standing hostility between the two parties.

It appears that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has put his political future at stake by accepting responsibility for this path, especially given the continued field operations by the Revolutionary Guard, which sometimes contradict official discourse. This conflict of authorities weakens the credibility of Iranian commitments before the international community and increases the American administration's suspicions.

Ultimately, the current US-Iranian agreement remains a 'necessity agreement' imposed by harsh economic and field conditions, awaiting the outcome of the next phase of negotiations. The question remains as to the extent of the parties' ability to withstand internal pressures and sudden shifts in US foreign policy before the specified deadline expires.

In conclusion, the coming days will reveal whether this agreement is a bridge towards new regional stability or merely a short warrior's rest before a larger storm. Current data indicate that all parties are preparing for the worst-case scenarios even as they sit at the negotiating table, making lasting peace a distant goal for now.

In principle, I had a different opinion, but in light of the President's commitment as head of the Supreme National Security Council, I authorized the agreement.

Recent statements by the US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, have sparked widespread controversy in political and media circles, after he publicly declared that America's existence is fundamentally indebted to Jewish roots. These words brought back old discussions about the extent of Zionist influence on decision-making centers in the United States and the direction of its foreign policies.

Despite the shock these statements caused among segments of the public and American historians who considered them an insult to national identity, the American administration did not take any diplomatic action against the ambassador. No decision was issued to dismiss him or even summon him for reprimand, which reinforced the belief that this view represents a deep current within the current ruling establishment.

Observers believe that the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv, during President Donald Trump's era, transcended the traditional framework of alliance to become an absolute organic partnership. It appeared that the presidential agenda was primarily focused on protecting and expanding the influence of the Israeli entity in the region, even if it was at the expense of traditional American interests or relations with historical allies.

The stark contradiction appears in the American leadership's dealings with international powers, where the President does not hesitate to direct sharp criticism at leaders of major European countries such as France and Spain. In contrast, there is complete silence regarding any transgressions or insults issued by Zionist officials, or even by American diplomats who show loyalty to Tel Aviv that exceeds their loyalty to their home country.

Ambassador Mike Huckabee is known for his strong enthusiasm for the 'Greater Israel' project, which was evident in his previous answers about the possibility of swallowing up lands from neighboring Arab countries. Huckabee considered Israeli expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates to be a 'biblical right,' emphasizing that he had no objection to seizing the lands of eight Arab countries to achieve this plan.

These public stances reveal an 'existential secret' linking American power and the Zionist project, which was clearly manifested during recent wars and crises in the Middle East. It seems that Ambassador Huckabee deliberately revealed the threads of this complex relationship, which has long been the subject of speculation and lengthy political and historical analyses.

Ultimately, the question remains before the American public about the motives that lead their leadership to dedicate state resources to serve another entity in a way that raises suspicion. While the political debate continues, the field is left open for historians and researchers to unravel these deep ties that have come to shape the features of the new international order and the balance of power in the Arab region.

Without a Jewish foundation, America would not exist!

International press reports, citing US intelligence agencies, stated that the administration of President Donald Trump received serious warnings regarding the actions of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The intelligence report indicated that Netanyahu might take escalatory steps on the Lebanese front, primarily aimed at obstructing a lasting peace agreement with Iran, amidst the complexities of the internal political scene in Israel.

The American report links the continuation of military operations in Lebanon to Netanyahu's political future, especially with the upcoming national elections scheduled for next fall. American analysts believe that the Israeli Prime Minister fears that any withdrawal or de-escalation might be interpreted by his right-wing public as a personal defeat, pushing him towards the option of military escalation against Hezbollah to bolster his electoral position.

For its part, informed sources in the Trump administration confirmed that Washington's top priority currently is to finalize the agreement with Tehran and ensure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to avoid a global economic crisis that could sweep international markets. Although the US administration affirmed that the terms of the agreement guarantee Israel's right to defend itself and respond to any fire from Lebanon, it believes that Netanyahu's political ambitions should not hinder global economic stability.

In a related context, Tehran announced the postponement of the round of talks scheduled in Switzerland, in response to what it described as the bloody Israeli escalation in Lebanese territories. This diplomatic setback comes at a time when the West Bank is witnessing a parallel escalation, as Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich proceeded to withdraw planning and construction powers from the Hebron municipality, in a move aimed at expanding settlements in the heart of the historic city.

These developments coincide with severe military restrictions in the city of Hebron, where the occupation authorities began expanding the 'Shavei Hebron' Talmudic school, built inside the confiscated Osama bin Munqidh school. These measures, along with the imposed military siege, have led to a sharp decline in the number of worshippers at the Ibrahimi Mosque by up to 80%, amidst Palestinian demands for the return of international monitoring to protect residents from increasing settler attacks.

Netanyahu's political survival is linked to showing his domestic audience that he will not withdraw Israeli forces from Lebanon.

The moment the water truck arrives at the displacement camps in the Gaza Strip, it transforms into a bustling beehive of activity and anticipation, as children and women rush to secure their meager shares. In this exhausted geographical area, the water tanker has become a sacred weekly appointment around which all details of daily life, from cooking and cleaning to bathing, are rescheduled.

As the summer heat intensifies, calculations within a single tent become more complex and precise, as families must manage very limited quantities of water. The displaced carefully monitor the distribution process, for every drop has its price, and any miscalculation could mean deprivation of basic needs until the next truck arrives.

Nine-year-old Kanan represents one face of this suffering, as he jostles with his frail body to get his family's share, consisting of 11 members. Kanan's family was displaced from Beit Hanoun city and relies entirely on this weekly shipment to manage their harsh lives under displacement conditions.

Kanan's tragedy is compounded by his neurological illness and injuries from a previous bombing, making his need for clean water to take medicine a top priority. His mother, Ni'ma, is forced to make difficult trade-offs, cutting from washing and cooking allocations to ensure enough water for her sick son, who lacks specialized treatment.

Inside the tent, black jerry cans and barrels appear as strategic life stores, with each container allocated for a specific, pre-determined purpose. Local sources say that families devise precise plans to divide the eight water containers they receive, covering drinking, cooking, and personal hygiene for seven full days.

In another tent, Alaa Al-Qabaj's family lives a similar experience, where water containers become a timeline for a full week of resilience. His wife, Farah, distributes water with extreme precision, allocating some for drinking and others for cooking, while the little remaining goes to washing children and accumulated dishes.

Upon the tanker's arrival, the place turns into a race against time, as everyone strives to fill their containers before the truck leaves. The displaced describe these minutes as part of the daily battle for survival, where father, mother, and children participate in transporting and carefully storing water within the narrow corners of their tent.

Once the filling process is complete, Farah begins to tackle postponed tasks, lighting the fire to cook food and washing the dishes that have waited for a long time. In these moments, the extent of the burdens imposed by the absence of water becomes clear, as bathing or washing clothes becomes a dream that only comes true once a week.

Near these tents, the suffering of Hajja Fathiya Hamad stands out. She lost her husband, sons, and daughters' husbands during the ongoing war. Fathiya lives with her three daughters and grandchildren in a tent lacking a provider, placing the entire burden of securing water and firewood on the women.

Fathiya's daughters move with great speed when the water truck arrives, carrying heavy jerry cans that press on their exhausted necks and shoulders. The absence of men is most evident in these moments, as women are forced to perform arduous tasks requiring significant physical effort to transport water from the tanker to the tent.

Yasmin, one of Fathiya's daughters, says that life has completely changed after losing their support, as they are now forced to run after water trucks and collect firewood. Yasmin's words express a bitter reality lived by thousands of women in Gaza, who find themselves in direct confrontation with the harsh demands of living.

The suffering is not limited to transporting water but extends to physical pain resulting from carrying heavy loads over long distances between tents. Suha, Yasmin's sister, confirms that back and neck pain has become an integral part of her day, but she is forced to continue working to meet the needs of her sister's children and elderly mother.

Mariam, the third daughter, experiences a double burden as she tries to balance the needs of her four children with the limited water supply. Motherhood enters into complex calculations; every drop of water consumed must be in its right place to ensure the continuation of life inside the tent until the next appointment.

The seventy liters that families receive are not just a quantity of liquid but a daily test of human resilience and resourcefulness. In the displacement tents, water remains the lifeblood of movement and activity, and without it, life stops, and pains accumulate, awaiting a tanker that may come or be delayed.

We reduce water for cooking and washing, and save it for my sick child's medicine above all else.

By: Said Arikat

June 20, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C- The ceasefire announced between Israel and Hezbollah may have temporarily lowered the temperature along the Lebanese border, but it has done little to obscure the larger political reality emerging from the historic U.S.-Iran agreement signed on June 17, 2026.

At the center of that reality stands Benjamin Netanyahu—not merely as an opponent of the agreement, but as the latest and perhaps most consequential obstacle in a decades-long pattern of resistance to diplomacy across the Middle East.

The debate surrounding the U.S.-Iran accord is often framed as a disagreement over security policy. In reality, it is something far more fundamental. It is a confrontation between two competing visions of regional order: one built around negotiated accommodation and de-escalation, the other around perpetual confrontation and managed instability. For more than three decades, Netanyahu has been the foremost political champion of the latter.

His record is neither ambiguous nor episodic. From the Oslo process in the 1990s to repeated ceasefire arrangements in Gaza, from negotiations over Palestinian statehood to diplomatic openings with Iran and efforts to stabilize Lebanon, Netanyahu has repeatedly positioned himself against initiatives that sought to replace military confrontation with political compromise. The particulars have varied, but the pattern has remained remarkably consistent: whenever diplomacy threatens to alter the strategic landscape, Netanyahu emerges as one of its most determined adversaries.

That history matters because the war in Lebanon cannot be understood in isolation from it.

As negotiations between Washington and Tehran approached their final stages, Israel expanded military operations in Lebanon, deepened its occupation of Lebanese territory, and intensified warnings about a broader regional confrontation. These actions did not occur in a vacuum. They unfolded precisely when diplomacy was gaining momentum and when the prospect of a transformative U.S.-Iran agreement was becoming increasingly likely.

The result was predictable. Military escalation created political pressure on Washington, heightened regional tensions, and introduced uncertainty into a diplomatic process Netanyahu had opposed from the beginning. Whether viewed through the lens of timing, strategic consequence, or political benefit, the Lebanon campaign functioned as an instrument for complicating and potentially undermining the emerging agreement.

This is not an isolated episode. It is the continuation of a familiar strategy.

Netanyahu’s political career has been built on the premise that the Middle East is ultimately resistant to political solutions and that security can only be achieved through overwhelming force and permanent vigilance. That worldview has not merely informed Israeli policy; it has shaped the political environment that sustains Netanyahu himself. Diplomacy presents a challenge to that framework because successful negotiations inevitably weaken the sense of permanent crisis upon which it depends.

The 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran offers perhaps the clearest precedent. Netanyahu did not simply criticize the accord. He mounted an extraordinary campaign against it, openly lobbying the United States Congress and directly confronting President Barack Obama in an effort to prevent its implementation. Few foreign leaders have gone to such lengths to undermine the foreign policy of a sitting American administration. Yet Netanyahu regarded the agreement as such a threat to his strategic vision that extraordinary measures became politically acceptable.

The current U.S.-Iran agreement presents an even greater challenge. Unlike the 2015 accord, which focused primarily on Iran’s nuclear program, the June 17 agreement seeks to establish a broader framework for reducing regional tensions and managing long-standing disputes between Washington and Tehran. Its success would undermine the central argument that has animated Netanyahu’s regional agenda for decades: that conflict with Iran is both inevitable and permanent.

This helps explain the intensity of his opposition.

A successful American-Iranian rapprochement would reorder regional priorities. It would shift diplomatic attention away from military confrontation and toward negotiated arrangements. It would reduce the political utility of constant warnings about imminent regional catastrophe. Most importantly, it would weaken the argument that Israel’s security requires the perpetual maintenance of regional crises.

For Netanyahu, this is not simply a policy disagreement. It is a challenge to the political architecture upon which much of his career has been constructed.

His critics therefore argue that Netanyahu should not be viewed merely as a skeptic of peace initiatives. He should be understood as a recurring and consequential saboteur of them. The historical record provides substantial support for that assessment. The erosion of the Oslo process, the repeated collapse of ceasefires in Gaza, the expansion of settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, the recurring destabilization of Lebanon, and the sustained campaign against diplomatic engagement with Iran all point in the same direction. Time and again, opportunities for political accommodation have collided with a leadership that derives strategic and political advantage from their failure.

The consequences extend far beyond Israel itself.

Every failed ceasefire, every abandoned negotiation, and every diplomatic collapse increases the likelihood that the United States will once again be drawn into regional crises not of its own making. The pattern has become familiar: diplomacy advances, tensions rise, military escalation follows, and Washington finds itself managing another emergency that diverts attention from long-term solutions.

That is why the central question facing the Trump administration is not whether Iran will comply with the agreement. It is whether Washington is prepared to protect the agreement from those who have a vested interest in its failure.

History suggests that diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East often collapse not because they are impossible, but because powerful actors work relentlessly to ensure that they do. Netanyahu’s career offers one of the clearest examples of this phenomenon. He has not merely opposed individual agreements; he has consistently challenged the very notion that diplomacy should replace confrontation as the organizing principle of regional politics.

The ceasefire in Lebanon may hold or it may fail. The U.S.-Iran agreement may ultimately succeed or collapse. But one conclusion is already difficult to escape: if the agreement falters, it will not be because the forces opposing diplomacy were hidden from view. They have been visible for decades.

Benjamin Netanyahu has spent much of his political life warning that peace is dangerous, compromise is naïve, and conflict is unavoidable. The tragedy of the modern Middle East is that his efforts to make those warnings self-fulfilling have too often succeeded.

The Middle East is witnessing major geopolitical transformations indicating the decline of the era of unipolar American hegemony, which experts attribute to internal exhaustion and the structural collapse of a political structure founded on coercion rather than popular consent. Observers believe that Washington did not achieve true hegemony, but rather maintained control lacking popular legitimacy, which made it primarily rely on authoritarian regimes to secure its interests.

The regional order that formed after the 1991 Gulf War and the Madrid Conference began to systematically unravel, after the falsity of its foundations was proven. That system was based on absolute military superiority and the claim of a peace process, while the reality was the engineering of a security protectorate that ensured the flow of energy and marginalized legitimate Palestinian rights.

The peace process worked for decades as a diplomatic umbrella that granted the United States legitimacy for its military presence, while enabling Israel to consolidate its occupation of Palestinian territories. Over time, it became clear that overwhelming military force cannot be a substitute for a just political horizon, making the collapse of this system a historical inevitability.

The Abraham Accords in 2020 represented the last attempt to repair this crumbling structure by building a security alliance that explicitly bypassed the Palestinian issue. However, this gamble proved to be a failure because it ignored demographic and historical realities, making the resulting system fragile and vulnerable to violent shocks that were not long in appearing.

Data from the Arab Opinion Index consistently indicates that Arab peoples view American and Israeli policies as the greatest existential threat to their national security. This stark contradiction between the aspirations of the peoples and Washington's strategic necessities pushed the latter to support dictatorships and suppress any democratic transformation that might threaten its vital interests in the region.

The events in Gaza in 2023 are the final catalyst that exposed the moral bankruptcy of the US-led international system, as Washington transformed from a mediator to a direct partner in violence. The unlimited military and diplomatic support for military operations shattered the mental image of Western leadership and ended what remained of its soft power in the region.

In the context of hypothetical military confrontations in 2026, it became clear that the American security umbrella is no longer able to protect its allies from asymmetric attacks. Strikes targeting vital energy facilities in the Gulf undermined the region's image as a safe haven for global capital and revealed the inability of advanced defense systems against cheap technologies.

Regional powers have realized that absolute reliance on Washington is no longer sufficient to ensure survival in an explosive and unstable security environment. This realization has prompted countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE to seek alternative strategic options, invest in local defense industries, and build diverse partnerships with emerging international powers.

Today, features of a new security system characterized by 'differentiated hegemony' are emerging, where Washington retains military deterrence but loses political monopoly and the ability to reassure. In this vacuum, major regional powers such as Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan seek to coordinate their positions to manage crises from within the region, away from external dictates.

The escalating Pakistani role as a security guarantor and diplomatic mediator embodies the ongoing restructuring of the balance of power, where geopolitics intertwines to include new actors. Moreover, the Gulf states' shift towards multiple alliances reflects a genuine desire to transform from a consumer of security to a producer of it, serving their national interests first.

On the international level, China and Russia are exploiting American strategic mistakes to strengthen their economic and political influence in the Middle East. Beijing, in particular, offers a model of partnership based on mutual interests without imposing burdensome political or security conditions, making it an attractive alternative for many countries in the region.

The 'BRICS' group and technological cooperation with Asian powers have become vital tools for Middle Eastern countries to hedge against American sanctions and demands. This shift towards the East is not just a change in trade, but a comprehensive strategic repositioning in a world where unipolarity is no longer the dominant force.

The dawn of the post-American era does not necessarily mean immediate stability, but rather an era characterized by turmoil and fierce competition among multiple poles. In this complex landscape, regional actors must constantly negotiate to secure their existence, relying on fluctuating power balances and flexible alliances that transcend old colonial legacies.

In conclusion, it can be said that the era of imperial dictates has ended in favor of an organic regional reality, even if it is forming amidst the pains of conflicts and wars. The new Middle East is redefining itself based on its self-capabilities and the multiplicity of its international options, away from the hegemony that lasted for decades under the crumbling American umbrella.

True hegemony requires ideological consensus and normative agreement, while Washington exercised its control through coercion and structural violence.

Hebrew media sources reported today, Friday, the beginning of the arrival of the first contingents of the "International Stability Force" to the occupied territories, as part of the final arrangements for their deployment within the Gaza Strip in the near future. This force is a fundamental pillar among four entities identified by US President Donald Trump's plan to end military operations in the Strip.

The deployment of these forces is based on international legal cover, as the United Nations Security Council adopted this step under Resolution No. 2803 issued in November of last year. The plan aims to create a sustainable security formula that ensures a permanent ceasefire and manages the transitional phase in Gaza.

"Yedioth Ahronoth" newspaper quoted a senior official in the so-called "Peace Council" concerned with managing the affairs of the Strip, stating that the forces have actually begun to arrive to prepare for their field missions. The official affirmed that coordination is taking place at the highest levels to ensure the smooth deployment process and to identify vital concentration points.

In the context of logistical preparations, sources revealed the commencement of construction of a massive technical and logistical support center near the Kerem Shalom crossing from the occupation side. This center will serve as a main station for receiving soldiers, military, and technical equipment coming from participating countries before their transfer into the Strip's borders.

Thousands of international soldiers are scheduled to undertake sensitive tasks, most notably forming a security buffer separating the positions of the Israeli occupation army and the areas whose administration will be transferred to the Palestinian Committee. These forces will be responsible for ensuring that no armed clashes occur during the gradual withdrawal phases.

Reports indicate that officers from four countries, namely Kosovo, Morocco, Kazakhstan, and Albania, have already arrived to begin initial coordination tasks. In contrast, Indonesia decided to temporarily freeze its participation in the international force after it was among the list of candidates to send military reinforcements.

The commander of the international force, Jasper Jeffers, had previously stated that five countries had formally committed to participating in securing the Strip. He also pointed out the pivotal regional role of both Jordan and Egypt, as they will undertake the task of training and qualifying Palestinian police elements who will work alongside the international forces.

The tasks of the "Stability Force" include dismantling the military infrastructure of armed factions and ensuring complete disarmament in vital areas. The force will also work to protect civilians and secure the flow of humanitarian aid through safe corridors that will be established under international agreements.

Administratively, the force will monitor compliance with the ceasefire provisions and submit periodic reports to the Peace Council and donor entities. The continued operation of these forces depends on direct international funding pledged by several countries to support the stability of the region and rebuild what the war destroyed.

These field developments come within the second phase of the comprehensive political vision, which ultimately aims to achieve a complete Israeli withdrawal from city centers. The coming weeks are expected to see an intensification in the arrival of foreign forces as the logistical bases at the borders are fully prepared.

A logistical support center is currently being established on the Israeli side of the Kerem Shalom crossing, to serve as a reception and transit point for the international forces expected to arrive successively.

The chief Iranian negotiator and Speaker of the Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, stressed that any negotiation path with the United States of America will remain governed by the constants and red lines set by the leadership in Tehran. Ghalibaf clarified that his country will not compromise on achieving the interests of the Iranian people, affirming that the armed forces are in a state of constant alert to respond to any attempt to cross sovereign borders.

In a related context, Swiss authorities announced the cancellation of the talks session scheduled for Friday between the American and Iranian delegations, which was hoped to discuss mechanisms for ending the ongoing conflict in the region. This cancellation came after a sudden decision by US Vice President, J.D. Vance, to apologize for traveling to Switzerland, adding more ambiguity about the future of de-escalation.

For its part, the White House issued a brief statement indicating that the logistical arrangements related to these negotiations were complex and unpredictable. Although the American delegation was supposed to head to the Bürgenstock mountain resort to finalize the arrangements, the Swiss Foreign Ministry confirmed the postponement of the meeting while preparatory work continues.

These developments come after Tehran showed flexibility regarding the initiation of technical talks based on a 14-point framework agreement, primarily aimed at extending the ceasefire for at least two months. However, there is still a gap in views on the necessity of holding official signing ceremonies, as the Iranian Foreign Ministry believes that the signature of former presidents is sufficient to implement the provisions.

On the ground, the repercussions of the war that erupted on February 28 continue to cast a shadow over the scene, with air attacks causing the deaths of nearly 7,000 people. These confrontations have led to severe disruptions in global energy markets, pushing prices to record levels that have raised international community concerns.

In a comment on the American position, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei considered that President Donald Trump's signing of the agreement was a result of despair and political necessity. Khamenei warned that negotiations on the nuclear program would not be easy, stressing that Iran would not accept any exaggerated demands or additional pressure from the American side.

According to informed sources, political attention in Tehran has begun to shift significantly towards military escalation in southern Lebanon, where developments there now dominate official discussions. The circulating information suggests that the cancellation of the Switzerland meeting may be closely linked to the worsening situation on the Lebanese front, despite the absence of official confirmations of this link.

The Iranian National Security Council affirmed in a statement that it will continue to work to protect the state's rights and support the resistance front in the region by all available means. The council pointed to a deep state of distrust towards American promises, stressing that Tehran will take immediate countermeasures if any violation of existing agreements is detected.

In the context of combat readiness, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced an increased state of alert among its ground, naval, and air forces to deal with any emergency. The Guard's leadership clarified that it awaits higher directives for action, noting that the balance between diplomatic and military paths is the current strategy to ensure deterrence.

A state of questioning prevails within political circles in Tehran regarding the US administration's ability to control Israeli movements and adhere to declared understandings. Observers believe that the Lebanon file has become an integral part of any comprehensive agreement, which puts Washington to a real test of its ability to curb Tel Aviv, away from the influence of internal lobbies.

In conclusion, the scene remains open to all possibilities amid continued diplomatic intransigence and mutual military buildup, as Tehran believes that any imbalance in the political path will be met with field escalation. International parties are awaiting what the coming days will bring in terms of attempts to revive the Suez negotiation channel or slide towards a wider confrontation.

If the enemy seeks to cross the borders, we have proven that our fingers are on the trigger, and we will not hesitate to deliver a fatal blow to them.

Russia sharply criticized the declared ceasefire mechanisms in the Gaza Strip, considering them to have failed to become a real guarantee for protecting civilians from continuous attacks. Diplomatic sources stated during a session of the UN Security Council that field practices prove the agreement's lack of seriousness in curbing the aggression, as statistics recorded the martyrdom of more than a thousand Palestinians since October 2025, in addition to dozens of casualties during the first week of June.

For her part, Anna Evstigneeva, Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, affirmed that statements issued by occupation officials clearly indicate intentions to control about 70% of the Gaza Strip's area. Evstigneeva clarified that these trends hinder any international settlement plans, stressing that attempts to blame the Palestinian side for the stalled negotiations are futile claims that contradict the field and political reality.

Regarding the humanitarian file, the Russian mission revealed shocking figures related to relief funding, as only 15% of the humanitarian appeal allocated to Palestine, valued at $4.1 billion, has been met. Sources indicated that restrictions imposed on aid convoys and complex bureaucratic procedures have led to a reduction in essential life-saving services, making children the most affected group by this systematic blockade.

In terms of human losses since the start of the recent understandings, reports documented the killing of 1007 Palestinians and the injury of 3165 others due to continuous Israeli violations until Thursday. These developments come at a time when international pressure to open crossings and secure aid access is increasing, while military operations continue to undermine any opportunities for stability or protection of lives in the afflicted Strip.

These practices mean that partners are forced to reduce vital services, and the biggest victims here are children.

The city of Hebron is witnessing an unprecedented escalation in settlement activities following decisions by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, which stripped the Hebron Municipality of its planning and construction powers. This move has raised widespread fears among residents of the Old City, who face daily restrictions and continuous attacks aimed at forcing them into involuntary displacement from their homes and historical properties.

Occupation authorities have already begun implementing construction work and annexes for the Talmudic religious school known as 'Shavei Hebron,' located within the 'Beit Romano' settlement. This settlement project was originally established inside the historic Osama bin Munqidh School building in 1983 and now represents the spearhead in attempts to gain full control over the heart of the Old City.

Observers warn that these measures effectively terminate the Hebron Agreement signed in January 1997, which divided the city into 'H1' and 'H2' areas. While the first area is under Palestinian control, the second area is under the grip of the occupation, and it is currently witnessing the fiercest operations of Judaization and systematic demographic change.

Local sources reported that expansion work at the religious school began about two months ago at the entrance to the Old City, threatening to completely close the road leading to the Ibrahimi Mosque. This expansion aims to provide housing for about 200 settlers, while depriving thousands of Palestinians of their basic right to movement and access to their homes and businesses.

Activist Issa Amro affirmed that the danger lies in isolating about 50,000 Palestinians living in the Israeli-controlled area, increasing their daily suffering through checkpoints and military gates. Amro considered Smotrich's statements to be a legitimization of a reality of ethnic cleansing that began years ago and has accelerated wildly after the recent aggression on the Gaza Strip.

Field data indicate that the occupation seeks to seize 'absentee properties' in the Old City to convert them into new settlement outposts. These moves coincide with the closure of the southern entrances to the Ibrahimi Mosque, which has led to a sharp decline in the number of worshippers by up to 80%, in a clear attempt to impose full sovereignty over the mosque.

On the legal front, the Hebron Municipality has engaged in long disputes before occupation courts to preserve the ownership of historical buildings. Despite rulings confirming Palestinian ownership of some properties, the occupation circumvents these decisions. Settlers exploit legal loopholes to seize control of building rooftops and surrounding areas, supported by political decisions from the extreme right-wing government.

Legal researcher Hisham Al-Sharbati explained that the addition of any settlement outpost necessarily means an increase in the number of armed settlers and intensified military presence to protect them. This reality translates on the ground into more closures and restrictions aimed at reducing the Palestinian presence to its lowest levels and creating geographical connectivity between isolated settlements.

Transgressions were not limited to the 'H2' area but extended to include the seizure of lands in Jabal Al-Rahma, classified within the Palestinian-controlled 'H1' areas. This expansion indicates the occupation's desire to bypass all previously signed agreements and impose a fait accompli policy through military force and new racist legislation.

Residents of the southern neighborhoods of Hebron suffer greatly to reach their city center, as they are forced to travel long distances due to the closure of direct roads. This policy aims to isolate neighborhoods from each other and destroy the social and economic fabric of the city, pushing merchants and residents to voluntary migration under pressure of need and security.

For his part, the Mayor of Hebron, Yousef Al-Ja'abari, stated that the municipality had not been officially notified of the decisions to withdraw powers, but the facts on the ground confirm the existence of a fierce settlement attack. Al-Ja'abari stressed that Israel is trying to give a false legal character to its actions, emphasizing that these measures lack any legitimacy under international law and signed agreements.

Al-Ja'abari considered Smotrich's calls to cancel the Hebron Agreement, condemning Palestinian rights, as part of an election campaign aimed at satisfying extremist settlers. He pointed out that the conflict in Hebron has moved to a stage of direct confrontation over powers and existence, with occupation authorities openly targeting municipality buildings and vital facilities.

Hebron Municipality is currently seeking to escalate the issue internationally by communicating with UNESCO and global municipalities with which it has twinning agreements. These moves aim to expose Israeli practices targeting a city listed on the World Heritage list and demand immediate intervention from the international community to stop Judaization operations.

In conclusion of Palestinian demands, national activities in Hebron stressed the need for the return of the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH) to protect civilians from settler attacks. Appeals were also directed to the European Union to send international observers to document daily violations, emphasizing that international silence encourages the occupation to proceed with its policy of ethnic cleansing.

Israel decided to suspend the municipality's powers to give a legal character to all its actions within Hebron, but this does not protect it under international law.

Prominent American press reports have re-evaluated the outcomes of the recent military confrontation between the United States and Iran, indicating that Tehran managed to survive the joint attack launched by Washington and Tel Aviv. Analytical readings considered that the gains achieved by the US administration remained very limited when compared to the high costs incurred militarily and economically.

Sources stated that US President Donald Trump appeared at the G7 summit as someone seeking to finalize deals, while his deputy, JD Vance, took on the task of defending the memorandum of understanding concluded with the Iranian side. These moves come at a time when a new round of negotiations, lasting sixty days, has begun, opening the door for a comprehensive review of what was described as the 'war of choice' launched by the White House.

Despite the US administration's insistence at the beginning of the conflict that its goals were to completely destroy Iranian military and industrial capabilities, the reality on the ground showed different results. The operations failed to end the influence of pro-Tehran factions in the region, nor did they succeed in extracting radical concessions regarding the Iranian nuclear program, which remains in place.

Leaked intelligence data indicates that the Iranian regime succeeded in preserving about 70% of its missile capabilities despite the severe strikes targeting vital sites. Reports also confirmed the continued operational activity of Tehran's allies in Lebanon and Yemen, reflecting the failure of the comprehensive deterrence strategy that Washington tried to impose during months of fighting.

Regarding the nuclear file, sources clarified that the current understanding agreement did not impose the dismantling of fortified facilities, but rather sufficed with reducing uranium enrichment levels while maintaining current stockpiles. The complex technical details are scheduled to be discussed over the next two months, amid fears of Tehran's ability to quickly resume its activities should the understandings collapse.

On the American side, the human and military toll was heavy, with 13 soldiers killed and hundreds injured, in addition to a severe depletion of qualitative weapon stockpiles. Strategic studies reported that the US military consumed more than half of its strategic ammunition, which may require a full six years to replenish and return to pre-war levels.

Diplomatically, the war revealed cracks in international alliances, as European powers refused to engage in securing waterways in the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, a state of concern prevailed among Gulf countries due to instability, while the Israeli side found itself excluded from some final negotiation stages led by Washington.

Economically, the war caused inflation rates within the United States to rise to alarming levels of 4.2%, but the impact was catastrophic on the Iranian domestic front, which recorded inflation of 84%. However, observers believe that lifting the naval blockade and allowing oil exports again will give the Iranian economy a necessary lifeline in the coming phase.

The terms of the agreement also included the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets abroad, in addition to international promises to establish a reconstruction fund worth up to $300 billion. These financial gains were considered by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Qalibaf as a major political victory achieved at the negotiating table, surpassing what military force failed to achieve.

In conclusion of the situational reading, tension remains dominant with Trump's threats to return to heavy bombardment if any breach of the agreement occurs. Sources warned that Tehran might exploit the state of American 'deterrence weakness' to strengthen its regional influence, especially with close monitoring from China, which could benefit from any future collapse of these fragile understandings.

Iran triumphed at the negotiating table more than it achieved militarily, while Washington depleted half of its strategic ammunition stockpiles.

Southern Lebanon witnessed a widespread and intense wave of displacement on Friday, affecting hundreds of families from the Tyre and Bint Jbeil districts, with convoys of displaced people heading towards the cities of Sidon and Beirut. These field developments come after a series of Israeli airstrikes described as the most violent since the announcement of the recent understandings between the United States and Iran.

Local sources reported that the reverse displacement movement began suddenly after thousands of residents had returned to their border villages in recent days. The renewed shelling caused panic among civilians who found themselves forced to leave their homes again in search of safer areas in the north.

On the ground, medical and official sources confirmed the martyrdom of about 30 people and the injury of dozens with varying degrees of severity since dawn on Friday, as a result of the raids that targeted towns and villages in the south and the Bekaa region in the east of the country. Reports indicated that the Israeli shelling focused on residential neighborhoods and inhabited homes, leading to widespread destruction of infrastructure and private property.

For its part, the Israeli army announced the continuation of its military operations and the targeting of what it described as Hezbollah infrastructure in various areas of Lebanon. The army spokesman claimed that these attacks come within the framework of responding to repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement, claiming that the operations aim to ensure the security of the northern border areas.

These tragic scenes recall the major waves of displacement that Lebanon witnessed during the past months, which led to the displacement of more than one million people from their homes. The Lebanese Ministry of Health confirms that the toll of the aggression since the beginning of last March has reached 3,912 martyrs and more than 11,000 injured, in a worsening humanitarian catastrophe.

On the political front, this escalation comes at a sensitive time as Lebanon prepares to participate in an anticipated round of negotiations in the United States of America in the coming days. Through these negotiations, the Lebanese side seeks to raise the issue of a complete Israeli withdrawal from the recently occupied territories, in parallel with a plan for the deployment of the Lebanese army.

Lebanon's vision revolves around the military establishment taking over the areas from which Israeli forces withdraw gradually and systematically, with enhanced official security presence to ensure sovereignty. The proposal also includes technical arrangements related to restricting weapons to specific areas, within what is known as the model areas project that aims to restore stability to the south.

In a related context, the American-Iranian agreement stands out as a pressing element in the scene, as its first clause stipulates the immediate and permanent cessation of all military operations on various fronts. The parties pledge under this agreement not to initiate any direct military confrontations, which places the current escalation in the category of a direct threat to these international understandings.

Field data indicate that Israeli forces are still continuing their incursions into some border points, reaching in some axes a distance exceeding 10 kilometers deep inside Lebanese territory. This incursion is the deepest of its kind since the occupation withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, which further complicates diplomatic efforts aimed at a solution.

In light of this explosive reality, Lebanese and international circles are awaiting the results of diplomatic moves in Washington, amidst fears of a complete collapse of the truce agreements. The fate of hundreds of thousands of displaced people remains dependent on the extent to which international pressure succeeds in curbing military operations and ensuring a safe and stable return of residents to their destroyed villages.

The night was described as one of the most difficult nights during the ongoing Israeli aggression since last March, as the shelling targeted inhabited homes and residential areas.

Dr. Azzam Tamimi's book 'Hamas: Unwritten Chapters' is one of the most prominent references that attempted to decipher the code of the Islamic Resistance Movement from within. Through this work, the author seeks to provide a documentary narrative based on primary sources and testimonies of decision-makers within the movement, away from the prevailing Western security readings.

Tamimi's thesis begins by critiquing Western literature that reduced Hamas to its military dimension only, ignoring the historical and social contexts that produced it. He believes that most previous studies drew their information from intelligence sources, which created a gap in understanding the true principles that drive the organization.

The book clarifies that the birth of Hamas in December 1987 was not a coincidence or merely an immediate reaction to the First Intifada. Rather, it was the culmination of a long process of advocacy and educational work led by the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine over decades, where they focused on building institutions before declaring confrontation.

The author refers to the historic meeting that included Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and six of his companions, where they decided to transform the Brotherhood organization into a resistance movement. This transformation aimed to exercise a direct struggle role based on a broad social base built through mosques and charitable associations.

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin emerges in the book as a pivotal figure who did not aim for mere military action, but rather sought to organize and strengthen Palestinian society. Yassin believed that effective resistance requires a believing and organized individual capable of long-term steadfastness in the face of occupation measures.

Tamimi boldly addresses the Hamas Charter issued in 1988, considering it to have become a political burden on the movement in international forums. The researcher believes that the movement's political practice has demonstrated much greater flexibility than what was stated in the charter's texts, which no longer accurately express the movement's current philosophy.

The book discusses the evolution of the idea of 'truce' in Hamas's thought, showing that it was proposed as a formula for managing the conflict without compromising national constants. This vision reflects the movement's attempt to balance the demands of political reality with its ideology that rejects recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation.

The work also addresses the issue of suicide operations and the controversy they sparked at jurisprudential, political, and international levels. The author places these operations in their temporal context as a military pressure tool used by the movement at certain stages of the conflict with the Israeli occupation.

The book highlights the thorny relationship between Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization, describing it as a competition for legitimacy and national representation. This competition intensified with the movement's entry into the official political arena and its participation in elections that shifted the balance of power.

Hamas's victory in the 2006 elections is considered a fundamental turning point that moved the movement from the seats of opposition and resistance to the helm of governance and responsibility. This transition imposed unprecedented challenges on the movement in how to manage people's affairs under siege and international pressure.

The importance of this book lies in its ability to reveal the internal logic of the Hamas movement and how it views itself and the world. It does not merely recount historical events but analyzes the intellectual transformations that have occurred in the movement's discourse and strategies over the past four decades.

Azzam Tamimi's style is characterized by combining academic rigor with engaging narration, making the book a reference for specialists and general readers alike. Despite the author's sympathy for the cause, he opens the door for serious discussions about the movement's documents and positions.

Azzam Tamimi, as a Palestinian researcher based in London, was able to employ his academic tools to present the Palestinian narrative first in English and then in Arabic. His background in political philosophy contributed to giving the book an analytical depth that goes beyond mere traditional historiography of political movements.

In conclusion, the book 'Unwritten Chapters' remains a serious attempt to shift the discussion about Hamas from the realm of ready-made judgments to the space of historical understanding. It is an invitation to the reader to reflect on the complexities of the Palestinian situation and how the resistance identity is formed under exceptional occupation circumstances.

Hamas emerged from the womb of a social project driven by charity and benevolence, and it did not begin with the rifle but with building the Palestinian individual.

The United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Tom Fletcher, emphasized the necessity of moving beyond merely providing basic means of survival for the residents of the Gaza Strip, and working diligently towards restoring their eroded human dignity. In a briefing before the UN Security Council, the UN official strongly criticized the continued Israeli obstacles that prevent the effective and safe distribution of relief aid in various areas of the Strip.

Fletcher noted that the period following the entry into force of the ceasefire agreement on October 10 saw a relative improvement in the flow of supplies, with the average number of trucks entering stabilizing at 100 per day. However, he described this increase as 'fragile gains' that meet only the minimum legal and humanitarian requirements imposed by international law on civilians suffering under the crisis.

The UN official expressed his rejection of reducing international ambition to merely securing calories to prevent starvation, while children face the risks of continuous shelling and harsh displacement conditions. He clarified that the bitter reality in Gaza still witnesses suffering from hunger, the spread of diseases, and a comprehensive deprivation of education, emphasizing that the silence of weapons must be immediately followed by concrete steps to restore basic rights.

In a related context, Fletcher issued an explicit call to open all crossings leading to the Strip without exception, demanding the immediate cancellation of Israeli restrictions imposed on the entry of vital goods. He focused his request on the necessity of facilitating the access of advanced medical equipment and the necessary quantities of fuel to operate service facilities that have been widely damaged during the long months of war.

For her part, Oxfam's Humanitarian Policy Officer, Bushra Al-Khalidi, participated in the session with a speech urging member states to make courageous and humane decisions to end the suffering. Al-Khalidi affirmed that the current time requires rapid international action that goes beyond the language of condemnations to practical steps that ensure the protection of civilians and the unimpeded flow of aid without political or military obstacles.

These UN movements come amidst complexities surrounding the implementation of the peace plan announced by US President Donald Trump in September 2025, which included provisions for a phased Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of international stabilization forces. Despite Hamas's announcement of its commitment to the terms of the agreement, it accused the Israeli side of continuing field violations and deliberately obstructing the transition to the second phase of political understandings.

It is worth noting that the Gaza Strip is trying to recover from the effects of a devastating war that lasted two years, leaving a heavy toll of over 73,000 martyrs and more than 173,000 injured, the majority of whom are women and children. US-backed military operations have destroyed about 90% of the civilian infrastructure, making reconstruction efforts and the restoration of normal life a tremendous challenge for the international community.

We cannot allow our highest ambition and will to be a world where children only get enough calories to survive.

The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem issued a strongly worded statement condemning the Israeli occupation authorities' seizure of a plot of land belonging to it in the town of Silwan in occupied Jerusalem. The Patriarchate described this move as an illegal seizure that falls within plans aimed at undermining the historical Christian presence in the Holy City, warning of the serious consequences of continuing these escalatory policies against church properties.

Informed sources explained that the assault began last Monday when reinforced occupation army forces stormed the targeted land, expelled the Patriarchate's representative from the site, and confiscated all equipment present there. The forces did not stop there; they proceeded to uproot trees and destroy landmarks on the land before enclosing it with a fence and tightly secured metal gates to completely isolate it from its rightful owners and prevent access to it.

For its part, the Presidential Higher Committee for Church Affairs in Palestine affirmed that what happened in Silwan represents a blatant violation of international law and the existing historical status quo. The committee indicated that these measures expose the falsity of the occupation's claims about respecting freedom of worship and preserving holy sites, emphasizing that the targeting has systematically extended to endowment and church properties to erase the city's Arab identity.

The committee linked this assault to the escalation of settler attacks targeting Islamic places of worship, particularly the recent burning of parts of two mosques in the villages of Jaljulia and Mazari al-Nubani. The Patriarchate and the committee concluded their statement by calling on the international community, global churches, and the United Nations to assume their legal and moral responsibilities to intervene immediately and stop these crimes, with the necessity of activating international accountability mechanisms to deter the occupation from continuing its violations.

This illegal seizure represents a blatant violation of the historical status of churches and exposes the falsity of the occupation's claims of respecting freedom of worship.

The Bürgenstock mountain resort in Switzerland is preparing to host a crucial round of negotiations tomorrow, Friday, bringing together representatives from the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. These preliminary talks follow the signing of a memorandum of understanding aimed at ending the direct military conflict between the two parties, which erupted in late February.

The Swiss government clarified that the meeting will include, in addition to the American and Iranian delegations, mediators from Qatar and Pakistan, as well as other international parties concerned with regional stability. The objective of this meeting is to establish the executive mechanisms for the concluded agreement and to ensure adherence to the terms initially agreed upon between Washington and Tehran.

Meanwhile, a language of threat overshadowed the preparatory atmosphere for the negotiations, as US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that his country is ready to return to the military option at any moment. Hegseth affirmed that Washington would not hesitate to impose a strict naval and air blockade on Iran if it perceived any hesitation in fulfilling the commitments made.

During press statements in Brussels, following his meeting with his counterparts in NATO, the US Secretary indicated that President Donald Trump had placed US forces on high alert. He stressed that the specified timeline for the talks is binding, and any تجاوز (exceeding) it would mean an immediate resumption of hostilities without prior warning.

On the other hand, Tehran was quick to draw its red lines before sitting at the negotiating table, emphasizing that its arsenal of ballistic missiles is outside any political discussion. The spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Ismail Baqaei, stated that these capabilities represent a cornerstone of national defense and cannot be negotiated with any international party.

Baqaei added in an interview with state television that Iranian missiles are intended to deter threats and protect sovereignty, and are not a bargaining chip in political deals. This rigid Iranian stance comes in response to previous pressures exerted by parties in the US administration to include the missile file in the draft final agreement.

Upcoming negotiations are based on the memorandum of understanding signed by Presidents Trump and Pezeshkian, which aims to end the war that followed the US-Israeli attacks on February 28. The memorandum stipulates the necessity of reaching a comprehensive agreement within a 60-day period, focusing primarily on the nuclear file in exchange for a gradual lifting of economic sanctions.

Despite sharp criticism from Secretary of State Marco Rubio regarding Iran's missile program, considering it a direct threat to US interests and its allies, the White House's stance appeared different. President Trump showed surprising flexibility during the G7 summit, considering that depriving Iran of defensive missiles might lack fairness compared to other countries in the region.

The biggest challenge facing negotiators in Switzerland remains bridging the gap between US security demands and Iranian defensive sovereignty amidst a tight timeline. International circles are awaiting the results of this round, which could determine the path of stability in the Middle East or return the region to a comprehensive military confrontation.

Iranian missiles are for launch only, not for negotiation, and our defensive capabilities will not be subject to discussion in any way.

US President Donald Trump's choice of the historic Palace of Versailles as the venue for signing the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran was not merely a fleeting protocolary procedure. Rather, this choice carried deep political messages that transcended the technical clauses of the agreement, aiming to leverage the historical symbolism of the location within the context of international conflict.

The palace, located west of the French capital Paris, has been a stage for pivotal moments that changed the face of European and world history over centuries. Today, it returns to be the facade for an event through which the parties seek to turn a long page of hostility and tension, and launch a new negotiating path between Washington and Tehran under the shadows of history.

In the world of modern diplomacy, location is used as an integral part of the political discourse directed at the world, where the signing venue is no less important than the text of the agreement itself. Halls, walls, and architectural symbols transform into tools for conveying messages of power and influence, and highlighting the strategic dimensions of the event before the international community.

The name of Versailles Palace has been associated with the concept of absolute central authority since the 17th century, when King Louis XIV transformed it into a center of government and a headquarters for administering the French state. The palace was not merely a luxurious royal residence, but evolved into an architectural space where balances of power were managed and the features of high policies were drawn.

Every detail within the palace, from reception ceremonies to seating arrangements, reflects a precise system aimed at demonstrating the greatness of the state and the strength of its institutions. This political function of the palace continued through the decades, becoming a witness to major shifts in global power balances and historic peace agreements.

In 1783, Versailles' name was associated with the settlements that ended the American War of Independence concurrently with the signing of the famous Treaty of Paris. French President Emmanuel Macron recently recalled this era, noting that the roots of American independence were formulated and built within the walls of this ancient French landmark.

The palace also witnessed agreements that reshaped the European continent, most notably the Treaty of Versailles in 1756, which altered the network of alliances before the outbreak of the Seven Years' War. The palace was also a witness to the agreement that paved the way for the transfer of the island of Corsica to French sovereignty in 1768, reinforcing its status as a center of sovereign decision-making.

The most influential event in the palace's history remains the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, which officially ended World War I. Although that treaty ended a bloody conflict, historians point out that it carried the seeds of subsequent conflicts, making the place a symbol of complex and sensitive settlements.

From this historical perspective, the signing of the US-Iranian memorandum of understanding within the walls of Versailles acquires an additional symbolic dimension that connects the present with the past. The event brings together a contemporary political reality with a place long associated with the making of major settlements and the reshaping of political maps in moments of international crisis.

At Versailles Palace, history does not stop at what the walls tell about ancient kings and wars, but extends to include new attempts to formulate international understandings. The palace halls remain witnesses to the great powers' endeavor to contain conflicts in a world that never stops rewriting chapters of its political history.

The independence of the United States was also built here.

Russian researcher Timofey Bordachev, Director of Programs at the Valdai Club, believes that the recent agreement between the United States and Iran does not inherently represent any real shift in the balance of power. In an analytical article, he explained that the roots of the current conflict extend beyond technical issues such as the nuclear program or ballistic missiles, reaching the core of Iran's existence as a regional power that rejects subservience.

Bordachev noted that the military confrontation that erupted in the winter of 2026 will remain a landmark in contemporary political history. Despite its ferocity, it represented a rare example of an armed conflict that did not lead to any tangible results on the ground, as the political map remained unchanged with no significant shift in the international balance of power.

According to the Russian interpretation, the lifting of the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz and the return to the pre-conflict situation reflects a state of strategic stalemate. Two months of negotiations failed to budge either party from their principled positions, which they had maintained since last February.

The author considered this outcome to be of double importance given the vast military and economic disparities, where the world's strongest power confronted a besieged regional power. The attack was supposed to be a decisive display of American deterrent power, but the results disappointed planners in Washington and Tel Aviv.

Bordachev described the American military power in this confrontation as appearing like a 'paper tiger,' having exhausted enormous resources and involved the civilian sector in the war effort to no avail. He affirmed that this war proved that Washington is no longer able to impose its will except on weak and fragmented parties in the international community.

The analysis suggests that governments under American pressure now possess practical models for dealing with threats, citing the difference between the Venezuelan and Iranian experiences. While pressure succeeds in certain places, the Iranian case showed that internal resilience can neutralize Western technological and military superiority.

Bordachev stressed that the direct strategic objective of the joint US-Israeli attack was to overthrow the regime in Tehran and dismantle the state's key institutions. With the regime remaining intact and its institutions cohesive, the author considered what happened to be a clear strategic failure that the West is now trying to package as a fictitious political victory.

The article pointed out that this confrontation did not reach the level of the comprehensive war witnessed in Iraq in 2003, and this was not due to an American desire for restraint. Rather, the author attributed it to the current limited capabilities of the United States and its inability to mobilize enormous resources for an integrated land, sea, and air operation.

In a striking comparison, the researcher noted that Iran did not receive open external military support as Kyiv did in its conflict with Russia. Nevertheless, Tehran was able to withstand thanks to structural characteristics in its society and political leadership, which gave it a high capacity for maneuver and overcoming a lack of material resources.

Bordachev believes that the secret of Iranian resilience lies in the state of identification between the state and society, a moral and philosophical factor that outweighs the importance of military arsenals. This factor was what decided the course of the conflict at critical moments, surpassing the enormous technical and economic capabilities possessed by the Western camp.

The author cited the theories of strategic historian Edward Luttwak, emphasizing that fighting spirit and social cohesion are the most valuable currencies in 21st-century wars. This was clearly demonstrated when smart weapons failed to break the opponent's will or force them to make fundamental political concessions affecting their sovereignty.

The article concluded that Washington's failure to achieve its central goal rendered secondary issues, such as technical restrictions on armaments, strategically worthless. The problem for the United States and Israel lies in the existence of Iran as an independent entity in itself, regardless of the type of weapons it possesses.

The survival of Iran as an active and independent player in the international system after this confrontation represents, according to Bordachev, a structural dilemma for American policy in the Middle East. This failure to dismantle means that the region is heading towards new balances in which traditional powers do not have the upper hand as was the case in past decades.

In conclusion, the Russian author believes that the most important lesson from the 2026 war is that the era of military dictates is over, and that hard power is no longer sufficient to change political systems. Accordingly, agreements that follow such conflicts are merely an implicit acknowledgment of the fait accompli that cannons failed to change.

The war proved to the entire world that massive costs ultimately yielded a paper tiger capable only of threatening the weakest parties.

The Hamas movement announced its welcome of the recent statements made by US President Donald Trump, in which he acknowledged the movement's commitment to the terms of the ceasefire agreement in force in the Gaza Strip. The movement considered this recognition a positive stance that reflects the seriousness of the Palestinian factions in ending the war and achieving stability in the region according to the agreed mechanisms.

In an official post via the Telegram platform, the movement's spokesman, Hazem Qassem, affirmed that Trump's testimony about Hamas's calm and discipline refutes narratives that attempt to undermine the movement's credibility. Qassem stressed that these statements must be followed by practical steps to pressure the Israeli occupation government, which continues to violate the understandings daily since they came into effect last October.

The movement demanded that the American administration exercise its influence to compel Israel to stop its military operations and continuous incursions, to pave the way for the implementation of the remaining provisions of the war cessation plan. Sources indicated that the continuation of Israeli violations hinders progress in the humanitarian and political files stipulated in the international understandings aimed at ending the conflict in the Strip.

On the ground, official Palestinian data revealed a heavy toll of Israeli violations since the agreement came into effect on October 10, 2025, with 1007 martyrs and more than 3100 injured. Reports also monitored a significant expansion of the ground incursions by the occupation army, which now controls about 60% of the Gaza Strip, in a clear violation of the ceasefire provisions.

The US President had expressed cautious optimism about the future of the Middle East in statements to 'Fox News' on the sidelines of the G7 summit in France. Trump described Hamas's behavior during the past period as 'very calm,' noting that they had behaved largely well, despite the difficulties associated with the disarmament file that one of his plans seeks to achieve.

In a related context, Hamas announced the delivery of the unified response of the Palestinian factions to the 'roadmap' presented by the Executive Director of the Peace Council, Nikolai Mladenov. The movement reiterated its adherence to the necessity of a complete and comprehensive Israeli withdrawal from all areas of the Gaza Strip as a basic condition for moving to advanced stages of the proposed political settlement.

Mladenov's 15-item roadmap includes a comprehensive vision for the future of the Strip, including reconstruction, activation of an international stabilization force, and rebuilding the local police force. The plan emphasizes the need to immediately begin urgent humanitarian measures, including the entry of fuel and aid, opening crossings, and providing shelter for the displaced before delving into complex security details.

These diplomatic moves come at a sensitive time, as international parties seek to link the Gaza agreement to a broader regional de-escalation that includes other files in the region. Palestinian forces insist that any sustainable solution must guarantee the rights of the Palestinian people and permanently end the siege imposed on the Strip, while providing international guarantees to prevent the recurrence of Israeli aggression.

President Trump's statement regarding Hamas's full commitment to the ceasefire is a positive stance, and confirms the movement's seriousness in implementing the agreement.

International press sources revealed the behind-the-scenes details of the final hours and the arduous negotiations that preceded the announcement of the historic agreement between the United States and Iran. Sources indicated that four months of direct military confrontations and decades of animosity ended with complex understandings that witnessed successive crises and threats of collapse in the final moments.

The most sensitive moments began late at night in Tehran, when a convoy carrying Qatari officials suddenly stopped on its way to the airport. This halt was due to an urgent dispute over the wording of the final statement, necessitating urgent communications to ensure that the mediators did not leave before reaching an announced formula satisfactory to both parties.

Ultimately, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced the agreement at precisely 12:45 AM on Monday, Tehran time. US President Donald Trump followed by confirming the news, announcing an immediate step to lift the naval blockade imposed on Iranian ports as a gesture of goodwill to strengthen the new understanding.

Last weekend represented the climax of a 47-year conflict, where economic calculations intertwined with Trump's political ambitions domestically. The US President sought to conclude a deal that would fulfill his electoral promises to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, despite postponing the technical details of this file to later rounds.

For its part, Tehran insisted on what it describes as its right to enrich uranium, focusing its efforts on extracting major economic gains in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The agreement essentially aims to secure international navigation in the strategic strait in exchange for a massive economic support plan for Iran exceeding hundreds of billions of dollars.

Reports were based on interviews with officials in Washington, Europe, and the Middle East, who confirmed that the agreement faces sharp internal criticism in the United States. Trump's opponents believe that the deal made significant concessions to Tehran without definitively resolving the nuclear issue, leaving the door open for future tensions.

The agreement included the launch of a $300 billion development plan to rebuild the Iranian economy, which has been ravaged by long-standing sanctions. In return, Iran showed willingness to maneuver until the last moments to extract further concessions, despite the military threats occasionally issued by Trump.

Regionally, Israeli officials expressed deep concern about the results of these negotiations from which they were excluded, considering them a threat to their national security. The Israeli side warned that leaving the nuclear file without strict and immediate restrictions would give Tehran an opportunity to enhance its military capabilities under the guise of the economic agreement.

Doha played a pivotal and decisive role in bridging viewpoints during the final stages, intensifying its contacts with the Iranian leadership to push them towards approval. This pressure coincided with Trump's desire to finalize the agreement before a prominent sporting event at the White House, which added urgency to the talks.

In Tehran, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei ratified the final text on Saturday, referring it to the Supreme National Security Council. Despite objections from some hardline members, the general trend within Iranian governing institutions leaned towards accepting the deal to alleviate crippling economic pressures.

Sunday witnessed a major crisis that almost derailed all diplomatic efforts, following an Israeli airstrike targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut, resulting in casualties. Iran considered this attack a crossing of red lines and threatened to suspend the signing and retaliate militarily by launching ballistic missiles towards Israeli targets.

Qatari mediation intervened again and intensely to calm Iranian anger, conducting high-level contacts with American and Iranian officials to prevent escalation. Mediators convinced the Iranian side that military escalation would serve those parties seeking to derail the agreement, which ultimately led Tehran to back down from immediate retaliation.

Trump, for his part, criticized the Israeli timing of the raid via social media platforms, emphasizing that it should not have happened at this critical time. Officials in his administration confirmed that the decision to immediately implement the lifting of the naval blockade came to dispel Iranian doubts and demonstrate Washington's seriousness in moving forward with the agreement.

In conclusion, the new US-Iran agreement remains a real test of both parties' ability to adhere to their commitments in a volatile regional environment. While the White House celebrates what it sees as a diplomatic achievement, global capitals await the extent of this shift's impact on the balance of power in the Middle East.

We made it clear to them that they had no way to confront us, so they said: Please don't do that, and we will make a deal, and indeed we made the deal right after that.

Health authorities in the Gaza Strip announced that the number of Palestinian martyrs has exceeded one thousand since the ceasefire agreement came into effect in October 2025. These shocking figures come amidst ongoing Israeli military operations that have not ceased despite international efforts to revive the stalled negotiation process.

On the ground, medical sources reported the martyrdom of three Palestinian citizens following an Israeli airstrike that targeted a civilian vehicle on Omar Al-Mukhtar Street in the heart of Gaza City. The occupation army claimed that the attack targeted elements belonging to the Hamas movement, as part of what it described as operations to thwart imminent threats against its forces.

In a separate incident, paramedics confirmed the martyrdom of another Palestinian by the bullets of occupation forces stationed near the central areas of the Strip in recent hours. The Israeli side has not issued any immediate comment on the circumstances of the shooting, which raises the death toll recorded by the Ministry of Health to 1008 martyrs since the start of the truce.

On the other hand, the Israeli army acknowledged the killing of four of its soldiers during the same period, confirming the continuation of its military activity within the Strip. The Israeli leadership claims that these operations are necessary to prevent any attacks that Palestinian factions might carry out, despite increasing international criticism of the continued bloodshed.

Diplomatically, informed sources revealed new moves led by Nikolay Mladenov, the envoy of the Peace Council formed by Trump, to break the current political stalemate. Mladenov held intensive talks in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, with mediators from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey, to discuss Palestinian responses to the American 'roadmap'.

According to the sources, the international envoy handed the Palestinian factions a modified version of the political document aimed at addressing the reservations expressed by the Palestinian side. However, Mladenov stressed that the new amendments maintain the essential 'red lines' set by the American administration within its proposed plan.

For its part, the Hamas movement, through one of its officials, confirmed that it had received the modified document and began carefully studying its provisions to ascertain the extent of its responsiveness to national demands. The movement did not provide any additional details about its final position, pending the completion of internal consultations with the rest of the Palestinian forces and factions.

Regarding the field situation, occupation forces continue to impose their military control over more than 60% of the Gaza Strip's area. Systematic destruction operations and repeated evacuation orders have changed the features of vast areas, further complicating the already deteriorating humanitarian situation in the besieged Strip.

Approximately two million Palestinians face harsh living conditions in a narrow coastal strip, most of whom reside in temporary tents or semi-destroyed buildings after repeated displacement. The humanitarian crisis is exacerbated by ongoing restrictions on the movement of individuals and goods, placing the international community before its responsibilities towards civilians.

The total number of Palestinian martyrs since the start of the truce brokered by US President Donald Trump last October has risen to 1008 martyrs.

The Union of Municipalities of the Gaza Strip issued a strong warning about the service system reaching the brink of complete collapse, as a result of the occupation authorities' continued obstruction of the entry of essential operating materials. Municipal sources explained that the current crisis has gone beyond fuel shortages to reach a critical stage related to the imminent depletion of industrial oils, which are the primary engine for all heavy equipment and machinery that municipalities rely on to provide their daily services to residents.

In press statements, the spokesman for the Gaza Municipality, Husni Muhanna, affirmed that the absence of these oils represents the most serious threat at present, as the cessation of machinery will lead to a complete paralysis in vital sectors. Muhanna pointed out that this cessation will directly lead to an exacerbation of humanitarian suffering and a deterioration of the health situation, given the inability to operate facilities that serve millions of besieged citizens in the Strip.

Immediate risks include the cessation of drinking water wells, which will deprive a large segment of the population of access to potable water, in addition to the breakdown of sewage pumping stations. This breakdown increases the likelihood of wastewater overflowing into crowded streets and residential neighborhoods, which portends an environmental and health disaster that cannot be controlled given the limited capabilities currently available.

Regarding waste management, the Palestinian official revealed the accumulation of nearly 700,000 cubic meters of solid waste in the alleys and streets of Gaza City alone, as a result of the systematic destruction of municipal machinery and equipment by the occupation. He explained that municipalities are now unable to deal with these huge quantities, which has led to the spread of foul odors and an increased risk of outbreaks of epidemics and infectious diseases among displaced persons and residents.

In conclusion of the warning, municipal authorities stressed the need for urgent and immediate international intervention to pressure the occupation to allow the entry of industrial oils and essential materials. They considered that international silence regarding this crisis contributes to accelerating the humanitarian catastrophe, emphasizing that the continued operation of municipalities is the last line of defense for public health and what remains of the elements of life in the Gaza Strip.

The depletion of industrial oils has become the most urgent and serious threat, and the cessation of vital services will mean a doubling of humanitarian suffering and a threat to public health.

The sharp contrast between the current US administration and former President Barack Obama's approach to managing the conflict with Tehran is evident, with Donald Trump promoting his latest memorandum as an achievement superior to the 2015 agreement. Observers believe that a comparison between the two documents reveals a fundamental difference in negotiating philosophy, as Washington has shifted from multilateral international agreements to direct bilateral understandings.

The memorandum of understanding signed by Trump is considered merely a preliminary framework, not exceeding one and a half pages, and includes 14 key points aimed at opening the door for negotiations for two months. In contrast, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed by Obama was a complex technical and legal document exceeding 160 pages, which placed precise temporal and structural restrictions on Iran's nuclear program.

Regarding the nuclear program, Trump claims that Tehran had not previously pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons, information that contradicts the texts of the 2015 agreement, which included explicit commitments in this regard. Trump's current vision relies on a general course of discussion within 60 days, without specifying immediate technical restrictions on uranium enrichment levels or the number of centrifuges.

Reports indicate that the current memorandum hints at Iran's readiness to address its highly enriched uranium stockpile crisis through a 'dilution' mechanism at its nuclear sites. However, this measure remains pending a final agreement, unlike Obama's agreement, which imposed strict and immediate international oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The economic sanctions file represents the most prominent point of contention between the two approaches, as Trump offered immediate incentives to Tehran by allowing it to resume oil exports before reaching a final agreement. This approach represents a reversal of Obama's policy, which stipulated verification of Iran's implementation of its nuclear commitments before initiating any gradual easing of imposed sanctions.

Trump's plan includes a controversial clause calling for the establishment of an economic development fund for Iran worth up to $300 billion, with the participation of Washington's allies in the Middle East. This proposal has drawn widespread criticism within Republican Party circles, with some considering it a financial concession far exceeding what the Obama administration previously offered.

Looking back at recent history, Trump had strongly criticized Obama's return of $1.7 billion in frozen Iranian assets, describing it as a catastrophic deal. However, current data suggests that the current administration may release amounts many times that figure as part of its efforts to end the military tension in the region.

The current memorandum differs from its predecessor in its comprehensiveness of non-nuclear issues, foremost among them the security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, which has been severely affected over the past four months. Obama had deliberately separated the nuclear file from regional issues to ensure the success of negotiations, while Trump sees the necessity of integrating all files into one basket.

Tehran insists in the ongoing negotiations on extracting an administrative and sovereign role in the Strait of Hormuz, a demand that was not on the table before the outbreak of recent military confrontations last February. This demand represents a significant challenge for the American negotiator, as accepting it could lead to a change in the naval balance of power in one of the world's most important energy corridors.

The war launched by the United States and Israel on February 28th left a deep impact on the structure of current negotiations, making the cessation of military operations a top priority. The memorandum of understanding aims to transform this fragile calm into a sustainable settlement, despite the significant obstacles that still stand in the way of reaching a final and comprehensive agreement.

On the diplomatic front, Trump preferred to marginalize major international powers such as Russia, China, and the European Union, focusing on a direct and bilateral communication channel with the Iranian leadership. This path gives Washington greater flexibility in maneuvering, but it weakens the international cover for any agreement that may eventually be reached.

The current memorandum of understanding lacks the strict inspection mechanisms that characterized the 2015 agreement, as the document did not clearly refer to the return of international inspectors to sensitive facilities. Critics believe that this ambiguity may give Tehran an opportunity to maneuver and develop its capabilities away from the eyes of international oversight during the stipulated sixty-day period.

The Trump administration faces internal pressure from hawks who see the proposed economic deals as a lifeline for the economically exhausted Iranian regime. In contrast, the administration is betting that economic openness will necessarily lead to a calming of Iranian military ambitions and ensure the stability of global energy prices affected by the war.

The fundamental question remains about the ability of the parties to transform this brief memorandum into a binding and detailed agreement that meets the aspirations of all concerned parties. As the sixty-day deadline approaches, all eyes are on Washington to see if Trump will actually succeed in concluding the 'better deal' he promised his constituents.

While Obama's agreement focused on restricting nuclear activities with strict standards, Trump's memorandum opens the door to massive financial flows in exchange for a general path to arms control.

The United Nations issued an urgent appeal on Thursday, demanding that the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) withdraw from their plans to launch a military attack on El Obeid, the strategic capital of North Kordofan state. The international organization warned that any military escalation in this densely populated area would lead to catastrophic consequences, the extent of which cannot be predicted, for unarmed civilians.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed deep concern over field reports indicating the arrival of massive military reinforcements for the RSF around the city. His spokesperson, Stéphane Dujarric, clarified that these movements portend an imminent ground attack that could turn the city into a large-scale battlefield, putting hundreds of thousands of lives at grave risk.

For his part, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, stressed the need for immediate intervention to stop what he described as 'military madness' before it is too late. Türk noted that the increasing drone strikes and indiscriminate artillery shelling around El Obeid recall the bloody scenarios witnessed in other areas of Sudan in recent months.

El Obeid holds immense geographical and military importance, as it lies on the main road connecting the Darfur region in the west with areas controlled by the Sudanese army in the east. Since the outbreak of the conflict in April 2023, the warring parties have sought to control this vital corridor to enhance their logistical and field influence.

The UN official warned against a repeat of the 'atrocities' documented by international organizations in El Fasher and the Zamzam IDP camp, emphasizing that the world cannot stand by and watch a new tragedy unfold. He added that civilians in Kordofan face an existential threat if the current military escalation is not curbed and humanitarian aid is not allowed to pass unhindered.

Türk described the current situation as a 'stark warning' to the international community of a horrific deterioration in the human rights situation and the overall humanitarian situation. He called on countries with regional and international influence to exert real pressure on the parties to the conflict to cease hostilities and return to the negotiating table to protect what remains of the infrastructure.

In a related context, sources from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that the situation in El Obeid is highly volatile and rapidly deteriorating. The sources confirmed that the escalation of hostilities has already led to a complete paralysis of relief operations, threatening the lives of thousands who depend on aid to survive.

Local reports indicated that fear of the imminent attack has led residents to close most schools, markets, and shops, and humanitarian warehouses have ceased operations. The United Nations called for the need to secure safe corridors for civilians wishing to leave the city and to ensure that they are not targeted while attempting to save themselves.

Sudan has been living for more than two years under the weight of a devastating conflict that has killed tens of thousands and displaced more than 11 million people inside and outside the country. The United Nations describes this crisis as the worst displacement and hunger catastrophe in the modern world, with no immediate prospect for a comprehensive political solution.

Recent months have witnessed an unprecedented intensification of battles in the Kordofan region and Blue Nile state, especially after the fall of El Fasher to the Rapid Support Forces. The cities of Kordofan, rich in natural and agricultural resources, are a strategic target for both parties, making the conflict over them characterized by excessive violence and widespread destruction.

Previous reports by the Independent Fact-Finding Mission concluded that the siege imposed on Darfur cities bore 'characteristics of genocide.' Human rights experts expressed concern that these practices might spread to El Obeid, where drones are being increasingly used, raising the rate of civilian casualties.

In a parallel diplomatic move, 29 countries at the Human Rights Council in Geneva expressed grave concern about the risks of deliberate killings in Sudan. These countries, including Britain, France, Germany, and Canada, demanded that the Rapid Support Forces immediately and unconditionally cease their attack on El Obeid.

The joint statement by the countries affirmed that approximately 500,000 civilians, including more than 100,000 displaced persons who sought refuge in the city fleeing previous battles, now face the risk of falling victim to heinous crimes. The statement stressed that the international community will not tolerate any grave violations of international humanitarian law in this region.

UN sources concluded by warning that the international community's failure to take coordinated action could lead to a complete collapse of the social system in North Kordofan state. Hope remains for the warring parties to respond to international appeals to spare the city and its inhabitants the horrors of a devastating street war.

We cannot allow a repeat of the atrocities that were avoidable, and which we documented in El Fasher and Zamzam camp last year.

Southern Lebanon experienced one of its most violent nights on the ground since the start of the aggression, as the pace of military operations escalated significantly despite recent political understandings. Field sources reported that confrontations focused around the city of Nabatieh, amidst repeated Israeli attempts to advance towards strategic points under heavy air and artillery cover.

Hezbollah announced in an official statement that its fighters successfully destroyed three 'Merkava' tanks using guided missiles, confirming that they were completely engulfed in flames. This targeting came after precise monitoring of an Israeli armored force and an infantry force that were attempting to infiltrate towards the northern heights of the Ali Al-Taher area.

The 'Ali Al-Taher' height is considered a site of extreme strategic importance, as it directly overlooks the city of Nabatieh and its surrounding towns, making it a constant target for infiltration attempts. Reports confirmed that the resistance managed to thwart the infiltration attempt and force the attacking force to retreat after suffering equipment losses.

In parallel with the ground operations, the occupation army committed a series of massacres at dawn today, Friday, targeting inhabited homes in the towns of Al-Sharqiyah, Harouf, and Kafrsir. These violent air raids led to a large number of martyrs and wounded, while rescue teams are still searching for missing persons under the rubble.

In details of the bloody toll, medical sources confirmed the martyrdom of eight citizens in the Harouf and Kfarjouz areas, in addition to four martyrs in the Al-Ash'amiyah area located between Al-Sharqiyah and Al-Duwair. The town of Kafrsir also recorded the death of three more martyrs due to the concentrated shelling that targeted residential neighborhoods.

The attacks did not stop at air raids, but also included direct targeting of civilians on the roads, as an Israeli drone bombed a motorcycle on Al-Abbasiyah road. This attack resulted in one martyr and one injured, while warplanes continued their intensive flights over the Zahrani and Tyre areas.

These field developments come amidst conflicting news about the effectiveness of the agreement recently signed between Washington and Tehran to stop the war. Although the first clause of the agreement stipulates the immediate cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, the reality on the ground indicates the exact opposite.

For his part, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian published the text of the 14-point agreement, in which the parties pledge to guarantee the safety and sovereignty of Lebanese territories. However, this agreement faces fierce opposition within the Israeli government, especially from far-right ministers who reject any de-escalation.

Observers believe that the recent Israeli escalation aims to impose a new reality on the ground before entering into any final international commitments. Voices within the Israeli cabinet insist on continuing military operations in southern Lebanon, while adhering to the direct occupation of some border areas to ensure what they describe as security.

_The intensity of Israeli raids in the days preceding the agreement reached between 60 to 80 raids daily, including the destruction of entire residential blocks and systematic bombing operations. These figures reflect the enormous scale of destruction that has afflicted the infrastructure and Lebanese border villages since the start of the widespread aggression.

According to the latest updates from the Lebanese Ministry of Health, the toll of the ongoing aggression since early March has risen to 3912 martyrs. The number of injured has also exceeded 11,000, amidst a suffocating displacement crisis that has displaced more than one million Lebanese away from their destroyed villages and cities.

Resistance fighters targeted 3 Merkava tanks with guided missiles, destroying them and setting them on fire during a failed infiltration attempt.

US Vice President J.D. Vance launched a sharp attack on members of the Israeli government who criticized the recently signed memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran. Vance clarified during a press conference at the White House that the positions rejecting the agreement reflect a lack of appreciation for the current political reality, emphasizing that President Trump represents the only international leader who shows genuine and tangible sympathy for Israeli interests at this sensitive stage.

Vance directed a direct rebuke to Israeli officials, warning them against attacking their country's only remaining strategic ally on the international stage. He indicated that political wisdom dictates maintaining strong relations with Washington instead of issuing hostile statements against the US administration, which provides the necessary political and security cover for the continued existence of the Hebrew state in facing regional challenges.

In the context of his discussion of military support, the US Vice President revealed figures reflecting the extent of Israeli reliance on the United States, explaining that two-thirds of the defense systems and measures protecting Israel are the product of purely American industry and funding. Vance called on those he described as 'unaware' within Israel to wake up and realize that their country's problem is not with the US administration, but in understanding the defensive and financial reality that links the two parties.

Vance also specifically mentioned the occupation's security and finance ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, criticizing their strong opposition to the agreement that ended the war that erupted last February. He stated in remarks to international media that Netanyahu seems more aware of the details and importance of the agreement, while other ministers rush towards verbal escalation without possessing realistic alternatives or viable political solutions on the ground.

The US Vice President concluded his criticisms by posing a rhetorical question to the extremist ministers about their alternative proposals for ensuring national security away from diplomacy. Vance clearly affirmed that not all security and political dilemmas can be addressed by resorting to force and killing alone, noting that international agreements represent a strategic necessity that cannot be bypassed by mere internal political slogans.

If I were a member of the Israeli government, I would not attack my only strong ally left in the entire world.

US President Donald Trump sparked a wave of political controversy following statements he made to 'The Axios Show,' in which he asserted that he sees no limits to his executive power following the end of the military confrontation with Iran. These comments came after a memorandum of understanding was reached that ended the fighting, even though it did not achieve the condition of 'unconditional surrender' that Trump had set as a strategic goal at the beginning of the armed conflict.

During his interview with journalist Mark Caputo, Trump stressed that the recent military experience did not weaken his ability to exert American influence; rather, he considered it a shining proof of Washington's military might. He added confidently that despite his awareness of theoretical legal or political limits, he practically feels there is no ceiling to what he can achieve anymore.

Regarding the retreat from high demands, the US President admitted that he agreed to a political settlement instead of a complete military resolution to avoid an economic catastrophe that could sweep the world. He explained that continued escalation would inevitably lead to a state of great global depression, which prompted him to make the decision to de-escalate in crucial moments.

Trump claimed that the US armed forces were able to completely defeat the Iranian side on the field before signing the recent agreement. He described the memorandum of understanding as essentially amounting to surrender, noting that the naval blockade imposed by Washington was so suffocating that it prevented the passage of any supplies or ships through vital waterways.

Trump sharply criticized hardline voices within and outside the US administration who called for continued military operations until the end. He believed that pursuing the option of bombing for additional weeks would have caused a permanent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which would mean a halt to global oil flows and an irreparable collapse of international energy markets.

Informed sources revealed that the US President expressed deep concern in closed rooms about the depletion of global oil reserves during the war. This concern about a price shock in the energy sector was the primary driver behind the White House's acceptance of an agreement that observers see as far less than the ambitions announced by the administration in the early weeks of the war.

Political analysts believe that Trump's statements aim to reframe the domestic political scene by portraying diplomatic concessions as economic wisdom and military strength. Despite his insistence that what happened reflects the expansion of his influence, the limited understandings remain a hot topic of discussion regarding the extent to which the American strategy succeeded in achieving its ultimate goals.

This interview reflects the challenges Washington faced in balancing military pressure with the stability of the global economy linked to supply chains in the Middle East. Trump's talk of 'power without limits' remains an indicator of the nature of the next phase in his handling of thorny international issues after closing the file of direct confrontation with Tehran.

I know there are limits, but for me, there are no limits to my power after what we achieved militarily.

The behind-the-scenes of G7 meetings are filled with details that may seem marginal or amusing on the surface, but they conceal a bitter reality witnessed by the world outside the borders of the seven major countries. While leaders are preoccupied with protocols of flattery towards the White House occupant or following global sporting events, economic policies are being drawn up that deepen the gap between the North and the South and entrench the dominance of traditional powers over the destinies of poor nations.

Data from the international organization 'Oxfam' revealed shocking figures reflecting the priorities of these powers, with reductions in development aid budgets for low-income countries reaching approximately $49 billion between 2024 and 2025. The irony is that this enormous sum is equivalent to the wealth accumulated by the group's billionaires in just nine days, revealing a structural imbalance in global wealth distribution.

The ethical gap in the group's policies is evident when comparing military spending with humanitarian aid, as development budgets for 2025 did not exceed 0.75% of the group's total military spending. This trend reflects a clear desire to strengthen war arsenals at the expense of combating hunger and poverty in the most needy regions around the world.

In the energy sector, oil giants within the group's countries benefited from international crises and wars, achieving astronomical profits averaging $400 million per day. These profits did not come from nothing; rather, they were reaped from the wealth of nations and from the pockets of taxpayers who suffer from rising fuel prices at distribution stations within the group's own communities.

The damage did not stop at the energy sector but extended to global food security, with basic commodity prices rising by 3 to 4 times within a few months. These price jumps, driven by monopoly policies and wars, pushed more than 32 million people to the brink of extreme poverty, threatening global social stability.

Some European powers, led by France, try to purify the summit agendas of issues that might provoke the ire of the American administration, fearing sharp diplomatic reactions. Nevertheless, American nightmares continue to haunt European leaders, starting from tariffs and policies towards Ukraine, to continuous pressure to increase financial contributions to the Atlantic Alliance.

The Chinese specter emerges as the biggest existential challenge facing the G7, as the Asian giant no longer competes only in traditional markets but also offers an independent economic model. Unlike Russia, whose membership was previously frozen, China has the world's second-largest economy, and it moves freely in historical spheres of influence for the group, especially in the African continent.

When deliberations concern thorny issues such as war crimes in the Gaza Strip or violations in the West Bank and Lebanon, the group resorts to using wooden language characterized by ambiguity and diplomatic stammering. This evasion of moral and political responsibility makes the summit statements mere empty slogans that do not translate into real pressure to stop conflicts or hold transgressors accountable.

Crucial statistics indicate a decline in the group's actual influence, as its share of global GDP decreased from 60.5% in 2018 to about 44.1% currently. This decline is accompanied by a decrease in demographic weight, raising major questions about the group's legitimacy in continuing to represent the world's economy and make its fateful decisions.

Ultimately, G7 summits remain true to their historical approach of prioritizing the interests of the powerful at the expense of the rest of the world's peoples, who are forced to pay exorbitant prices. The international economy remains ailing due to these policies that transform the resources of developing countries into mere raw material mines and consumer markets, without offering real solutions to the structural crises plaguing the world.

The international economy is ailing from head to toe because of the group's own countries, which only want the victim to remain captive to offering more sacrifices.

Washington - Said Arikat - 19/6/2026

News Analysis

In a scene with striking political and historical implications, US President Donald Trump, on Wednesday, signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran at the Palace of Versailles in France to end hostilities between the two countries. For many observers, this step seemed an implicit acknowledgment of the failure of the US-Israeli war to achieve its stated goals or to bring about the strategic transformations that Washington and Tel Aviv sought at the beginning of the confrontation.

The signing took place at the Palace of Versailles, which more than a century ago witnessed the signing of the peace treaty that ended World War I, in a symbolic choice reflecting the parties' desire to give the agreement a historical character. Footage showed Trump signing the document in the presence of French President Emmanuel Macron and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. After the signing, the US President announced that oil prices were falling and financial markets were making gains, considering this evidence of his policy's success.

However, the official celebration of the agreement did not obscure the growing wave of criticism from experts and observers who believed that the war ended with results contradicting the objectives raised at its outset. The US administration had presented the confrontation as a means to reshape the Middle East, reduce Iran's regional influence, and force it to make fundamental concessions. However, the new agreement indicates Washington's return to the negotiating table without clearly achieving those goals.

According to available data, representatives from the United States and Iran had electronically signed the memorandum of understanding before the official signing ceremony, initiating a new sixty-day negotiation phase, which is supposed to discuss the future of Iran's nuclear program, regional security issues, and bilateral relations between the two countries.

Critics of the war point out that its actual results were far from the expectations that accompanied its beginning. Iran did not experience political or military collapse, nor did military operations succeed in dismantling its regional alliance network or undermining its ability to influence regional issues. On the contrary, Tehran managed to withstand months of fighting before returning to negotiations while still a key player in the Middle East equations.

In contrast, the war left widespread economic repercussions. Global energy markets witnessed severe disruptions, and transportation, insurance, and shipping costs increased. International supply chains were also affected, and economic growth forecasts in several major economies declined. Despite the US administration's talk of market improvement after the agreement, the effects of the crisis are still evident in the global economy.

As for the human cost, it is one of the most controversial aspects of the war. Estimates indicate thousands of dead and wounded in Iran, in addition to widespread damage to civilian infrastructure, including schools, water networks, and service facilities. The repercussions of the war also extended to other countries in the region, especially Lebanon, where Israeli military operations led to thousands of casualties and the displacement of large numbers of people.

One of the most prominent political outcomes of the war, as observers see it, is a decline in the Israeli role during the final stage of negotiations. The Israeli government, which strongly pushed for confrontation with Iran, ultimately found itself facing an agreement in which it was not a major party in its drafting, while the goal of weakening Iran or eliminating the influence of its regional allies was not achieved.

Despite the importance of the memorandum of understanding, the most sensitive issue remains unresolved: Iran's nuclear file. The document sets a general framework for future negotiations, but it does not include crucial details regarding the future of enrichment, monitoring mechanisms, or mutual guarantees. For this reason, experts believe that the path towards a comprehensive settlement is still long and complex.

Some analysts argue that the main paradox is that the war ended by bringing the parties back to the diplomatic track that existed before its outbreak. After months of military confrontation, mutual escalation, and enormous human and economic losses, Washington and Tehran returned to negotiate the same issues that were on the table before the war, which raises fundamental questions about the utility of a conflict that could have been avoided through a political path from the outset.

Failure of the Regime Change Project

The most significant implications of the agreement lie in the collapse of the goal that was raised from the early days of the war: changing the Iranian regime. US President Donald Trump spoke more than once about the possibility of bringing about radical political change in Tehran, adopting a vision long promoted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, this goal clashed with the realities of history, geography, and politics, as many of Trump's senior advisors and national security experts warned that overthrowing the Iranian regime by force could lead to widespread regional chaos and the collapse of state institutions. After months of war and destruction, the entire project ended in direct negotiations with the very regime that was supposed to be overthrown, making the war evidence of the failure of the theory of regime change by military force.

Netanyahu Convinced Washington of a War Without Horizon

The results of the war reveal the extent of Netanyahu's influence in pushing the US administration towards a military option that did not enjoy consensus within the American establishment. The Israeli argument was based on the premise that military strikes would lead to the collapse of the Iranian regime or an internal uprising that would overthrow it, a premise not based on factual evidence as much as it relied on political bets and ideological wishes. Numerous reports indicated reservations within American security and military circles regarding this approach, but Trump ultimately adopted the Israeli vision. Today, after reaching an agreement with Tehran, that theory appears closer to a political illusion than a well-thought-out strategy, while the region and the world bear an enormous human and economic cost as a result of this failed gamble.

Return to Diplomacy After an Unnecessary War

The great irony is that Washington ultimately returned to the point that many diplomats and experts advocated before the outbreak of the war. Instead of overthrowing the Iranian regime or forcing its surrender, the US administration found itself negotiating with the Iranian leadership on the same issues that were on the table before the confrontation. This reinforces the impression that the war was not a strategic necessity as much as it was a response to a vision adopted by Netanyahu and convinced Trump of, despite the reservations expressed by a number of his senior advisors. From this perspective, the agreement may be seen as a belated acknowledgment that diplomacy was the most rational option from the beginning, and that the war only delayed the settlement and increased its human, economic, and political cost for all parties.