US Vice President J.D. Vance announced the outlines of what he described as an upcoming 'regional peace agreement' between Washington and Tehran, confirming that the proposed memorandum is based on three fundamental, non-negotiable pillars. Vance clarified that the first principle is the complete abandonment of nuclear weapons ambitions, while the second principle focuses on ensuring permanent freedom of international navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Vance indicated in press statements that the third pillar relates to linking any economic gains or sanctions relief to Tehran's actual behavior on the ground. He stressed that Iranians will not receive any benefits unless they prove their commitment to strict conditions regarding stopping the funding of armed groups and fundamentally changing their political approach in the region.

These statements come at a sensitive time, as sources revealed that the United States and Iran are close to officially signing the peace agreement in Switzerland next Friday. President Donald Trump has already sent a draft memorandum of understanding to Congress for review, indicating the administration's seriousness in moving forward towards a comprehensive settlement.

The US Vice President clarified that any easing of economic pressure would be conditional on stopping support for what he described as 'terrorism' and abandoning attempts to rebuild the nuclear program. He added clearly that if Tehran continues its current approach, it will gain nothing, while real benefits await it if it makes a tangible shift in its foreign policies.

Vance criticized Iranian attempts to portray the agreement as an unconditional victory, describing such narratives as 'misleading propaganda' that ignores the harsh conditions imposed. He affirmed that the US administration fully understands that the gains Tehran aspires to are exclusively linked to changing the way the state is managed and dealing with the international community.

In his reading of the agreement's outcomes, Vance considered that the United States would be a winner in both cases, whether Iran complied or rejected the conditions. In case of rejection, Washington would continue to undermine the nuclear program and ensure the security of waterways, and in case of acceptance, the world would have achieved a great diplomatic victory by changing the behavior of an adversary regime.

Vance stressed that the agreement places Iran under close scrutiny, as the country will enter a 'test period' to measure its seriousness. He affirmed that the new US policy is based on the principle of 'trust in actions, not promises,' an approach he learned from President Trump in dealing with allies and adversaries alike.

In a related context, the US Vice President denied any intentions by the Trump administration to impose regime change in Tehran or install specific political figures. He clarified that Washington has never sought to restore Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran, to power, considering that the form of government is an internal matter to be decided by the Iranian people alone.

Vance described the memorandum as transcending the bilateral relationship to be a comprehensive 'regional peace agreement' involving multiple parties in the Middle East. He indicated that the agreement would include the Gulf states, Israel, and Lebanon, with the aim of creating a stable security environment that ends decades of tension and armed conflicts that have drained the region's resources.

For his part, President Donald Trump promoted the agreement on social media platforms, describing it as a 'great deal' that will bring security and stability. Trump considered that his administration succeeded where previous presidents failed, by finding an acceptable formula of understanding for regional leaders that ensures real and sustainable peace.

Reports indicate that the agreement includes strict verification mechanisms to ensure that prohibited nuclear activities do not resume under any guise. The next phase is also expected to see rounds of technical negotiations to implement the provisions of the memorandum, especially regarding the opening of trade and financial channels that were closed due to international sanctions imposed on Tehran.

In conclusion, Vance affirmed that the ball is now in Iran's court to choose the path the country desires, either integration into the regional system and obtaining economic support, or remaining under the weight of isolation. He stressed that Washington is prepared for all scenarios, always prioritizing the security of its allies and the stability of navigation in vital waterways.

The agreement is very simple: no nuclear weapons, the Strait of Hormuz open, and benefits conditional on good behavior.

With the announcement of Trump's twenty-point plan and its international adoption to stop the war on the Gaza Strip early this year, documents were leaked last February concerning the American administration's intention to establish a massive military base south of Palestine, specifically in the area called the Gaza Envelope, covering an area of 350 acres. This base would serve as a military and civilian headquarters for operations, and it is said that it will be a headquarters for the multinational international force, relief organizations, and everything Gaza needs based on the American vision. It will be an alternative to the international coordination center previously established in "Kiryat Gat," which is clearly on the verge of closure after its failure, or rather its "sabotage," in most of its tasks. These days, the discussion about the American military base has returned, with the difference that its construction has already begun after comprehensive and accurate geological surveys were conducted in the designated area to guard against the presence of tunnels and underground voids. The irony is that this discussion coincided with the return of what is called the factions' dialogue in Cairo and the repetition of the same boring and exchanged ball game between Hamas and Israel about the condition of what comes first and what comes after: weapons or withdrawal? Israel is pushing people towards the sea by controlling 75% of Gaza's area. And America says we have started the second phase of the plan and will not wait for anyone... In general, America does not establish a military base somewhere on the surface of the earth for the sake of serving humanity or providing relief materials, but rather for very important implications: First: Maintaining a permanent presence in this place to extend its military influence in a region that has become classified as important for American interests. And to send a message to allies and adversaries alike that the United States now views geopolitical developments in this region as directly related to American national security. Second: American military bases are operational sites in times of peace and war, with their activities ranging from routine office work to launching fighters and missiles and attacking, passing through monitoring, surveillance, intelligence, and espionage. Third, and most importantly, the establishment of the American military base cannot be overlooked without a geostrategic consideration of the important geographical location it occupies. On one hand: Gaza is the back door to Egypt. On the other hand: Gaza is located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, so is there a relationship between the planned military base and the high-level American/Cypriot military arrangements in Greek Cyprus, which include the development of two military bases in the city of Paphos and the Mari naval base? Despite Turkey's strong objection to this penetration, the Cypriot government asserts that the development of these bases aims for humanitarian purposes and evacuation operations when needed! Palestinian-wise, it seems we have not yet entered the field, as we are still stuck in the trap of weapons first or withdrawal...!

Political circles in Washington witnessed a state of turmoil following sharp statements made by US President Donald Trump, targeting a number of Republican Party leaders who oppose the preliminary agreement with Iran. Trump hinted at imposing severe political consequences on anyone who tries to obstruct the new diplomatic path led by his administration, stressing that the stage requires unity behind the White House's decisions.

These threats came during Trump's participation in the G7 summit held in France, where he was asked about the position of prominent Republican figures who had expressed public reservations about the terms of the agreement. Sources reported that the US President appeared firm in his response, indicating that any questioning of the feasibility of understandings with Tehran would face a strong political reaction within the party's corridors.

Trump specifically mentioned Senator Lindsey Graham, one of his most prominent traditional allies, warning him against continuing to question the undeclared agreement. Trump said in a tone not devoid of threat: 'If he's skeptical, he's going to be in big trouble,' before adding in a softer tone: 'I think he's fine,' in an attempt to contain the situation while maintaining the warning message.

These developments come at a time of deep division within the US Congress over the announcement of a preliminary agreement to cease hostilities between Washington and Tehran. Lawmakers express a mix of cautious optimism and scathing criticism due to the absence of official details about the terms of this agreement, which has led to escalating demands for full transparency from the administration.

Press reports indicated that a large number of Republican lawmakers refused to give their full support to the current steps, preferring to wait until the original documents are revealed. These lawmakers stressed that they would not rely on what they described as 'propaganda reports' promoted by Iranian media, emphasizing the need for them to see the full text of the agreement.

In this context, Republican Senator Tom Tillis mocked the ambiguity surrounding the ongoing understandings, questioning how to seriously deal with an agreement described as secret. Tillis considered that the lack of clarity weakens the credibility of American moves in the Middle East, and creates a state of uncertainty for allies and lawmakers alike.

Despite the criticism, members of both the Democratic and Republican parties welcomed progress on the thorny Iranian issue, but they all agreed on the need to present the details to the relevant committees. Observers believe that this agreement may reshape the features of the American role in the region, which requires national consensus that transcends narrow partisan differences.

For his part, Senator Lindsey Graham had linked in previous statements the success of any path with Iran to its ability to enhance regional stability through the Abraham Accords. Graham stressed that the most important strategic goal must remain to permanently halt Iran's nuclear ambitions, and to ensure the decline of Tehran's destabilizing role in neighboring countries.

Graham believes that expanding the path of normalization in the region represents the real guarantee for the success of any understandings with the Iranian side, stressing that the countries of the region must be convinced of a change in Tehran's behavior. He added that any agreement that does not lead to greater integration of Israel into the regional system will be considered incomplete and will not achieve the desired peace.

Informed sources explained that there is concern within the Republican Party that the new agreement will lead to a reduction of pressure on Iran without obtaining fundamental concessions. Lawmakers are demanding strict guarantees that prevent Tehran from using the expected financial returns to fund its proxies in the region or develop its missile programs.

In his assessment of the field situation, Graham indicated that Iran and its proxies have suffered significant strategic weakness during the past period, which puts them in a weaker negotiating position. He considered that their ability to produce additional nuclear capabilities has become very limited thanks to the continuous military and intelligence pressures they have been subjected to.

Analyzes indicate that Trump, through his attack on critics, seeks to impose a fait accompli before the upcoming elections, considering the agreement with Iran a major diplomatic achievement. However, this approach clashes with the desire of lawmakers to exercise their full oversight role over foreign policy, especially in matters directly affecting national security.

The question remains about the White House's ability to convince skeptics within the Republican Party of the feasibility of this path, in the absence of a written text that can be built upon. Political circles are awaiting what the coming days will reveal in terms of more details that may calm the fears of opponents or intensify the confrontation.

In conclusion, this internal conflict in Washington represents a real test of Trump's influence within his party, and his ability to pass major deals in the Middle East. While the president relies on political decisiveness, lawmakers insist that transparency and parliamentary oversight are the only way to ensure the protection of supreme American interests.

If he's skeptical, he's going to be in big trouble. I think he's fine.

Areas in southern Lebanon are witnessing continuous military escalation, as Israeli warplanes carried out a series of airstrikes targeting the Nabatieh district, including the towns of Nabatieh al-Fawqa and Kafr Tibnit. The airstrikes also hit the town of Ansariya in the Zahrani district via a drone, coinciding with intensive overflights by warplanes over the Iqlim al-Tuffah region and the execution of mock raids that caused a state of anxiety.

Field sources reported the infiltration of a number of occupation army vehicles towards the town of Haddatha in the deep south, a step that reflects the continuation of ground movements despite talk of de-escalation. This infiltration was accompanied by intense artillery shelling targeting the vicinity of Dar Al-Muallimin at the Nabatieh intersection, causing extensive material damage in the surrounding area.

Israeli artillery intensified its shelling from night until morning, with shells concentrating on the Ali al-Taher forest on the outskirts of Nabatieh al-Fawqa. Sources recorded shells falling in populated and vital areas, including the vicinity of the Nabih Berri Governmental Hospital and the Al-Maidan and Al-Rahibat neighborhoods within the city of Nabatieh, threatening the safety of health facilities and civilians.

In contrast, Israeli media revealed new restrictions imposed on army movements on the northern front, where offensive operations now require direct approval from the commander of the northern region. Reports indicated that Washington directly intervened to cancel military operations aimed at destroying strategic infrastructure in southern Lebanon during the strict past few days.

Haaretz newspaper quoted military sources as saying that the political leadership in Tel Aviv issued instructions to the army to avoid launching any large-scale attacks at the present time. The new instructions focused on the need to protect forces stationed in forward positions and avoid sliding into a comprehensive confrontation that could complicate the already faltering political and diplomatic scene.

A state of ambiguity prevails within the Israeli military establishment regarding the final direction of operations in Lebanon, in the absence of clear directives from the political level. Estimates are increasing that indicate the possibility of forces withdrawing towards what is known as the 'Yellow Line,' amid increasing international pressure pushing for a complete withdrawal towards the international borders.

On the political front, Tehran issued strong warnings to the Israeli occupation, considering that the continuation of violations in southern Lebanon threatens the existing memorandum of understanding between Iran and Washington. Iranian sources confirmed that the continued escalation represents a clear breach of the understandings aimed at ending the state of war and establishing stability in the region.

The leadership of the 'Khatam al-Anbiya' headquarters in Iran threatened a decisive and harsh response if Israeli aggressions on Lebanese territory do not stop immediately. Observers believe that this threat reflects the link between regional arenas and the path of indirect negotiations between Tehran and the American administration regarding outstanding issues.

Political analysts indicated that the postponement of the official signing of the framework for understanding negotiations between Iran and the United States is directly linked to developments on the ground in Lebanon. Washington requested a grace period to exert pressure on the Israeli side to ensure a halt to military operations and withdrawal from the areas it recently infiltrated.

The Iranian leadership is awaiting the implementation of American commitments regarding curbing Israeli movements before taking any additional step in the path of the framework agreement. The fate of major understandings remains dependent on the extent of the parties' commitment to a ceasefire in Lebanon, as the continued shelling represents a fundamental obstacle to any future diplomatic progress.

Iran awaits the implementation of American commitments to halt Israeli operations before proceeding with the signing of the framework understanding for negotiations.

- Kallas: "The two-state solution remains the only viable path to achieving lasting peace and stability in the Middle East." - "The situation in the West Bank is alarming, settlements continue to expand at an unprecedented rate, and settler violence is increasing without accountability." - The necessity of Israel's withdrawal from the Rafah crossing, ensuring its full opening, unimpeded flow of aid, and reconstruction in Gaza.

Paris - Mohamed Abu Khdeir - In a significant diplomatic move, the Arab World Institute in the French capital, Paris, hosted on Friday the international conference "The Paris Call for a Two-State Solution," which brought together a selection of foreign ministers and senior officials from over 15 countries, alongside representatives from Palestinian and Israeli civil society, just days before the G7 summit in Evian. The conference, which coincided with the first anniversary of the "New York Declaration" adopted by the United Nations in July 2025, provided an exceptional dialogue platform that brought conflict parties to one table, resulting in the "Paris Call 2026 document," which included an 8-point action plan, submitted to world leaders gathered at the Evian summit last Monday. In his opening speech, the French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Noël Barrot, delivered a strong message to the attendees, saying: "We could have found every reason in the world to give up and despair, but you are here! Your testimonies alone are motives for hope and action. France refuses to let the party of war triumph over the party of peace." Barrot added: "You are the true builders of peace, and without your courage and integrity, there will be no peace. Peace is not imposed by decrees; it must be rooted in minds and hearts." The French minister affirmed that "this year could be decisive," noting that the Palestinian and Israeli peoples are called to vote in the coming months; legislative and presidential elections in Palestine before the end of the year, to which President Mahmoud Abbas is committed, and legislative elections in Israel by autumn. For her part, the Vice-President of the European Commission and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, affirmed that "the two-state solution remains the only viable path to achieving lasting peace and stability in the Middle East." In her speech to the attendees, she said: "The lesson is clear: civil society is not an afterthought in diplomacy, but an indispensable element for building peace, and a source of hope." The European official warned of the deteriorating situation in the West Bank, stating: "The situation in the West Bank is equally alarming. Illegal Israeli settlements continue to expand at an unprecedented rate, and violence perpetrated by settlers is increasing without adequate accountability." She stressed the necessity of "Israel's withdrawal from the Rafah crossing and ensuring its full opening," and "unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid" and "the start of recovery and reconstruction efforts" in Gaza. The conference saw broad ministerial participation, with foreign ministers from Andorra, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Iceland, Luxembourg, and Monaco attending. Deputy ministers and ministers of state from Spain, Ireland, Norway, Mexico, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, and the EU Commissioner for the Mediterranean were also present. The conference concluded with the issuance of the "Paris Call 2026" and its 8-point "Action Plan": imposing a permanent ceasefire and protecting civilians in Gaza, establishing a timeline for implementing the two-state solution with international guarantees, immediately halting annexation and settlement expansion, with sanctions for violence, ensuring aid access and funding Gaza's reconstruction with genuine Palestinian participation, disarming factions and providing regional security guarantees, supporting Palestinian Authority elections to prevent its collapse and reconnect Gaza and the West Bank, using regional integration as a catalyst for ending the occupation, not a substitute for it, launching an international fund to support peace institutions and civil society, in fulfillment of the G7's commitment. The conference saw an official American and Israeli absence. The Israeli Embassy in Paris commented on the non-attendance, stating that the conference "does not serve to promote peace," claiming that Palestinians "rejected proposals for a Palestinian state on five occasions." In contrast, the conference witnessed a symbolic closing moment on the Tournelle Bridge, where participants raised a peace banner, and artists Noa and Mira Awad performed an artistic segment embodying the spirit of hope. The "Paris Call" document was officially delivered to the leaders of the G7 countries, led by French President Emmanuel Macron, during the opening of the summit in Evian on Monday, in a step demonstrating that the political horizon remains open, and that peace remains a strategic option that cannot be abandoned. Text of the message submitted: Your Excellency Jean-Noël Barrot, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of France, Heads of State and Government of the G7, World leaders gathered in Evian, Since we last addressed you, exactly one year ago, France and 14 additional countries recognized the State of Palestine. The New York Declaration, President Trump's 20-point plan, Security Council Resolution 2803, and the ceasefire in Gaza, have provided the necessary framework to advance a two-state solution based on peace, security, mutual recognition, and respect. However, the division in the region continues to widen. Gaza is devastated, and Israel remains under threat. Settler terrorism, settlement expansion, de facto annexation, as well as threats to the Palestinian Authority, continue to undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state. Israelis and Palestinians remain trapped in a cycle of fear, insecurity, and trauma. We meet again, because while the G7 countries gather in Evian, the conflict may once again be pushed to the sidelines. The window for a solution remains open, but the opening is narrowing. This time urgently calls for diplomacy based on partnership with civil society. Therefore, we appeal to you – the leaders of the G7 countries in Evian, and all countries represented here in Paris – to take the following actions: Impose a permanent ceasefire and protect civilians. Ensure and solidify the ceasefire to become a permanent and monitored arrangement, providing protection for civilians including medical teams, aid agencies, journalists, and civilian infrastructure. Transition the second phase of Gaza to a broader political-security track: guarantees against renewed attacks, reconstruction, governance transfer, regional security guarantees, and a credible process for disarming Hamas. Bring all initiatives into a single implementation track for a two-state solution in a regional format. A credible political horizon that can lead to a two-state solution on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital of both states, based on the viability of the West Bank, Israel's security, effective Palestinian governance, and the reconstruction and stability of Gaza. This is also what makes regional integration possible and meaningful. These are not separate issues, but interconnected goals that must be addressed as part of a single implementation track. Linking the New York Declaration, UN Security Council Resolution 2803, President Trump's 20-point plan, the International Alliance, and the Peace Council, into one coordinated implementation mechanism, supported by funding, including the vital work of civil society, to ensure both the ceasefire and the political horizon. Halt annexation to preserve a viable political horizon. Immediately halt annexation and settlement expansion to preserve the territorial integrity of the future Palestinian state. Protect Palestinian communities, dismantle the infrastructure of settler violence, and the impunity that protects it. Meaningful consequences for settlement expansion, settler terrorism, forced displacement, home demolitions, and all measures aimed de facto or de jure at annexation, including in areas such as E1, must include targeted sanctions, as appropriate, against individuals, entities, and contractors responsible for planning, funding, or building settlements, as well as against those directly involved in settler violence. Rebuild Gaza – for its people. Ensure unrestricted access for humanitarian aid and funding for essential services: hospitals, water, electricity, shelter. Significant progress in reconstruction, employment, protection, and services is part of the recovery process. This must be funded through a transparent multi-year mechanism, in which Palestinians have genuine ownership, including civil society and the private sector, involved in planning and implementation, to support the reconstruction and reconnection of Gaza and the West Bank. Strengthen mutual security through a responsible and human-centered security framework. Ensure that the security of Israelis and Palestinians is not at each other's expense, but through recognizing their essential interdependence. Disarm Hamas and armed groups. Protect Palestinians from violence, displacement, restrictions on freedom of movement, and violations of fundamental rights, and support a legitimate, reformed Palestinian police force. Support multilateral security guarantees, through G7 countries and regional partners, with security assistance conditioned on civilian protection, de-escalation of tensions, and accountability. Support the renewal of legitimate Palestinian governance through elections and institutional reform, prevent the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, and reconnect Gaza with the West Bank. Support the renewal of governance through presidential and parliamentary elections, which must take place this year, and must be enabled to be free and fair among all members of the Palestinian people. Strengthen institutional reform and improve service delivery, with significant participation from Palestinian communities. Preventing the collapse or emptying of the Palestinian Authority must be treated as a major security priority for Palestinians, Israelis, and the entire region. It is crucial to take immediate steps to release withheld tax revenues, restore banking correspondent channels, and ease movement restrictions. Otherwise, instability in the West Bank will deepen, Hamas's entrenchment in Gaza will accelerate, and Israel will be forced to confront a escalating security crisis with no political way out. Address regional integration as a catalyst for ending the occupation and promoting the two-state solution. Regional integration should serve as a catalyst for ending the occupation and promoting the two-state solution, not as a substitute for a Palestinian state. This means establishing a demilitarized Palestinian state through a political process, with concrete timelines and multilateral guarantees, with measurable progress towards statehood and territorial contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank. Expanding support for civil society networks and initiatives across the region, Palestinian, Israeli, Iranian, and Arab, is essential to curb regional escalation, including that between Israel and the Islamic Republic and its proxies. Join the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, establish an expert advisory mechanism, and invest in political legitimacy, public narratives, and civil protection. No political or security framework will endure without a public capable of understanding, shaping, and supporting it. International and regional actors should establish an advisory mechanism bringing together Israeli and Palestinian experts, civil society representatives, private sector actors, women leaders, and youth representatives. This must be coupled with sustained investment in Israeli, Palestinian, and regional communities to prepare the ground for diplomacy. Join the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace launched this week by the UK, Canada, and Australia, and ensure it is adequately resourced to provide broad support directly to peacemakers, while fulfilling the G7's commitment to institutionalize the role of civil society. You do not bear this burden alone. We are already actively working in various arenas, both local and institutional. We need your help in using all diplomatic, economic, and political tools available to us, to help break this cycle. Invest in civil society as allies and partners, for we are ready to work with you on this vital mission to create a better future.

By Said Arikat

June 17, 2026

News analysis

Washington, D.C-If current diplomatic efforts succeed, the United States and Iran could sign a new agreement in Geneva on June 19, marking the most significant development in bilateral relations since the collapse of the 2015 nuclear accord. While many details remain unconfirmed, enough has emerged to reveal something more important than the agreement itself: how Washington, particularly the Trump administration, now defines strategic success in the Middle East.

For months, the United States and Iran appeared to be moving toward a dangerous confrontation. Military exchanges, economic pressure, and regional instability created fears that a miscalculation could trigger a wider conflict. Yet both governments ultimately reached the same conclusion: the costs of escalation had become greater than its potential benefits.

The emerging agreement reflects that reality. For Washington, the goal is not reconciliation with Tehran but the creation of a framework that reduces the risk of war while placing verifiable limits on Iran’s nuclear activities. For Iran, the incentive is equally obvious: relief from economic pressure and greater access to international markets and financial resources.

Reports suggest the agreement will focus on restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, enhanced monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and mechanisms for verifying compliance. In return, the United States would gradually ease selected sanctions and permit greater economic engagement. Diplomatic leaks also point to procedures designed to prevent the deal from collapsing at the first disagreement.

This is unlikely to be a simple revival of the 2015 agreement. Iran’s nuclear capabilities have advanced, regional dynamics have changed, and American strategic priorities have shifted. Negotiators appear to be constructing a new framework tailored to current realities rather than attempting to recreate the past.

The domestic debate in Washington is already taking shape. Supporters include former diplomats, arms-control experts, and lawmakers who argue that diplomacy remains the most practical means of managing the Iranian challenge. Figures such as Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy, John Kerry, and former Iran envoy Robert Malley have long maintained that military pressure alone cannot resolve the nuclear issue.

Their argument is rooted in experience. Years of sanctions, threats, and covert operations failed to stop Iran’s nuclear progress entirely. If the objective is transparency and limitation rather than fantasy solutions, inspections and enforceable restrictions offer more security than the absence of any agreement. Supporters also argue that the alternative to diplomacy is not Iranian surrender but a heightened risk of another costly Middle Eastern war.

Opposition remains strong. Republican hawks, neoconservative policy advocates, and many analysts aligned with Israeli security concerns argue that sanctions relief would strengthen Tehran economically and politically. Senators Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, and Lindsey Graham, along with former officials Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, have consistently argued that pressure should continue until Iran accepts far more extensive concessions.

For critics, the agreement’s central flaw is that it seeks to manage Iran’s nuclear capabilities rather than eliminate them altogether. They fear Tehran will secure economic benefits while retaining significant strategic leverage. These concerns are certain to fuel an aggressive campaign against the deal in Congress and across the American political landscape.

Yet the most revealing aspect of the agreement is what it says about President Donald Trump’s understanding of victory. Traditional foreign-policy thinking often associates victory with military triumph, regime change, or decisive strategic dominance. Trump’s approach has generally been more transactional. Success is measured not by ideology but by outcomes.

Viewed through that lens, the White House can portray the agreement as evidence that economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military deterrence achieved their objective. Iran returned to negotiations, administration officials can argue, because sustained pressure altered its calculations. Whether critics accept that interpretation is another matter, but it is almost certainly how the administration intends to frame the agreement.

Equally important is how the administration defines defeat. For Trump and many of his advisers, failure does not necessarily mean falling short of maximalist goals. Rather, it means becoming trapped in a prolonged military conflict with uncertain objectives and mounting costs. A large-scale confrontation with Iran would threaten energy markets, strain American resources, weaken public support, and distract Washington from broader strategic priorities.

This calculation helps explain why an agreement has become possible. Neither side has fundamentally changed its worldview. Tehran remains deeply suspicious of American intentions, while Washington continues to view Iran as a strategic competitor. What has changed are the costs of maintaining the status quo. Iran faces continuing economic pressure, while the United States increasingly recognizes the limits of military power in resolving the nuclear issue.

Regional and European actors have also contributed to this shift. Many governments fear that another major conflict in the Gulf would disrupt energy supplies, destabilize markets, and deepen global uncertainty. Their diplomatic efforts have reinforced incentives for compromise and helped create conditions more favorable to negotiations.

The agreement also places Washington in a delicate position regarding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If the administration proceeds, it will likely seek to discourage actions that could undermine the deal. The United States possesses significant leverage through military assistance, intelligence cooperation, and diplomatic support. Yet that leverage is not unlimited, given Israel’s substantial political influence within Congress.

The challenge for the White House will be to reassure Israel’s security establishment while discouraging unilateral actions that could derail diplomacy. The personal and political relationship between Trump and Netanyahu may play an important role in determining how effectively these tensions are managed.

The real test, however, begins after the signatures are placed on paper. History shows that negotiating agreements is often easier than implementing them. Decades of mutual distrust, domestic opposition in both countries, and resistance from regional actors will ensure that every provision is scrutinized and contested.

That is why the significance of the accord extends beyond the nuclear file itself. If it survives inevitable crises and political pressure, it could reduce regional tensions, stabilize energy markets, and allow Washington to focus more effectively on long-term competition with China and Russia. If it collapses, it will strengthen hardliners on all sides and reinforce the argument that diplomacy cannot resolve major international disputes.

For Washington, therefore, the agreement is not an act of trust. It is an exercise in strategic calculation. The administration appears to have concluded that avoiding a costly and unpredictable war is not a retreat from American power but one of its most effective expressions. In today’s Middle East, preventing a conflict may be the closest thing to victory that any administration can realistically achieve.

Ramallah - "Al-Quds" dot com - Wisal Abu Alia

The Palestinian public finance is facing one of the most severe crises in its history, as Israel continues to withhold Palestinian tax revenues, known as "clearance funds," which constitute the main source of government income. With the value of the withheld funds exceeding 15 billion shekels, the Palestinian treasury has entered an unprecedented phase of financial pressure, which has affected the government's ability to meet its basic obligations and directly impacted public services, economic activity, and the living conditions of citizens.

As the crisis escalated and reached a stage of complete withholding of "clearance funds" in recent months, the repercussions expanded to include various economic and service sectors, amidst warnings of exacerbating poverty and unemployment rates and a decline in the Palestinian economy's ability to withstand accumulated challenges.

Clearance... The Lifeline of Government Revenues at the Heart of the Crisis

Moayad Afaneh, an expert in financial and economic policies, confirms that the continuous withholding of "clearance funds" since 2019, and its escalation to complete withholding since May 2025, has plunged Palestinian public finance into a severe crisis that has affected all aspects of government spending.

Afaneh points out that the crisis forced the government to launch an emergency program that included reducing working hours in ministries and public institutions, lowering the percentage of salary payments to employees to about 50% of the salary with a minimum of 2000 shekels, in addition to accumulating private sector dues.

For his part, Dr. Haitham Daraghmeh, an economics professor and expert in economic affairs, explains that "clearance funds" represent more than 65% of government revenues and constitute the main source for financing the Palestinian Authority's obligations. He adds that the continued withholding of these funds has led to an inflation of government debt and deepened the financial crisis, noting that the value of the withheld "clearance funds" exceeded 15 billion shekels, which deprived the treasury of its most important financial resource and weakened its ability to meet its obligations towards employees, the private sector, and service providers.

Dr. Daraghmeh emphasizes that the Palestinian government was already suffering from financial pressures resulting from a decline in foreign and Arab aid, but the withholding of "clearance funds" deepened the crisis unprecedentedly, and deprived the government of the ability to fulfill many of its operational and service obligations.

Direct Repercussions on the Health and Education Sectors

The financial crisis has clearly reflected on basic services, especially in the health and education sectors.

According to Afaneh, the scarcity of financial resources led to a shortage of medicines in government health facilities, and the operation of some government clinics for only one day a week, which affected citizens' access to health services.

In the education sector, the regularity of the educational process declined, as school attendance in many government schools was limited to three days a week, equivalent to about 60% of the usual attendance, which widened the gap of accumulated learning loss and cast a shadow over the quality of education and the future of students.

Dr. Daraghmeh believes that the repercussions of the crisis were not limited to government institutions but extended to related economic sectors due to the decline in public spending and the government's inability to pay dues to suppliers and service providers.

Economic Stagnation and Unprecedented Contraction

The clearance crisis directly affected Palestinian economic activity, which witnessed a sharp decline recently.

Afaneh confirms that the Palestinian economy declined by about 24%, in parallel with an increase in unemployment rates to about 46%, and an increase in poverty rates to nearly 41%.

In turn, Dr. Daraghmeh describes the current economic situation as "unprecedented stagnation," explaining that the decrease in cash liquidity in the markets, the decline in government spending, and the irregular flow of foreign aid are factors that contributed to the paralysis of many economic activities.

He adds that the private sector is facing a complex crisis, as it provides services to the government, which has become unable to pay its obligations, and on the other hand, it suffers from a decline in demand and consumption and a decrease in liquidity, which has led to the faltering of many economic establishments.

Purchasing Power Declines and Markets Pay the Price

Bashar Al-Saifi, Undersecretary of the Ministry of National Economy, indicates that "clearance funds" used to inject approximately one billion shekels monthly into the Palestinian market, which was a major driver of economic activity.

He says that the decline in these flows as a result of Israeli measures has severely damaged the purchasing power of citizens, especially since the segment of government employees represents a large part of the consumer force in Palestinian society.

These repercussions are embodied in the daily lives of employees. A government employee from Nablus, who preferred to remain anonymous, says that the continued payment of salaries in partial percentages has placed thousands of families under increasing living pressures, as the available income is no longer sufficient to cover basic needs such as food, transportation, education, and monthly obligations. He adds that the lack of clarity regarding salary payment dates and percentages makes family financial planning more difficult, in light of the continuous increase in living costs.

He points out that many public sector workers were forced to borrow or postpone the payment of their financial obligations to meet daily expenses, which led to the accumulation of financial burdens on families. He explains that the effects of the crisis did not stop at employees but extended to local markets that largely depend on the purchasing power of this segment, as the decline in spending reflected on commercial activity and led to further stagnation in various economic sectors.

Al-Saifi adds that the crisis worsened with the continued prevention of large numbers of Palestinian workers from working inside the Green Line, which contributed to rising unemployment and declining income levels. The services and entertainment sectors were also severely affected, as citizens tended to spend only on basic needs, while some service sectors recorded a decline exceeding 90%.

Poverty and Unemployment... Vulnerable Groups Bear the Brunt

The repercussions of the crisis are more evident on poor and low-income groups.

Afaneh confirms that these groups were the most affected by the decline in public services, due to their inability to resort to paid alternatives in the health and education sectors. The decline in employment opportunities and market stagnation also increased living pressures on Palestinian families.

For his part, Dr. Daraghmeh confirms that the continuation of the crisis threatens a further rise in unemployment rates, especially in light of the decline in employment opportunities in both the public and private sectors, and the widening circle of unemployed graduates, including specializations that previously enjoyed high employment opportunities.

Searching for Solutions... Between Financial Management and Strategic Reform

Regarding ways to confront the crisis, Afaneh believes that the measures taken by the Ministry of Finance to rationalize expenditures and enhance revenues contributed to providing a margin of flexibility to manage the crisis, but they remain insufficient given the depth and prolonged nature of the problem.

He stresses the need to adopt a comprehensive national strategy based on international, diplomatic, and legal pressure to release the clearance funds, in addition to providing a financial safety net by international donors to support Palestinian public finance.

He also calls for a review of the Paris Economic Protocol and a reformulation of the financial relationship with Israel to ensure greater Palestinian control over its financial resources.

Dr. Daraghmeh agrees with this proposal, emphasizing that diplomatic action to restore the flow of "clearance funds" represents an urgent priority, in parallel with enhancing local revenues and controlling expenditures, despite the limited ability of these measures to compensate for the withheld revenues.

Al-Saifi, meanwhile, stresses the importance of international community intervention to stop Israeli measures that directly affect the Palestinian economy, warning that the continued withholding of "clearance funds" will lead to further economic contraction and deterioration of living conditions.

The clearance crisis reveals the fragility of the Palestinian economy's financial structure and its close link to political transformations and Israeli measures. While the government has managed to manage the crisis through emergency measures and financial austerity, the continued withholding of these revenues threatens to exacerbate pressures on public services, the private sector, and Palestinian families. With increasing poverty and unemployment rates and declining economic activity, there is an urgent need for effective political and international action to ensure the release of "clearance funds," in parallel with economic and structural reforms that enhance the Palestinian economy's ability to withstand and sustain itself.

International press sources revealed a radical shift in the confrontation between the United States and Iran, as Washington moved from demanding 'unconditional surrender' to accepting a temporary truce aimed at de-escalating the conflict. The report indicated that US President Donald Trump practically ended up accepting comfortable understandings with Tehran, after more than a hundred days of military escalation that followed the outbreak of war last February.

The terms of the new truce stipulate extending the fragile ceasefire for an additional sixty days, with an Iranian commitment to gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation. Technical measures include removing naval mines planted by Tehran and refraining from imposing any additional fees on cargo ships, thus ending a crisis that directly threatened global energy supplies.

Observers believe that the Islamic Republic's ability to withstand American and Israeli strikes, and its possession of a strategic leverage in the Strait of Hormuz, forced the White House to re-evaluate its calculations. Trump praised the agreement, which reflects a new political realism aimed at avoiding a long-term attrition that could lead to a global oil price explosion.

Sources quoted former US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, as saying that this agreement is much weaker than the ambitious goals announced by Washington at the beginning of the conflict. Shapiro explained that the American focus ultimately centered on securing energy corridors, reflecting Tehran's success in convincing the US administration that ending the war on limited terms is better than its continuation.

On the nuclear front, the agreement included Iran's reaffirmation of its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, with a mechanism for addressing its enriched uranium stockpile. Information indicates that Tehran agreed to reduce enrichment levels at its nuclear sites, to be under direct and strict supervision by International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

Iran currently possesses a massive stockpile exceeding nine thousand kilograms of uranium, including about 440 kilograms enriched to near weapons-grade levels. Through these understandings, Trump's team seeks to neutralize what the President describes as 'nuclear dust,' pending deeper negotiations scheduled to begin after the official signing of the memorandum of understanding.

In exchange for these technical concessions, Washington granted Tehran exemptions allowing it to continue selling oil in global markets throughout the truce period. This measure aims to alleviate economic pressures on the American domestic front, where fuel prices exceeded the four-dollar-per-gallon threshold, posing a political threat to the Republican Party ahead of the elections.

Informed diplomats believe that these understandings do not represent a final agreement, but rather a step to de-escalate the situation and prevent the strengthening of hardline currents within Iran. Sources confirmed that pursuing a complete surrender of the Iranian regime would have led to a more complex and dangerous situation for American interests in the region.

For its part, Tehran is focusing on achieving rapid economic gains to repair the damage caused by military attacks on its infrastructure. Despite losses in its military arsenal and the assassination of a number of its leaders, the regime showed cohesion with the transfer of power and the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new Supreme Leader succeeding his father.

Recent confrontations proved Iran's actual ability to disrupt five global oil and gas exports, as well as carry out precise strikes against American bases in the region. These facts gave the Iranian negotiator additional leverage, especially given Trump's desire to close foreign war files and focus on domestic affairs.

It is noteworthy that the new memorandum of understanding ignores thorny issues such as the ballistic missile and drone programs, as well as Iran's regional influence. These issues have always been a source of concern for Arab countries and Israel, which warned against engaging in a military confrontation that does not achieve clear strategic objectives.

Domestically in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces increasing pressure as elections approach, finding it difficult to market the war's outcomes as a real success. Experts believe that Israel cannot continue escalation against Iran without full American cover, especially regarding air defense systems and military funding.

Researcher Sanam Vakil from Chatham House indicates that both parties hold each other in a state of uneasy balance, with Washington using sanctions while Tehran uses the Strait of Hormuz. She adds that Trump's negotiation style may make this transitional phase last longer than the announced sixty days, with the risks that entails.

The question remains about the ability of this agreement to endure and transform into a comprehensive settlement, especially given Iran's history of prolonging negotiations. However, the only constant now is that the 'terms of the game' have changed, and the option of comprehensive military confrontation has receded in favor of a diplomacy of necessity imposed by realities on the ground.

The essence of the agreement currently lies in the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which has become the most important issue in the entire scene, revealing the extent of influence Iran possessed.

Since the launch of de-escalation paths and interim agreements in the Gaza Strip, it has become clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not view a truce as a step towards peace. Rather, he sees it as a tactical tool to reframe the terms of the conflict in a way that serves his political survival amidst the successive internal crises he faces.

Netanyahu is well aware that a definitive cessation of military operations would necessarily open the doors to legal and popular accountability for past failures. Thus, in his view, the negotiation table has transformed from a means to reach a comprehensive settlement into an arena for political maneuvering and buying time against both his opponents and allies.

Recent months have witnessed a recurring pattern of Israeli negotiating behavior based on modifying previously agreed-upon terms. Whenever parties approach fundamental understandings, new demands emerge concerning the disarmament of the resistance or radical changes in long-term security arrangements in the Strip.

These new demands, according to informed sources, aim to complicate the negotiating landscape and create obstacles that are difficult to overcome in the foreseeable future. By doing so, Netanyahu ensures the continuation of a state of 'no-war, no-peace' that provides him with political cover to remain in office without making substantial concessions.

A political reading of this approach reveals an Israeli attempt to shift the discussion from a ceasefire to a redefinition of post-war Gaza's reality. Netanyahu insists on transforming the Strip into a completely demilitarized zone, ignoring reconstruction efforts and the urgent humanitarian needs of the population.

This strategy relies on what is known in crisis management as the policy of 'raising the bar of demands' to justify any future failure in talks. By linking urgent humanitarian issues with complex security matters, the occupation seeks to hold other parties responsible for the faltering international and regional efforts.

This behavior cannot be separated from the nature of the right-wing ruling coalition in Tel Aviv, which rejects any end to the war without achieving 'complete victory.' Netanyahu finds himself forced to balance the pressures from his extremist ministers with increasing international pressures, making procrastination his only available option.

Despite this intransigence, recent reports indicate that the international community is beginning to lose patience with the strategy of prolonging the war. There is a growing conviction that military operations are no longer achieving tangible strategic objectives, but rather complicating regional and international situations.

International mediators continue to push for de-escalation and a transition to implementation phases, confirming progress on most technical points. However, additional Israeli conditions remain the biggest obstacle preventing these understandings from becoming a tangible reality on the ground.

The upcoming scenarios oscillate between three main paths: the first is the continuation of 'organized postponement' which keeps negotiations open without results. This path allows Netanyahu to maintain a delicate balance between his coalition's demands and external pressures through partial implementation of some clauses.

The second scenario is the imposition of a gradual settlement under the weight of real American and international pressures that Netanyahu may not be able to resist. In this case, he may be forced to accept painful concessions if the political and military cost of the current bleeding in Gaza increases.

The third and most dangerous scenario is a return to comprehensive military escalation whenever negotiations approach a final decisive moment. This option aims to reshuffle the cards again, but it carries the risks of a regional explosion whose repercussions Israel may not be able to contain.

Ultimately, Netanyahu is betting on time as a key ally to postpone major obligations and reproduce the terms of negotiation. However, historical experiences prove that procrastination can turn from a means of achieving gains into a strategic burden that tightens the noose around its perpetrator.

The fundamental question facing the region is not just about when the war will end, but about the moment Netanyahu will lose the ability to maneuver. The continuation of internal and external pressures may ultimately lead to the collapse of the postponement policy, putting everyone before the obligations of an enforced peace.

Netanyahu does not treat the truce as a station to end the war as much as he views it as a tool to manage the conflict and reshape its terms.

Recent political readings indicate that the Middle East region stands on the cusp of a major transitional phase, whose dimensions extend beyond mere temporary military de-escalation. Sources reported that the ongoing conflict between Iran and the American-Israeli alliance has created a new reality that will change the balance of power for decades to come, especially given the persistence of the root causes of the conflict.

Observers believe that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds in the current strategic vacuum an opportunity to escape his internal political crises. This personal and political motive may lead to continuous attempts to undermine any de-escalation, making the prospects of renewed escalation strongly present in the absence of a comprehensive settlement that ends the causes of tension.

On the Iranian domestic front, analysts expect Tehran to witness an unprecedented national cohesion following the repulsion of the joint military campaign. This cohesion will be bolstered by an anticipated economic recovery and a sense of national pride, which could lead to a new social contract that dissolves the differences between conservative and reformist currents under the umbrella of acquired legitimacy.

As for the Gulf region, Iran's emergence as a dominant regional player will necessitate a comprehensive redefinition of the regional security structure. Expectations lean towards neighboring countries being forced to engage in direct understanding with Tehran to protect their vital infrastructure, especially after the decline in confidence in Washington's ability to provide an effective protective umbrella for its allies' interests in the region.

This shift raises fundamental questions about the future of American military bases and Israeli intelligence assets in the region. It is still unclear whether Tehran will accept the principle of regional coexistence with countries that continue to host a military and security presence of powers it considers hostile to its national interests.

Regarding the normalization process, the possibility of the collapse of the 'Abraham Accords' emerges as a realistic option in light of the outcomes of the recent confrontation. The war has proven that the alliance with Israel did not constitute a deterrent, but rather turned into a strategic burden that made the signatory countries potential targets for retaliatory responses, which may push them to review their official relations.

Washington today faces a significant challenge in marketing a new narrative to advance the normalization process in the future, after security promises have lost their luster. The Arab trend towards lowering the level of relations with Tel Aviv may become the dominant feature in the coming phase, as a precautionary measure to avoid involvement in regional conflicts that do not serve the national interests of these countries.

Lebanon, in turn, will not be far from these transformations, as it is expected to witness a radical change in the political balance of power if the Israeli occupation is forced to withdraw. The recognition of Iran as an influential strategic power in the Lebanese arena will become a reality, which will compel local and regional powers to deal with this new given.

Estimates indicate that Arab countries close to the Lebanese government may rush to offer political concessions to ensure the stability of their allies, without conditioning the disarmament of the resistance. This shift reflects a growing realization that Hezbollah's military power has become an integral part of the regional deterrence equation that cannot be easily bypassed.

On the Palestinian side, resistance factions are moving towards strengthening their alliance with Tehran more deeply and permanently. This trend comes as a direct result of the Palestinians' feeling of betrayal by the international community and major regional powers that failed to stop the ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip.

This rapprochement may mean a shift in the rules of engagement, where Iran may begin to deal with the Gaza issue in the same way it manages the southern Lebanon front. This includes the possibility of a direct response to any future Israeli aggressions, organically linking the fate of the Strip to the regional axis of resistance.

This scenario places the Hamas movement before complex political challenges regarding its relations with its traditional allies in the region. Full alignment with the Iranian axis may affect the ability of countries like Qatar to continue playing the role of mediator or hosting the movement's leaders, especially under increasing American pressure.

On the other hand, Israel is striving to separate the Palestinian issue from its regional conflicts with Iran and Lebanon, in an attempt to monopolize the Palestinian arena. However, the reality on the ground and emerging alliances indicate the failure of this strategy, with the intertwining of fronts and their transformation into a single unit in confronting Israeli policies.

In conclusion, questions remain about the extent of Israel's commitment to any ceasefire agreements or military withdrawal. Recent history indicates that non-compliance with pledges could immediately lead to a renewed comprehensive confrontation, leaving the region in a state of constant alert awaiting the outcome of upcoming diplomatic and military moves.

The Middle East region today stands on the cusp of deep and unprecedented geopolitical transformations, where the root causes of the conflict persist despite any temporary truce.

Mutual military attacks resumed in the border areas of southern Lebanon, where an Israeli drone targeted a 'van' type vehicle on the road between the towns of Hadatha and Haris in the Bint Jbeil district. This attack coincided with artillery shelling around the town of Rihan, amid intense low-altitude drone flights over the villages of Zahrani, Baalbek city, and the Beqaa region in the east of the country.

On the other side, field sources reported that the Israeli army launched interceptor missiles from the Metulla area towards targets deep inside Lebanese territory. Israeli authorities did not sound sirens in the border settlements, justifying this by stating that the operations were offensive and directed towards Lebanese territory and did not pose a direct threat to residential areas inside.

For its part, the Israeli army announced that its forces were subjected to a series of attacks during Monday night, including rocket barrages, anti-tank missiles, and suicide drones. Military sources confirmed that these attacks did not result in any casualties among soldiers, but they reflect escalating tension in the contact areas.

Israeli forces also carried out four preemptive strikes targeting what they described as 'threat factors' that were moving near their deployment sites in southern Lebanon. The occupation usually uses this term to justify targeting individuals or movements suspected of approaching the front lines it controls within Lebanese territory.

Field data indicates that the pace of current operations, although less intense than before the recent understandings, represents a clear return to a policy of limited targeting. Hezbollah claimed responsibility for carrying out several military operations targeting Israeli army movements stationed within Lebanese territory.

Recently, the scope of Israeli targeting has expanded to distances exceeding three kilometers from the front line controlled by the occupying forces. This expansion raises serious concerns among observers about the possibility of the situation sliding towards a wider confrontation if the existing rules of engagement continue to be violated.

On the political front, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blocked hopes of an imminent withdrawal, stressing that Tel Aviv does not intend to evacuate the areas it currently controls in the south. Netanyahu emphasized that maintaining what he called 'freedom of military action' within Lebanon is a fundamental pillar of Israel's security strategy for the next phase.

Netanyahu clarified that these hardline positions were clearly communicated to the US administration, claiming that Washington showed understanding for Israeli security requirements. These statements come at a sensitive time, coinciding with international attempts to solidify understandings related to the recent US-Iranian agreement that included multiple regional issues.

In the absence of the full text of the new agreement being published so far, the limits of mutual commitments and implementation mechanisms remain vague and unclear to those concerned. The US administration faces increasing pressure to prevent the collapse of fragile understandings, especially since the Lebanese file was strongly present behind the scenes of the negotiations that preceded the announcement of the comprehensive calm.

Israel does not intend to withdraw from the areas it occupies in southern Lebanon, and maintaining freedom of action within Lebanese territory is a top security priority.

This year, the annual commemoration of the International Day for Awareness of Elder Abuse coincides with a tragic reality experienced by the elderly in the Gaza Strip, where they find themselves caught between the hammer of forced displacement and the anvil of losing their homes. This group, which spent decades building their lives, is now witnessing the demise of their memories under the rubble of homes destroyed by the ongoing Israeli war, which has exacerbated their isolation and their psychological and physical suffering.

In a field tour by journalistic sources from within the section dedicated to caring for the elderly, the effects of destruction and displacement on their daily lives were clearly visible, after the residents were forced to move from their original center in the city of Al-Zahra to a cramped temporary headquarters inside Al-Wafa Hospital. This transfer came as a result of the severe damage to the main center, making care provision a difficult task under conditions not prepared to receive critical cases.

Ashraf Hamada, head of the elderly department at Al-Wafa Hospital, confirmed that medical and administrative staff are making strenuous efforts to provide health and living services around the clock despite the lack of resources. Hamada explained that the war has left deep scars on the souls of the elderly who spent long months in a state of constant terror and deprivation of the most basic necessities for a dignified life.

Hamada revealed a painful statistic indicating the death of more than 20 elderly men and women during the months of the war, not only due to direct targeting, but also as a result of the bitter cold, extreme fear, and the repercussions of the bombing that targeted their centers. These numbers reflect the fragility of this societal segment whose weak bodies are no longer able to withstand the harshness of the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in the shelters.

The head of the department described the displacement journey he undertook with the elderly as arduous and fraught with dangers, as they moved from the city of Al-Zahra to Deir al-Balah in the central Gaza Strip before temporarily settling in the current location. This repeated movement, and the accompanying severe shortage of food and medicine, led to a deterioration in the general health of many residents and an exacerbation of their chronic diseases.

The center's administration faces successive logistical and financial crises, as it suffers from extreme difficulty in providing specialized medicines and appropriate meals for the elderly. The working staff also continues to perform their humanitarian duties despite salary cuts and limited available resources, which places additional pressure on the quality of services provided in this exceptional circumstance.

The current headquarters in Al-Wafa Hospital is considered a temporary solution that lacks the open spaces and recreational facilities necessary for the psychological health of the elderly, which increases their feelings of loneliness and depression. The cramped space also hinders the movement of medical staff and limits the ability to accommodate additional numbers of elderly people who have lost their breadwinners or homes during military operations.

In a moving testimony, one of the displaced elderly women recounted how her life transformed from travel and lively family gatherings to living in a cramped room awaiting the unknown. She bitterly expressed the loss of all her belongings and family photos that represented her personal history, confirming that her home, which she dreams of returning to, has turned into a pile of rubble due to the bombing.

These stories embody a collective reality for Gaza's elderly, where the loss is not limited to material aspects but extends to include the loss of a sense of security and social belonging. With the continuation of the war, the dream of returning home remains the only driving force for what remains of hope in their souls, despite many of them realizing that the places they knew no longer exist on the map.

More than 20 elderly men and women lost their lives during the war due to cold, fear, and the repercussions of the bombing that targeted their shelters.

Dr. Saeed Shaheen: The war showed the limited military options, and Israel views the agreement as a strategic failure because it did not achieve the set goals.

Talal Awkal: Trump no longer has many options except to move towards a memorandum of understanding that allows him to market an achievement that alleviates internal and external pressures on him.

Nabhan Khraisha: The success of signing the agreement does not mean the end of the conflict, but rather represents the beginning of a new test of the ability to translate understandings into a reality that prevents the return of open confrontation.

Dr. Tamara Haddad: The expected memorandum of understanding represents a trial phase during which the commitment of both parties to the terms of the truce and the implementation of initial steps will be tested before moving to a more comprehensive agreement.

Labib Taha: The Israeli raid on the southern suburb was part of attempts to obstruct the ongoing understandings and keep the escalation climate alive, but it did not succeed in doing so.

Daoud Kuttab: The strike on the southern suburb reinforced Washington's push to offer greater flexibility and additional concessions to Tehran, which strengthened its negotiating position.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" -

After months of escalating military and successive regional tensions, attention is turning to diplomatic efforts aimed at formulating an understanding between the United States of America and Iran, and signing a memorandum of understanding in the coming days, in a move seen as a significant shift in the course of the crisis, marking the beginning of a phase of testing intentions and the resilience of the agreement.

According to writers, political analysts, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", this political movement comes amidst declining reliance on military solutions, after recent confrontations showed the difficulty of imposing new equations by force or achieving decisive gains on the ground.

Writers, analysts, and university professors confirm that the atmosphere surrounding the negotiations reflects a growing awareness among the concerned parties that the continuation of the conflict carries high political, economic, and security costs, which has enhanced the chances of seeking temporary arrangements that allow for containing tension and opening the way for addressing more complex contentious issues.

Any anticipated understandings are expected to form an initial framework for testing intentions and building trust before moving to more sensitive negotiation stages.

At the same time, these developments raise questions about the potential agreement's ability to withstand regional challenges, especially in light of Israeli objections and attempts to influence the outcomes of the negotiations and the new political scene, which was reflected in the preemptive strike on the southern suburb of Beirut against the negotiations.

An important achievement for both parties

Dr. Saeed Shaheen, Professor of Political Media at Hebron University, believes that reaching a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran represents an important achievement for both parties after a long period of confrontation and escalation, suggesting that these understandings will endure and be followed by prolonged negotiation rounds during which each party seeks to enhance its political and strategic gains, amidst a growing conviction of the impossibility of resolving the conflict militarily.

Shaheen explains that the war showed the limited military options available to both parties, as there is no longer room for a complete resolution except through means that are regionally or internationally unacceptable.

Shaheen points out that among the most prominent reasons for the failure of the military campaign against Iran was Tehran's ability to withstand and maintain the cohesion of its internal front, contrary to expectations that bet on the collapse of the regime after targeting its military and security leaders and striking its military capabilities in the early stages of the war.

Iran's success in containing the strikes

Shaheen confirms that Iran succeeded in containing the effects of the strikes by quickly rebuilding the command system and adopting a strategy of "long patience," in addition to employing multiple pressure cards that included missile power, targeting American interests and assets in the region, threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, as well as activating the fronts of its allies in the region and entering into direct confrontation with Israel, which led to increased political and economic pressures on the United States and its allies.

Negative impacts on the American interior

Shaheen notes that the war negatively affected the American interior through rising prices and declining public support for the continuation of the confrontation, in addition to the emergence of divisions within US President Donald Trump's base and a decline in support indicators for the Republican Party in opinion polls, which contributed to pushing Washington towards the option of understanding.

Israel and strategic failure

Shaheen believes that Israel views the agreement as a strategic failure, as it did not achieve the goals it announced since the beginning of the war, foremost among them the overthrow of the Iranian regime and the definitive end of the nuclear project.

Shaheen points out that linking the Lebanese arena to the new understandings raises widespread Israeli objection, because it limits the freedom of military action that Tel Aviv considers an essential part of its security doctrine, and undermines its efforts to dismantle the axis of resistance, which has not been achieved according to current data. Rather, the proposed understandings give this axis a greater presence in future political and security equations.

Washington and Tel Aviv's failure to achieve war goals

Political writer and analyst Talal Awkal believes that the move towards an American-Iranian understanding came as a result of the failure of the United States and Israel to achieve the goals they announced at the beginning of the war, despite the intensive military operations, siege, and pressures exerted during the past period.

Awkal believes that US President Donald Trump no longer has many options except to move towards an agreement or memorandum of understanding that allows him to market a political achievement that alleviates the increasing internal and external pressures on him.

Awkal explains that the war damaged American interests, at a time when Israel seemed more committed to continuing the confrontation, which led to increasing divergence between the priorities of the two allies.

Prioritizing American interests

According to Awkal, Washington ultimately chose to prioritize its direct interests and reassert the independence of American decision-making, even if this led to a decline in the Israeli role in shaping the political arrangements related to the conflict.

Awkal points out that the difficulty of reaching a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear file pushed the US administration to accept a transitional memorandum of understanding that allows Trump to declare a political success, especially in files related to navigation security and opening the Strait of Hormuz. Awkal notes that, in return, Iran feels that it has emerged with important political and economic gains as a result of its steadfastness during the confrontation, without abandoning its sovereignty, its nuclear project, or its network of regional alliances.

The preemptive strike in the southern suburb

Regarding the recent Israeli escalation in the southern suburb of Beirut coinciding with the decisive phase of the negotiations, Awkal believes that this strike came as part of a preemptive effort led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to create new facts on the ground and improve Israel's conditions in any future arrangements, in addition to attempting to disrupt the expected American-Iranian understanding.

Tehran puts Netanyahu in confrontation with Washington

Awkal believes that Netanyahu hoped to push Iran into a military response that would disrupt the negotiations, but Tehran contented itself with political threats and hinting at reconsidering the negotiations without being drawn into a direct confrontation.

Awkal points out that this Iranian stance put Netanyahu in direct confrontation with the US administration, which became more keen on the success of the understandings, which pushed Trump to exert pressure on Israel and hold it responsible for any attempt to thwart the agreement.

The beginning of a long path of complex negotiations

Awkal emphasizes that the next phase does not mean the end of the conflict, but rather the beginning of a long path of complex negotiations on the fundamental outstanding issues, warning that Israel may continue its attempts at sabotage and escalation across multiple arenas including Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and perhaps Iraq and Yemen, amidst the continuation of the major strategic shifts produced by the war and its political consequences.

Facing the test of the agreement's resilience

Journalist and writer Nabhan Khraisha believes that the talk about the United States and Iran approaching an agreement to end the war and sign it in Switzerland raises questions that go beyond the content of the anticipated understanding to its ability to withstand the political and military challenges surrounding it, especially in light of the Israeli position rejecting any arrangements that might grant Tehran political or strategic gains.

Khraisha explains that the forty-eight hours preceding the talk about the signing witnessed a remarkable Israeli escalation, represented by intensified military operations inside Lebanon and expansion into new southern areas, in addition to targeting the southern suburb of Beirut at a politically sensitive time, coinciding with the American-Iranian negotiations approaching their final stages.

Khraisha believes that these movements were not just isolated field operations, but rather came within a clear Israeli attempt to obstruct the ongoing understandings.

According to Khraisha, Israel intended to send two main messages through this escalation; the first is a rejection of any agreement that might strengthen Iran's regional position or grant it political and security gains, and the second is to emphasize that the Lebanese arena and Israel's freedom of military action there must remain outside any understandings between Washington and Tehran.

Khraisha points out that the announcement of the agreement, if it actually happens, will mean that attempts to disrupt it at the last minute did not achieve their primary goal of preventing the understanding or pushing the region towards a wider confrontation.

An attempt to solidify the negotiations

This will also reflect, according to Khraisha, a strategic decision by the United States and Iran not to allow field developments or external pressures to derail the negotiations after they have reached advanced stages.

However, Khraisha stresses that the real challenge will begin after the signing, explaining that the future of the agreement will be determined by three main factors: first, the nature of the Iranian response to any subsequent Israeli provocations, and whether Tehran will continue its policy of self-restraint or resort to direct military responses.

The second factor, according to Khraisha, is related to the United States' position and its willingness to protect the agreement and exert effective pressure on Israel to prevent its undermining.

According to Khraisha, the third factor is Israeli behavior itself and the possibility of Tel Aviv moving from attempting to overthrow the agreement to attempting to empty it of its content by continuing the escalation in Lebanon, Syria, and other arenas.

Khraisha suggests that the agreement will remain in place even if limited tensions continue, but it may remain fragile and vulnerable to instability.

Khraisha also raises another possibility, which is the success of real American pressure on Israel to expand the scope of the truce and give the agreement a greater chance of survival, as opposed to a more dangerous scenario based on escalating Israeli military operations that would push Iran or its allies into larger responses that would return the region to a spiral of escalation.

Khraisha believes that the success of signing the agreement does not mean the end of the conflict, but rather represents the end of one phase and the beginning of a new test of the ability of the different parties to translate political understandings into a practical reality that prevents the region from returning to open confrontation.

Fragility of previous agreements raises concerns

Writer and political researcher Dr. Tamara Haddad explains that current indicators point to the imminent signing of a framework understanding between Washington and Tehran in the coming days in Switzerland, clarifying that the expected understanding includes establishing a ceasefire, halting military operations, and opening negotiation channels to address thorny issues, most notably the Iranian nuclear program, navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz, and economic sanctions imposed on Iran.

Haddad points out that the main challenge lies not so much in announcing the agreement as in its ability to endure, noting that previous experiences in the region have shown the fragility of agreements concluded under the pressure of military confrontations unless they transform into broader and more firmly established political and security understandings.

Core issues still pending

Haddad notes that many core issues are still postponed to later negotiation stages, which makes the anticipated understanding closer to a truce framework or a ceasefire than to a final and comprehensive settlement of the conflict.

The Dahiyeh strike failed

Meanwhile, Haddad explains that the recent Israeli strike on the southern suburb of Beirut came at a highly sensitive time, and seemed like an attempt to impose new facts on the ground and improve Israel's negotiating position before the announcement of the American-Iranian understanding.

Despite the angry reactions the strike provoked in Tehran, it did not succeed, according to Haddad, in disrupting political contacts or stopping mediation efforts, which reflects an international and regional will to maintain the negotiation process and not allow it to collapse due to a single military incident.

Haddad believes that the strike simultaneously revealed the extent of the differences between the various parties, and confirmed that any future agreement will remain vulnerable to instability as long as the tension arenas in Lebanon and Gaza are open, or if some parties continue to use military escalation to achieve political gains.

Challenges facing the anticipated understanding

Haddad indicates that there are internal and external challenges facing the anticipated understanding, foremost among them the objection of conservative currents within Iran, in addition to the Israeli position rejecting any agreement that Tel Aviv sees as a threat to its interests or its security approach towards Iran and its allies in the region.

Haddad believes that the expected memorandum of understanding represents a first trial phase between Washington and Tehran that may extend for about sixty days, during which the commitment of both parties to the terms of the truce and the implementation of initial steps will be tested before moving to a more comprehensive agreement.

Iran's opportunity to achieve gains

Haddad points out that Iran views this phase as an opportunity to achieve political and economic gains, including easing sanctions, releasing part of frozen funds, and ensuring navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz.

Haddad suggests that Tehran will avoid a direct response to the Israeli strike on the southern suburb of Beirut, in order not to derail the ongoing negotiations, and to show that the party obstructing the understandings is Israel and not Iran.

Haddad points out that the Iranian leadership realizes that engaging in a wide confrontation could dissipate the gains it seeks to achieve through the negotiation process.

Negotiating under fire

Haddad believes that what is currently happening falls within what can be described as "negotiating under fire," where each party seeks to improve its political conditions through military force tools in parallel with the continuation of diplomatic contacts.

According to Haddad, Israel is trying to confirm that it will not accept changing the rules of engagement or strengthening the influence of Iran's allies, while Tehran seeks to consolidate its regional influence and ensure that its allies are not harmed.

Continued contacts through mediators

Haddad expects continued contacts between Washington and Tehran through mediators, increased American pressure on Israel to prevent the expansion of the confrontation, in addition to continued limited skirmishes in some regional arenas without sliding into a comprehensive war.

Haddad believes that the possibilities of the understandings collapsing still exist, but an open regional war is not the most likely scenario at the current stage, given all parties' awareness of the exorbitant political, economic, and human costs of any wide confrontation, which gives the chances of continued negotiation and reaching larger understandings greater than the chances of returning to war, despite the option of military escalation remaining on the table if the negotiation process fails in the coming period.

Confrontation no longer serves interests

Political writer and analyst Labib Taha suggests that the coming days will witness the signing of an agreement between the United States and Iran after a long period of negotiations that preceded, continued during, and followed the war, stressing that both parties have reached a conviction that continued confrontation no longer serves their interests in light of the increasing political, economic, and military costs.

Taha explains that the United States does not wish to engage in long-term direct wars, especially in light of internal constraints and political and international considerations governing American decision-making, while Iran is tired of years of siege, pressures, and conflicts, and seeks to restore a degree of stability that allows it to improve its economic and living conditions.

Truce is a common interest

Taha believes that peace or a truce has become a common interest for both parties after each achieved what they could of their goals during the confrontation phase.

Taha believes that Israel stands in opposition to any American-Iranian understanding, considering that its strategy is based on keeping the region in a state of permanent conflict, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or with Iran. According to Taha, Israel seeks one of two goals; either the continuation of the war indefinitely, or pushing Iran to a complete and comprehensive surrender, which is unattainable in the foreseeable future.

Israeli attempts to obstruct ongoing understandings

Taha points out that the Israeli raid on the southern suburb of Beirut came as part of attempts to obstruct the ongoing understandings and keep the escalation climate alive, but it did not succeed in changing the general direction towards the agreement.

Taha notes that the chances of the anticipated understanding enduring remain linked to American interests, pointing out that American policy has accustomed itself to dealing flexibly with alliances and agreements according to its changing interests, citing the cancellation of the nuclear agreement signed in 2015 a few years after its conclusion.

Excluding a comprehensive war

Taha rules out the return of a comprehensive, large-scale war in the near future, despite the possibility of some limited skirmishes, stressing that all parties are now aware of the extent of the losses that could result from any new regional confrontation.

Taha believes that Iran made a strategic mistake when it stopped or reduced the confrontation before ending the war on Lebanon, even though Hezbollah bore significant burdens in the confrontation with Israel.

Taha believes that the United States erred when it engaged in the war in response to the goals of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, without achieving the results it sought, foremost among them a change in the Iranian regime, noting that the outcomes of the Iranian nuclear file will become clearer after the official announcement of the details of the anticipated agreement.

The strike contributed to improving negotiations

Political writer and analyst Daoud Kuttab suggests that the anticipated agreement between the United States and Iran will endure, considering that its chances of survival seem greater than its chances of collapse, despite the surrounding regional complexities.

Kuttab points out that the path related to the Lebanese arena may face obstacles and setbacks during the next phase, due to the continued field tensions and the intertwining of regional calculations related to Lebanon.

Kuttab believes that the recent Israeli strike, contrary to expectations, contributed to improving the terms of negotiation in favor of Iran instead of weakening its position.

Kuttab believes that the Israeli escalation in the southern suburb of Beirut gave Tehran an opportunity to obtain additional concessions during the ongoing discussions, whether regarding commitments related to the nuclear file or regarding the extent of economic facilities and funds that may be released or the easing of restrictions imposed on them within the framework of any anticipated understanding.

Israeli electoral considerations

Kuttab points out that recent developments indicate that political and electoral considerations within Israel played an influential role in pushing events towards this path, more than their connection to direct Israeli strategic interests, which ultimately reflected on the negotiation process by pushing Washington to offer greater flexibility and additional concessions in favor of Tehran, thereby strengthening its negotiating position before reaching the awaited agreement.

US Vice President JD Vance made important statements, revealing that the recently signed memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran is merely a 'general framework' for basic principles. Vance clarified that this document is not the final version of the agreement, but rather a prelude to in-depth technical negotiations that will take place at later stages to complete outstanding details.

In a press interview with American media, Vance described the memorandum as very brief, not exceeding one and a half pages, outlining the general lines for the exchange of commitments between the two parties. He indicated that the main goal of this move is to build common ground that ensures the achievement of Washington's and Tehran's interests alike in thorny issues.

The Vice President touched upon the content of 'Paragraph One' of the memorandum, emphasizing that it obliges the Iranian side to the principles of peace and stability in the Middle East region. This commitment, according to the American vision, includes stopping financial and logistical support for groups classified by the United States as terrorist organizations operating in the region.

Vance stressed that the essence of the understanding is based on the necessity of ending what he described as 'destabilizing activities' attributed to Tehran, in exchange for mutual benefits guaranteed by the American administration. He considered that maintaining regional security is the primary driver of these understandings that the Trump administration seeks to establish as a new political reality.

In an economic surprise, Vance revealed the possibility of Iran obtaining massive reconstruction funding, potentially reaching $300 billion, with contributions from some Gulf countries. He clarified that this financial support is conditional on Tehran's full commitment to the terms of the agreement and tangible progress in the ongoing negotiation process between the two capitals.

Regarding the skeptical Israeli position, Vance expressed confidence that Tel Aviv will ultimately accept the agreement despite current differences in viewpoints. He acknowledged the existence of disagreements with Benjamin Netanyahu's government over ways to end regional conflicts, but stressed that common interests will ultimately prevail.

The Vice President affirmed that the US administration sees this proposed agreement as an effective means to enhance Israel's long-term security, not the opposite. He expected the Israeli government to support the diplomatic path as implementation stages progress and tangible results emerge on the ground regarding direct threats.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented on these developments by indicating that his country and President Donald Trump do not always agree. This statement reflects the extent of the gap in assessing the situation regarding the nuclear file and Iranian influence, despite the close alliance between the two parties.

On the technical front, Vance explained that the agreement will reopen the door for the return of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to Iranian facilities. Washington considers international oversight to be the primary guarantee for ensuring the peaceful nature of the nuclear program and adherence to enrichment restrictions.

The memorandum also includes clear provisions for dealing with Iran's current stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which previous reports estimated to be around 12 tons. The mechanism for disposing of or reducing this stockpile will be through trilateral coordination involving the IAEA, Tehran, and Washington to ensure transparency.

Regarding the timeline, Vance announced that next Friday will see a crucial meeting to officially sign the agreement, followed by the immediate commencement of technical negotiations. These negotiations will focus on setting precise timelines for the gradual implementation of the provisions to ensure testing the intentions of all concerned parties.

These developments come in the context of a comparison with the 2015 agreement, as the current agreement seeks to impose stricter restrictions on international navigation. Sources indicate that the Trump 2026 agreement includes immediately opening the Strait of Hormuz to global trade without any restrictions or military threats.

The current understandings also include an immediate cessation of military operations on all fronts, including the Lebanese arena, with a 60-day truce. This truce aims to provide a suitable environment for negotiating more complex issues, such as ballistic missiles and the timeframes for suspending enrichment.

In a confidence-building step, the United States is expected to release approximately $25 billion of frozen Iranian assets as part of the comprehensive deal. The Trump administration claims that this path is the only way to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and protect the region from scenarios of comprehensive escalation.

The memorandum is a general document that outlines an agreement based on the exchange of commitments and benefits between Washington and Tehran to enhance stability.

The Egyptian state is witnessing a radical transformation in its governance philosophy and institutional management. The features of this change have emerged in official statements confirming that the strategic leadership center in the New Administrative Capital represents the leadership of the entire state. This orientation indicates a desire to move beyond the traditional structures of the armed forces and civilian ministries towards a more centralized and controlled model.

Observers believe that the current plan aims to accurately describe the current situation to prevent falling into the trap of a lack of vision, as decision-makers believe that the army represents the 'deep state' capable of resolving intractable crises. This has been evident in the military institution being tasked with housing files, demolishing illegal buildings, and managing urban expansions away from the private sector.

This vision reflects a desire for comprehensive control over the joints of public life, extending to intervention in the religious and moral affairs of citizens. The analysis suggests that the authority is trying to entrench the concept of the 'chosen leader' who transcends the status of an elected president, which puts it in confrontation with ancient institutions such as Al-Azhar Al-Sharif.

Political comparisons highlight a similarity in behavior with previous governance models that relied on individualism in resolving complex jurisprudential and social issues. Efforts are being made to approve legislation concerning divorce and inheritance in line with a modern Western vision, with a clear marginalization of traditional scholars and specialists in these fields.

On the political front, the dismantling of the concept of party pluralism is clearly evident in favor of ceremonial parties that support the existing authority without exercising real opposition. This approach has led to the absence of actual political competition, and the scene has turned into a single color that rejects any attempts at rival candidacy, even from within the military establishment itself.

The 'military entity' or the strategic leadership center in the Administrative Capital is the executive tool for this new vision, extending over a vast area exceeding 90 square kilometers. This center, designed to be larger than the 'Pentagon,' aims to provide complete informational control over all data and facilities of the Egyptian state.

The tasks of this center are distributed between managing unified data and controlling strategic networks that centrally manage the state's administrative apparatus. It also includes advanced centers for controlling national communications and managing emergency services and field security, ensuring a rapid response to any potential public movements.

In the context of dismantling civilian ministries, 'Mostakbal Misr' company emerged as an effective alternative to the Ministry of Agriculture in managing major national projects and land reclamation. This company is led by military cadres away from the supervision of the Council of Ministers, which reinforces the concept of a 'single institution state' that swallows the traditional powers of ministries.

Sources indicate that the protocol treatment of civilian ministers and governors reflects a decline in their role in favor of military leaders in public events. Civilian officials are embarrassed by sudden technical questions, while military project leaders are given more space to speak and showcase achievements to public opinion.

This shift towards absolute centralization raises deep questions about the system's ability to continue in the absence of scientific feasibility studies for major projects. Relying on 'boldness' in decision-making instead of scientific methodology may lead to exorbitant economic and social costs that the state will bear in the near future.

The analysis suggests that attempts to transform the state into a 'barracks' or 'central committee' similar to totalitarian regimes may clash with the reality of their unsustainability in the long run. Despite security and informational control, the will for popular change and economic pressures remain crucial factors in determining the lifespan of this political model.

It seems that the current gamble is on gaining time and completing the infrastructure of the Administrative Capital to be an impregnable administrative and security fortress. However, the exclusion of civilian competencies and the marginalization of established institutions may weaken the overall structure of the state and make it more vulnerable to shocks in the event of any sudden crises.

The continuation of this situation beyond 2030 requires additional constitutional and structural amendments to ensure the current authority remains at the top of the leadership pyramid. But historical experiences indicate that systems that abolish pluralism and rely on a single individual face existential challenges when attempting to institutionalize this influence permanently.

Finally, the question remains about how to exit this path, which some describe as a political and economic 'quagmire,' requiring an in-depth reading of the cost of continuing this approach. The future does not depend solely on the survival of the authority, but on the ability of the Egyptian state as an institution and history to withstand these major structural transformations.

The strategic leadership in the New Administrative Capital is the leadership of the state, not just the general leadership of the armed forces.

Iranian-American writer Azadeh Moaveni believes that the roots of the current conflict between Tehran and Washington extend back many decades. In an article for 'The New York Times', Moaveni recalled the speech of the late Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1951, asserting that the principles of independence he advocated still shape the collective Iranian consciousness.

The writer explained that Mossadegh's overthrow in 1953 by the United States and Britain, following his decision to nationalize oil, was a historical turning point. This event was not merely a military coup, but transformed into a global symbol of resistance against Western hegemony over the resources of developing nations and their national sovereignty.

Moaveni considered that the recent policies adopted by the American administration against Iran have unexpectedly revived this historical legacy. She pointed out that targeting Tehran came at a time of major geopolitical shifts, as many countries seek to reduce their dependence on American decisions and move towards new international poles.

According to the article, a widespread wave of solidarity with Iran emerged in various parts of the non-Western world, in what the writer described as an 'I am Iran' moment. This solidarity did not necessarily stem from agreement with Tehran's internal policies, but from a shared fear of external interventions and the forceful imposition of international wills.

The writer emphasized that Iran did not merely withstand military challenges, but also proved its effectiveness in influencing the balance of the global economy. The continuous threat to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz gave it additional weight in the international arena, forcing major powers to re-evaluate their stance on Tehran's regional role.

In the context of international reactions, sources reported that China and Russia exploited this confrontation to strengthen their discourse rejecting unipolarity. Leaders Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin described American actions as 'treacherous', reflecting the depth of the new alliances formed in opposition to Washington.

Moaveni noted that official Chinese media used AI techniques to portray the conflict, with the United States appearing as a predatory eagle, while Iran was represented by a proud Persian cat. This media coverage reflects the extent of cultural and political polarization caused by the war in the Asian continent.

Regionally, countries such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Pakistan witnessed notable popular and official stances supporting Iran. In Turkey, opinion polls showed that the vast majority of citizens reject American attacks, while President Erdogan described the war as an absurd act lacking legal legitimacy.

In Malaysia, Parliament took a symbolic step by observing a minute of silence for the victims of the war, while Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim warned of the repercussions of these attacks. Ibrahim considered what happened a dangerous precedent that threatens the stability of the international order and the rules governing relations between states.

In India, despite official rapprochement with the Israeli occupation, widespread popular solidarity campaigns emerged with the Iranian people. These campaigns included financial donations and the sending of medical and humanitarian aid, reflecting a gap between official political orientations and popular sympathy for issues of sovereignty.

Discussions extended to the African continent, where the Strait of Hormuz crisis raised serious concerns about energy and food security. The writer quoted politicians in South Africa on the necessity of strengthening cooperation within the 'BRICS' group to reduce dependence on economic systems controlled by Western powers.

Moaveni linked the killing of the former Iranian Supreme Leader in an American-Israeli raid to the escalation of the 'collapsing empire' narrative. She indicated that this event, instead of weakening the regime, contributed to uniting the Iranian internal front behind the banner of defending the homeland and threatened sovereignty.

The writer concluded that the war led to results completely contrary to what Washington and Tel Aviv had planned, as the intensity of internal criticism of the regime decreased. Many Iranians now see the state as a bulwark against bombing and external pressures, which gave the regime new legitimacy derived from the cause of independence.

In concluding her analysis, Moaveni affirmed that Iran today possesses a new narrative capable of marketing itself to the world as a resilient state in the face of great powers. This narrative may make Tehran a key player in shaping the new international order that is forming away from absolute American hegemony.

Trump and the Israeli occupation have, unintentionally, contributed to strengthening the Iranian state and solidifying its position as a symbol of defiance and resistance.

While the world awaited rational outcomes from parties characterized by recklessness, the populations affected by the bombing found themselves forced to coexist with terrorism as an imposed daily reality. The human capacity to endure pain and poverty, as described in global literature, transformed in the context of the current conflict into a tool to normalize war and make it an inescapable reality.

This situation was clearly manifested in the confrontation between the United States and Iran, where for months scattered strikes, volatile rhetoric, and promises of an imminent end to hostilities that never materialized prevailed. This severe political crisis led to profound human suffering and economic disruptions that directly and unprecedentedly affected the lives of the region's peoples.

Despite Donald Trump's announcement of a 'grand bargain' to end the war, the days preceding this announcement witnessed a dangerous escalation, including orders for strikes deep inside Iran. Washington's desire to control the strategic Kharg Island, which is the main artery for exporting 90% of Iranian crude oil, also emerged, reflecting the magnitude of the economic threat.

Global markets responded with sharp fluctuations to the agreement's announcement, but the general public received the promises with lukewarm reception due to their repetition dozens of times without tangible effect on the ground. Trump had been calling for calm, claiming the war was nearing its end, at a time when missiles and drones were redrawing the map of pain in the region.

The effects of the conflict extended to Arab countries that Tehran considered allies or proxies of Washington, as Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain were subjected to Iranian shelling after the collapse of previous understandings. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar were not immune to this targeting, which affected energy infrastructure and claimed civilian lives, shattering a sense of security that will take years to rebuild.

Economically, the war caused a severe shortage in global liquefied natural gas supplies by up to 17% due to the impact on Qatari facilities. The use of the Strait of Hormuz as a weapon in the war also pushed Saudi Arabia to reorder its economic priorities, directing massive investments towards building alternative ports and data centers to ensure sustainability.

In Dubai, the aviation and trade sectors experienced immense pressure with the continued suspension of international flights and expectations of a sharp economic contraction. These material consequences, though measurable, do not reflect the extent of the psychological and social upheaval that affected millions whose professional and personal lives were tied to the region's stability.

Observers believe that the partnership between Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu was the primary driver of these rapid and aggressive transformations, as both parties sought to achieve specific agendas without regard for the consequences. This coordination led to a redefinition of the concept of war itself, where killing and displacement continue even under what is called a 'ceasefire'.

In the Gaza Strip, figures show the horror of the reality, with nearly a thousand martyrs since the ceasefire announcement last October, confirming the falsity of the calm. In Lebanon, Israeli raids have continued since April, resulting in the martyrdom of hundreds and the displacement of about a million people from their homes, especially in Beirut and the south.

Statistics indicate that a third of the victims of the recent escalation in Lebanon are children, which places the international community before its moral responsibilities towards 'truces' that do not provide protection. A new political lexicon has emerged describing these agreements as 'fragile' or 'under test', while drones continue to claim lives.

Thorny issues such as Iranian uranium enrichment, the missile program, and the management of the Strait of Hormuz remain major obstacles to any real and sustainable peace. The absence of certainty in this process makes it akin to a bloody chess game, where threats of withdrawal from talks are exchanged immediately upon any new field escalation.

On the ground, Israeli occupation forces continue to control about 20% of Lebanese territory, amid indications of Netanyahu's desire to exploit the situation to impose a new reality. The occupation prime minister seems inclined to challenge the US administration by launching unilateral attacks aimed at undermining any stability that might result from an agreement with Tehran.

The prolongation of the war has created complex agendas that are difficult to unravel or return the region to what it was before the outbreak of the current conflict. While Trump promises peace, he continues to threaten to completely destroy Iranian infrastructure, revealing a state of confusion in managing the most dangerous regional crisis in contemporary history.

Ultimately, signing agreements will not solve the accumulated crises in Lebanon, Gaza, and the Gulf overnight, as wounds are still open and displaced people have not found their way back. The impossible balance between Washington, Tehran, and Tel Aviv will continue to govern the fate of Arab countries, in a reality that proves that humans, unfortunately, endure a lot of killing.

Humans endure a lot of killing, but the dark side of this resilience is the extent to which regimes can normalize terrorism as part of daily life.

Every year on August 11th, Lebanese memory recalls the tragedy of the Marjayoun convoy massacre, which occurred during the 2006 summer aggression, when Israeli occupation aircraft targeted thousands of civilians fleeing the inferno of shelling. The convoy, comprising about a thousand vehicles, had set off based on prior coordination and security guarantees provided by the international emergency forces 'UNIFIL', but the occupation reneged on its promises as usual.

The tragedy began when occupation tanks seized the joint security force barracks in Marjayoun a few days before the end of the war, prompting Lebanese forces to decide to withdraw. Hundreds of displaced families from Marjayoun and Arqoub villages joined the military convoy, seeking a safe passage towards the Western Bekaa, away from the raging front lines.

Field reports indicate that the convoy was delayed in setting off due to roads being damaged by previous raids, which necessitated the intervention of 'UNIFIL' bulldozers to clear the paths. The arduous journey began under the surveillance of Israeli reconnaissance aircraft that never left the skies, despite international assurances that the agreed-upon route was immune from military targeting.

Upon the convoy's arrival at the outskirts of Jub Jannin town in the Western Bekaa around 10 PM, warplanes suddenly attacked the displaced civilians with a series of concentrated missiles. The raids targeted the front, middle, and rear of the convoy simultaneously, leading to a state of extreme panic among thousands of civilians who were riding buses and civilian cars flying white flags.

This treacherous aggression resulted in the martyrdom of seven people, including a paramedic, and the injury of dozens with varying degrees of severity, with estimates ranging between 36 and 65 wounded. The road, which was supposed to be a passage to safety, turned into a scene of death and destruction, with many vehicles burned and the belongings of the displaced scattered across the area.

In an attempt to evade legal and moral responsibility, the occupation army quickly presented conflicting narratives about the reasons for the targeting. Hebrew sources at the time claimed that forces suspected the transport of weapons for Hezbollah inside the trucks, and also alleged that 'UNIFIL' had not obtained final permission for the movement of such a large number of vehicles.

'UNIFIL' forces firmly responded to these claims, with its commander at the time, General Alain Pellegrini, confirming that the Israeli side had explicitly given the green light for the operation. International sources clarified that the coordination included specifying the route and timing of the movement, making the Israeli targeting a deliberate violation of field understandings and the rules of international humanitarian law.

For its part, 'Human Rights Watch' refuted the Israeli narrative in a detailed report, describing the occupation's justifications as unbelievable and contradicting tangible facts. The organization stressed that the convoy was clearly visible to aircraft, and its size and the civilian nature of the vehicles within it warranted refraining from shelling under the laws of war.

This massacre is part of a broader context of the 2006 aggression, which lasted 34 days and left massive destruction in Lebanese infrastructure, including bridges, power stations, and airports. The economic cost of that war amounted to about seven billion dollars, under the scorched-earth policy adopted by the occupation to pressure the popular base of the resistance.

Historical sources confirm that the 'True Promise' operation carried out by Hezbollah in July 2006 aimed to liberate prisoners, but the Israeli response exceeded all military limits, directly targeting civilians. The Marjayoun massacre is a stark example of the policy of targeting displaced persons that was repeated in other locations such as Marwahin and Qana during the same war.

Living memory of this massacre still demands justice and truth, as survivors and the families of the martyrs insist on prosecuting those responsible for issuing the bombing orders. The issue is not just a historical event, but part of a long record of violations for which the occupation has not been held internationally accountable to this day.

Subsequent investigations proved that the convoy did not contain any military targets, and that all those on board were civilians and security personnel with light weapons, which were disarmed before departure. This reality places the international community before its responsibilities to protect civilians in armed conflicts, especially in light of the repetition of the same criminal patterns.

In conclusion, the Marjayoun convoy massacre remains a testament to the treachery of the occupation, which does not respect international conventions or the guarantees it provides through intermediaries. The stories of the survivors who witnessed the night of terror in the Western Bekaa continue to narrate chapters of Lebanese steadfastness in the face of a war machine that did not differentiate between a child, a paramedic, and a soldier.

Documenting these crimes aims to prevent the obliteration of the Palestinian and Lebanese narrative in the face of Israeli propaganda that always tries to distort facts. Massacres do not expire, and the right of victims to justice remains as long as collective memory preserves the details of that bloody night in August 2006.

Knowing that a large civilian convoy was heading north, and observing the white flags, should have been enough for the Israeli army not to carry out this raid.

International press reports have highlighted a new strategy pursued by the Israeli occupation authorities in cooperation with the United States, aimed at transforming the issue of Gaza Strip reconstruction into a tool for completing forced displacement plans. This vision relies on imposing urban plans from outside that reject any Palestinian participation, reinforcing the policy of 'urban genocide' that targets the erasure of the physical and moral presence of the indigenous population in the Strip.

Media sources quoted architect Eyal Weizman, founder of 'Forensic Architecture,' as saying that what is happening in Gaza goes beyond military destruction to systematic colonial urban planning. Weizman affirmed that the destruction of hospitals, water and sewage networks, and agricultural lands is not random, but rather a literal application of a slow killing strategy through the destruction of the essential foundations of life, which aligns with international definitions of genocide.

The report indicated that the systematic destruction has pushed Palestinians into narrow, overcrowded pockets that the occupation army describes as 'humanitarian areas,' while in reality they lack the most basic elements of housing and essential services. Heavy machinery and bulldozers have played a pivotal role in obliterating the features of entire cities and villages in Rafah, Beit Hanoun, and Jabalia, transforming vast areas into an uninhabitable environment due to chemical pollution and heavy metals.

Sources touched upon the concept of 'cultural genocide,' which has historically been absent from international agreements under pressure from colonial powers, and is now being applied in Gaza through the targeting of heritage sites, schools, and libraries. This destruction aims not only to eliminate the biological existence of Palestinians but also seeks to sever the social and historical continuity of the Palestinian national group and prevent it from reshaping its identity on its land.

Regarding the field reality, investigations revealed the division of the Gaza Strip into two areas separated by what is known as the 'Yellow Line,' with the occupation army currently controlling more than 54% of the Strip's area. Satellite images have monitored the construction of earthen dams and permanent military installations, in addition to extending electricity and lighting networks, indicating the occupation's intention to transform these points into permanent, not temporary, control centers.

Investigative reports clarified that the occupation has established seven new military sites, some of which were built over completely destroyed cemeteries, in a blatant violation of sanctities and human dignity. These field movements coincide with absolute control over the flow of humanitarian aid, which is used as a political and military pressure tool to push residents towards options of forced migration or facing slow death under the weight of epidemics and health collapse.

On the political front, suspicious real estate development projects have emerged, such as the 'Sunrise Project' proposed by Jared Kushner, which includes building luxury skyscrapers and industrial complexes over the ruins of destroyed cities. These engineering plans precisely follow the military routes carved by the army to divide the Strip, revealing an investment aspect of the displacement plan aimed at transforming Gaza into an investment zone devoid of its indigenous population.

Leaked documents also revealed a pilot project called 'Alternative Safe Communities' being implemented east of Rafah, aiming to cram tens of thousands of displaced people into compounds surrounded by walls and advanced biometric checkpoints. This surveillance system aims to turn Palestinian lives into a large prison, while offering material incentives and facilities to those who decide to 'voluntarily migrate' outside the Strip, in an attempt to empty the land through soft methods.

In contrast to these imposed plans, national Palestinian initiatives, such as the 'Phoenix Gaza Initiative' presented by the Association of Municipalities in cooperation with Palestinian experts and architects, have been completely excluded. The Palestinian vision relies on rebuilding neighborhoods and camps based on accurate property records to preserve the social fabric, which the occupation and its allies reject because it roots the residents in their land.

The report noted that the US administration's description of Gaza as a 'demolition site' reflects a premeditated intention to consider the Strip as empty land requiring radical 'development' that bypasses the existence of the landowners. This approach serves the Israeli vision that sees in the rubble an opportunity to reshape the geography of the Strip to ensure the security of the occupation and its settlement expansion at the expense of Palestinian national rights.

Displaced persons in areas under local administration live in catastrophic conditions, with waste accumulating and sewage flowing between overcrowded tents, portending an imminent environmental and health disaster. Sources confirm that the continued siege and prevention of essential building materials aim to drive the population to a state of absolute despair, making acceptance of external plans the only available 'option of necessity'.

The analytical reading of the scene concluded that the genocide in Gaza is passing through two integrated stages; the first is the comprehensive destruction of the national model through brutal military force, and the second is the imposition of colonial architectural projects. These projects do not aim for reconstruction in its humanitarian sense, but rather aim to legitimize the occupation and permanently change Palestinian demographics to serve the strategic interests of Israel and its allies.

The international community's insistence on ignoring Palestinian urban alternatives contributes to reinforcing the crime of genocide, as Gaza is treated as a laboratory for security and real estate experiments. Experts demand the necessity of empowering Palestinian institutions to lead the reconstruction process to ensure the return of displaced persons to their original homes and preserve the historical identity of the cities and camps that the occupation tried to erase from the map.

In conclusion, the struggle over the future 'shape of Gaza' remains the core of the current political battle, as Palestinians seek to rebuild their lives over the ruins, while the occupation seeks to transform those ruins into a platform for launching a new settlement project. Confronting these plans requires legal and international action that rejects the politicization of reconstruction and affirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in their urban and political future.

Genocide continues in the Strip through a colonial urban planning strategy that implicitly aims to eradicate Palestinian life.

The Emir of the State of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, held a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Evian, France. The meeting addressed a range of regional and international issues of common interest, foremost among them the developments in the Iranian nuclear file and the diplomatic efforts to enhance stability in the Middle East.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad described the US-Iranian agreement as a highly significant strategic step, while emphasizing that additional work still needs to be done to ensure the success of these paths. The Emir affirmed that this agreement serves the interests of both the region and Iran, expressing Doha's constant readiness to provide support and assistance whenever friends request it.

For his part, US President Donald Trump revealed that understandings with Tehran are about to move to a second, more advanced phase, praising the pivotal role played by the State of Qatar in bridging viewpoints. Trump explained that cooperation with the Qatari side has been very fruitful, describing them as strong partners who provided real assistance in managing the crisis with Iran.

In a related context, the US President reiterated that the United States will not inject any direct financial investments into Iran, stressing that the primary goal is to ensure that Tehran does not possess nuclear weapons. Trump warned that any Iranian attempt to cross these red lines would be met with a violent military response, describing a potential confrontation in such a case as a 'fierce war'.

Regarding the Lebanese file, Trump touched upon his relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, noting that it is an excellent relationship but requires a greater degree of responsibility. The US President conveyed a message about the necessity for Netanyahu to act more consciously regarding the escalation in Lebanon, to avoid the region sliding into broader confrontations with unpredictable outcomes.

In a striking proposal reflecting the US administration's vision for regional arrangements, Trump indicated that he suggested to the Israeli side that Syria take responsibility for dealing with the Lebanese Hezbollah file. This statement comes at a time when the Lebanese front is witnessing escalating tensions, indicating Washington's desire to find regional actors to limit the influence of armed groups.

The meeting concluded with both parties affirming the continuation of close coordination and consultation between Doha and Washington on various issues. The Emir of Qatar stressed that his country always seeks to achieve peace and end conflicts in the region, away from seeking narrow economic gains, emphasizing that regional stability is the top priority of Qatari policy.

The agreement with Iran will move to a second phase, and work with Qatar on mediation has been positive and excellent.

Dozens of residents of Nur Shams camp in Tulkarm city were able to enter the alleys of their camp and inspect their homes for the first time in a year and a half, following coordination that allowed Israeli occupation forces to permit residents to return temporarily for limited hours. Field sources reported that the occupation army imposed strict security measures at the entrances, including confiscating personal IDs and mobile phones and conducting thorough searches of women and the elderly, while a number of young men were arrested on the pretext of having previous security files.

Returnees described the scene inside the camp as shocking, as Israeli bulldozers not only demolished homes but also extended the destruction to infrastructure, water and electricity networks, and uprooted trees, which led to the obliteration of the geographical and social features of the place. Ms. Siham Abu Watfa confirmed that she could not recognize her residential neighborhood due to the accumulated rubble, noting that her home and her children's homes were completely razed to the ground in a clear attempt to erase the memory of refuge and resistance rooted in the camp.

For her part, Ms. Shurooq expressed the bitterness of returning to shattered streets and a completely burned home that the family had inherited from their ancestors since 1950, considering what happened a crime against history and humanity. Despite the magnitude of the tragedy, Shurooq stressed that the determination of the camp residents would not be broken, and that the insistence on staying and starting anew is the only response to the policies of forced displacement practiced by the occupation against the residents of Palestinian camps.

In another testimony, citizen Mohammed Sabri recounted the details of his journey, which he described as a 'journey of humiliation,' as he entered the camp hoping to retrieve some essential belongings such as electrical appliances to help his family in the displacement center, but he found his home empty and destroyed in a way that made it impossible to extract anything from under the rubble. Sabri explained that the risk of entering was great given the spread of snipers and military vehicles that turned the process of inspecting homes into a mission fraught with dangers and psychological intimidation.

Citizen Saif al-Din Hassan Saeed, who witnessed the destruction of his home's furniture and infrastructure, criticized the absence of an effective role for international relief agencies and official Palestinian institutions in supporting the distressed camp residents. Saeed pointed out that the displaced face suffocating financial crises and difficult living commitments amid salary cuts and high living costs, stressing that the aid provided does not rise to the level of the catastrophe that befell Nur Shams and Tulkarm camps in recent months.

In another corner of suffering, Ms. Umm Raja was able to retrieve some household utensils from her home, which partially survived demolition, expressing joy mixed with pain when she found a 'bottle of oil' and a can of olives that had remained intact for two years. Umm Raja considered these simple possessions to represent a symbol of steadfastness and attachment to the land, although she will return with them to the 'shelter' where she currently resides, awaiting a radical solution that will end their ongoing displacement tragedy.

Official estimates issued by local authorities indicate that Israeli military operations in Tulkarm camps have led to the complete demolition of 600 homes and the partial demolition of more than 2,500 homes since the beginning of the recent escalation. This systematic policy has resulted in the displacement of about 500 families and the displacement of approximately 25,000 people, creating a worsening humanitarian crisis that requires urgent international intervention for reconstruction and sheltering families who have become homeless.

The camp has turned into destruction upon destruction, and I could not identify the location of my home due to the uprooting of trees and stones and the complete alteration of the neighborhoods' features.

US President Donald Trump revealed his desire to refer the agreement concluded with Iran to the US Congress for review, pledging to read the full text of the document to the media. Trump explained during statements made on the sidelines of the G7 summit held in the French city of Evian that the idea of involving parliament in this process now appeals to him to ensure full transparency.

The American President affirmed that he will not only publish the text of the agreement but will also hold an extensive press conference to read its provisions verbatim to journalists. Trump aims by this step to ensure that media coverage will be accurate and comprehensive, away from any interpretations that might tarnish the content of the understandings reached with the Iranian side.

Regarding the signing ceremony, the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the memorandum of understanding signing ceremony will take place next Friday, June 19. The ceremony will be held in a luxurious hotel located on Bürgenstock mountain overlooking Lake Lucerne, a location carefully chosen due to its ease of security and difficulty of access for intruders.

Swiss sources indicated that the selection of this strategic location was based on proposals from international mediators including Pakistan and Qatar, in addition to the approval of the United States and Iran. The Bürgenstock complex is one of the historical sites that previously hosted major international events, the last of which was the peace conference on Ukraine in 2024.

Procedurally, official reports stated that the memorandum of understanding has already been signed electronically in preparation for the official ceremony. The electronic signing included both President Trump and his deputy J.D. Vance, and from the Iranian side, the Speaker of the Shura Council, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who also serves as the chief negotiator in this round.

J.D. Vance is expected to lead his country's delegation in Switzerland, while Ghalibaf will head the Iranian delegation to complete the protocol ceremonies. Vance told international media that the current document is general in nature and consists of only one and a half pages, noting the possibility of Trump personally attending the ceremony despite his commitments at the G7 summit.

In the context of parallel international movements, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a phone call with his Pakistani counterpart Ishaq Dar to discuss the latest developments of the agreement. Wang Yi warned that the next phase of negotiations will be more complex and difficult compared to the first phase that led to the current memorandum of understanding.

The Chinese minister stressed the need for the United Nations Security Council to play a more effective role in the coming stages to ensure a final and sustainable deal. Beijing considered the current consensus a new starting point, not the end, affirming its readiness to cooperate with Islamabad to support regional stability.

At its core, this memorandum seeks to end the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, which has directly affected the security of international navigation. The issue of the Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the most important unresolved issues, where its partial closure by Iran and the corresponding American blockade caused a suffocating global energy crisis.

During their consultations, the Chinese and Pakistani sides agreed on the importance of joint action to open vital maritime passages for international trade. The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed that securing the Strait of Hormuz is a fundamental pillar for the stability of the global economy and energy security, which has been severely affected in recent months.

Reports indicate that China, as Iran's largest trading partner and a close ally of Pakistan, played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in bridging viewpoints. The economic and diplomatic pressures exerted by Beijing contributed to pushing the parties towards the negotiating table in Switzerland to end the political stalemate.

Despite the cautious optimism surrounding Friday's ceremony, observers point out that the technical details of the agreement still require in-depth discussions. Experts believe that Trump's sending of the agreement to Congress may open a new chapter of internal debate in Washington about the nature of the concessions made by both sides.

All eyes remain on Bürgenstock mountain on Friday, where the features of a new era in US-Iran relations are expected to emerge. The text of the agreement that Trump promised to read publicly will be the decisive factor in determining the seriousness of the parties in ending military escalation and returning to the diplomatic path.

In conclusion, this step represents a significant shift in the Trump administration's policy towards the Iranian file, moving from a policy of maximum pressure to seeking negotiated solutions. The biggest challenge remains how to transform this general memorandum into a comprehensive agreement that meets the aspirations of regional and international powers and ensures lasting peace.

I will send the agreement to Congress, this idea appeals to me, and I will hold a press conference to read the text verbatim to you.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 16/6/2026

The economic situation in the occupied West Bank is heading towards an unprecedented stage of deterioration that could lead to a comprehensive collapse, amidst continued strict Israeli restrictions and declining international interest in what is happening outside the circle of war in Gaza. In a striking warning, a new report by the “International Crisis Group” confirmed that the Palestinian economy is no longer facing merely a transient crisis, but is undergoing a process of “systematic dismantling” that affects the foundations upon which any future Palestinian state could be built.

The report paints a grim picture of the economic and social reality in the West Bank, where restrictions on movement and trade intersect with the withholding of tax revenues and the expansion of land control, which has led to the weakening of private companies, the depletion of Palestinian families, and pushed the Palestinian Authority to the brink of complete financial insolvency.

According to the report, Israeli measures are not limited to managing the occupation or imposing security considerations, but reflect a trend aimed at consolidating Israeli control and preventing the emergence of an independent Palestinian state. The report concludes that “the economic conditions necessary for any Palestinian future not based on permanent submission are being rapidly dismantled.”

The study was based on extensive interviews with Palestinian businessmen, mayors, and government officials, which revealed the extent of the pressures facing various economic sectors. Participants pointed to a sharp decline in commercial and investment activity, and increasing difficulties faced by companies in meeting their obligations to employees, suppliers, and contractors.

For decades, the Palestinian economy has suffered from the effects of military occupation and its accompanying barriers, checkpoints, and restrictions on the movement of people and goods. However, conditions have significantly worsened since the outbreak of the Israeli war on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 attack.

After the attack, Israel revoked work permits for most Palestinians who were working inside it, numbering nearly 200,000 workers. While Israeli authorities justified the decision on security grounds, the practical result was depriving the Palestinian economy of about $400 million per month, nearly a quarter of the West Bank's total economic output.

The data in the report indicates that the unemployment rate among Palestinians in the West Bank is about 30 percent, while the economy has experienced a sharp contraction over the past two years. Private sector activity has also declined by about 50 percent compared to before the war, due to strict movement restrictions, supply chain disruptions, and escalating uncertainty.

The report warns that Palestinian society is still resilient, but it lives in a continuous state of impoverishment and depletion. It emphasizes that continuing this path without real solutions will erode hope among the population and increase the likelihood of social explosion, escalating violence, and instability.

The Palestinian Authority is at the heart of this crisis as the largest employer and provider of public services in the West Bank. Government institutions have been forced to borrow increasingly to cover basic expenses, while employees suffer from delayed or reduced salaries, at a time when infrastructure and public services are deteriorating.

Lack of funding has led to a decline in hospitals' ability to provide necessary healthcare, and has also negatively impacted the education sector and municipal services. Water networks and roads are continuously deteriorating, in the absence of sufficient financial resources for maintenance and development.

The Palestinian Authority relies mainly on tax and customs revenues collected by Israel on its behalf, due to its control over crossings and borders. However, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to withhold billions of dollars from these revenues and impose unilateral deductions on them. According to the report, the Authority has not received any financial transfers since May 2025, exacerbating the liquidity crisis and threatening its ability to continue.

Joost Hiltermann, Special Advisor for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group and author of the report, said in a press statement that the global focus on the war in Gaza over the past two years has obscured the profound transformations taking place in the West Bank. He added that these changes may have a greater impact on the future of Palestinian national aspirations than many of the ongoing military developments in the region.

Hiltermann noted that Israeli officials refused to participate in the preparation of the report, but he pointed out that there are disagreements within the Israeli government itself regarding how to deal with the Palestinian economy. While settler leaders push for more rigidity, some security agencies express concern about the complete collapse of the Palestinian Authority.

Israeli security officials believe that the collapse of the Palestinian Authority or economy will ultimately force Israel to bear the burden of directly administering the West Bank, including civil and economic services, a scenario that carries exorbitant political, security, and economic costs.

The danger of what is happening in the West Bank lies in the fact that the crisis is no longer merely a side effect of the political conflict, but has become a tool that directly affects the future of Palestinian society. When hundreds of thousands of people are deprived of job opportunities and income, and the ability of public institutions to provide basic services declines, this creates fertile ground for despair and social tension. More dangerously, these transformations are taking place amidst a clear decline in international attention, and the preoccupation of major capitals with other wars and crises, which gives the existing reality an opportunity to solidify and turn into a permanent situation that will be difficult to change in the future.

The report highlights a striking paradox: the international community continues to talk about a two-state solution, while the economic and administrative components necessary for a viable Palestinian state are eroding daily. States are not built on political slogans alone; they need a productive economy, capable institutions, and stable financial resources. When these elements are continuously undermined, talk of a political settlement becomes detached from reality. Hence, the current economic crisis not only threatens the Palestinian present but directly impacts the potential for any future political solution.

The crisis also reveals the limits of a purely security approach to managing the conflict. Historical experiences have shown that stability is not achieved through economic restrictions and mass impoverishment, but through providing a political horizon and economic development. With continued decline in living standards, rising unemployment, and deteriorating public services, the likelihood of popular resentment and loss of trust in existing institutions increases. If these trends continue without serious international intervention, the West Bank may face a period of profound instability whose effects will extend beyond Palestinian borders to impact the entire regional landscape.

As Washington and Tehran reach understandings to end the war, which may redraw the region's priorities, a fundamental question arises: Will ending the war on Gaza become part of the new stability arrangements, or will the Palestinian issue remain outside the equations of settlement despite its escalating presence in global consciousness?

Indicators are increasing that the US-Iranian understandings extend beyond the nuclear file to broader security and political arrangements related to the future and stability of the region. Although the details of these understandings have not yet fully crystallized, they raise a crucial question for Palestinians: Can they open the way for ending the war on Gaza, or will they lead to a rearrangement of the region's priorities without addressing the core of the Palestinian tragedy?

Over the past months, it seemed that various parties were betting on achieving additional gains before moving to the settlement phase. However, the continuation of the war, the expanding humanitarian cost, and the increasing political and diplomatic pressures on Israel are all factors that have pushed towards finding a way out that stops the fighting without any party appearing completely defeated.

In this context, the US-Iranian understandings may acquire special importance. Washington, which seeks to establish regional stability that allows it to focus on other international priorities, does not seem interested in keeping the region hostage to an open war that could erupt at any moment. Iran, if it succeeds in extracting understandings related to sanctions or its regional status, may also find an interest in stabilizing de-escalation on its various fronts.

Hence, the possibility arises that Gaza could transform from a stalled issue outside the understandings to one of their indirect beneficiaries, not because the concerned parties have found a solution to the Palestinian issue, but because ending the war may become a necessity to serve broader regional arrangements.

However, this possibility does not mean that Israel has abandoned its goals or changed its vision for the war. The Tel Aviv government still seeks to translate what it considers military achievements into long-term political and security realities, ensuring it the greatest possible control over the future of the Strip.

But the extended experience since the beginning of the war has also shown the limits of military power. Despite the enormous destruction and unprecedented human losses, Israel has not been able to impose a stable political vision for the day after.

Therefore, any ceasefire, whether it comes as a result of regional understandings, international pressure, or mutual attrition, will not resolve the fundamental questions related to the future of Gaza and its political and administrative identity.

Stopping the fighting may be closer than it was in previous months, but ending the war does not necessarily mean ending the crisis. The real dilemma begins with the day after.

Who will govern the Strip? What is the nature of the security arrangements? Which Palestinian entity will represent Gaza to the world and to donors? And how can a return to a new cycle of destruction and conflict be prevented?

These questions cannot be answered by the US-Iranian understandings, because they relate, first and foremost, to the internal Palestinian situation and the nature of the Palestinian political system and the future of its national representation.

This dilemma takes on double importance when discussing reconstruction. The extent of the destruction in Gaza far exceeds what was witnessed in previous wars, meaning that the reconstruction process will require enormous financial resources and a long-term Arab and international commitment.

However, Arab countries and donor agencies do not seem prepared to finance a new cycle of reconstruction in the absence of a clear political vision or a unified Palestinian authority capable of managing the process efficiently and transparently.

Therefore, the question is no longer just about the amount of money required, but about the existence of a stable political environment that ensures that reconstruction becomes a project for life and stability, not a temporary stop before a new round of destruction.

At a time when the Palestinian issue is witnessing an unprecedented expansion of global sympathy and support, Palestinians face one of their deepest internal crises. The ongoing division, the multiplicity of decision-making centers, and the erosion of the legitimacy of national institutions are all factors that limit the ability to capitalize on the ongoing transformations in the international arena.

Here, a special responsibility falls on both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The Authority is required to renew its legitimacy and rebuild its institutions on the basis of partnership and representation, away from domination and exclusion, while Hamas is required to undertake deep political reviews that open the door to a genuine national partnership that transcends the logic of exclusivity. Without restoring national unity, Palestinians will remain the weakest link in any future regional arrangements, no matter how much international sympathy their cause receives.

Even if the US-Iranian understandings succeed in lowering the level of regional tension and ending the war on Gaza, this will not change a fundamental truth: the roots of the conflict still exist.

The Palestinian issue is not just a humanitarian crisis, nor merely a manageable security file, but the cause of a people striving for freedom, self-determination, and an end to occupation. Past decades have proven that bypassing this truth or postponing it does not lead to the disappearance of the problem, but to its return in more complex and costly forms.

Therefore, any regional stability resulting from the new understandings will remain fragile unless it is accompanied by a serious political path that addresses Palestinian national rights and puts an end to the continued occupation, settlement, and policies of imposing facts on the ground.

However, the decisive factor in the future of the next phase will not only be what is agreed upon between Washington and Tehran, nor the limits of Israeli power or international pressure, but the ability of the Palestinians themselves to regain the initiative.

The real breakthrough begins with rebuilding the Palestinian political system on the foundations of partnership, democracy, and representation, and agreeing on a comprehensive program that balances national constants with the requirements of the phase, and makes the protection of Palestinian existence and steadfastness a central priority.

In this context, especially in light of the external and internal challenges facing the National Committee for the Administration of the Strip, there is an urgent need to form a non-factional national consensus government that enjoys a political mandate from all Palestinians, enabling it to act as a transitional authority to oversee the administration of the Strip's affairs, relief and reconstruction efforts, and to create the conditions for addressing the internal Palestinian impasse. Its primary mission should be to reunify Palestinian institutions and pave the way for general elections, presidential and legislative, as the main entry point for renewing the political system, restoring the unity of Palestinian representation and decision-making, and preventing Tel Aviv from tearing apart the national entity.

The US-Iranian understandings may contribute to opening a window towards ending the war, and may help prevent the region from sliding into a wider confrontation, but they alone will not be able to shape the future of Gaza or resolve the Palestinian issue. That will remain linked, above all else, to the ability of Palestinians to transform the steadfastness and sacrifices accumulated by their people, and the growing moral and political presence their cause has achieved in the world, into a unified national project capable of asserting itself as a partner in shaping the future, not merely a subject of others' decisions.

If regional understandings may open the door to ending the war, what will determine the shape of the next phase is whether Palestinians are able to cross this door united, or whether they will enter it still prisoners of the same division and crisis that has accompanied them throughout the past years, and hindered their ability to transform their people's sacrifices into sustainable political and national achievements.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 16/6/2026

A new political battle is escalating within the US Congress over the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027, after progressive Senator Bernie Sanders called for the removal of a controversial clause aimed at expanding military and technological integration between the United States and Israel, considering that this approach grants Tel Aviv privileges beyond what NATO countries enjoy.

Sanders said that a small percentage of Americans support the continued unrestricted arming of Israel, questioning the reasons for Congress's insistence on including a clause that grants it an unprecedented level of military integration with the United States. He stressed that "Section 219" of the defense budget bill must be completely removed from the final legislation.

This clause holds particular importance because it embodies a vision long advocated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who on previous occasions considered it part of his strategic plan to reshape military relations between the two countries. This comes at a time when Netanyahu faces increasing international criticism and accusations of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Earlier, the House Armed Services Committee rejected an amendment proposed by Democratic Representative Ro Khanna to repeal the clause, before proceeding to approve the broader bill. The Senate Armed Services Committee also approved referring the bill to the next legislative stages.

In a notable development, Republican Representative Thomas Massie, known for his anti-foreign intervention stances, announced that he, in cooperation with Khanna, had submitted a new amendment to remove the clause. The proposal needs the support of a sufficient number of members of the House Rules Committee to be put to a vote.

The controversy is not limited to Section 219 alone, as the bill also includes Section 622, which provides for the expansion and enhancement of intelligence sharing between Washington and Tel Aviv. Proposed areas of cooperation include cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, monitoring missile threats, drones, and advanced military technology, in addition to exchanging information related to governmental and non-governmental entities in the region.

This clause, introduced by Republican Senator Tom Cotton, grants Israel broader access to US intelligence information, while reducing restrictions on the exchange of that information.

Opponents of the project believe that these clauses reflect a growing trend within Washington to redefine the relationship with Israel in a way that goes beyond traditional military aid towards a deep and lasting institutional partnership that is difficult to subject to political and popular oversight.

In this context, former CIA official Paul Pillar wrote that US support for Israel over the past decades has exceeded $300 billion, mostly in the form of military and economic aid. He pointed out that Netanyahu has sought in recent years to adapt to the decline in American public support for Israel by pushing for alternatives that are less visible to the public than direct aid, but are more entrenched and sustainable.

According to Pillar, the strategy of Israel and its allies within the United States is to replace clear financial aid with deeper forms of military, technological, and institutional integration, so that the relationship becomes less subject to public debate and more difficult to reverse in the future.

Section 219 provides for the establishment of a formal defense technology cooperation initiative between the United States and Israel, and obliges the US Secretary of Defense to appoint a senior official within the Pentagon to coordinate and expand defense and technology cooperation programs between the two sides.

These proposals acquire additional sensitivity in light of previous warnings issued by the US Department of Defense regarding the growing risks of espionage associated with Israel, which has a long record of intelligence activity within the United States. In recent months, accusations have also emerged against Israel of attempting to influence efforts to end the war with Iran, which has intensified the debate within American political and security circles.

The ongoing battle over Section 219 reveals a qualitative shift in the nature of the US-Israeli relationship. The dispute is no longer focused on the size or financial value of aid, but on a more strategic issue related to the extent of integration between the two military establishments. Critics of the project fear that this path will reduce the ability of future US administrations to re-evaluate the relationship with Israel according to changing US national interests, because a deep institutional link becomes more difficult to dismantle than traditional aid programs that Congress can amend or cancel by direct political decision.

Sanders', Massie's, and Khanna's positions also reflect a rare intersection between ideologically distant political currents. Progressives oppose the project because of the war in Gaza and its humanitarian consequences, while isolationist conservatives reject it based on considerations of national sovereignty and avoiding involvement in foreign conflicts. This unusual alliance indicates a growing trend within American politics that questions the traditional assumption that support for Israel should remain outside the scope of debate. It also reveals a widening gap between public sentiment and some political elites who unconditionally support Israel.

If these clauses are approved in their current form, they could establish a new phase of bilateral relations that goes beyond the concept of a traditional ally to a semi-integrated security partnership. However, this transformation carries political and strategic risks, as it may link the United States more closely to Israeli military options in the region, and increase the likelihood of its being drawn into crises in which it is not a direct party. It may also raise increasing questions about the limits of American decision-making independence, especially amid the ongoing internal debate about the cost of involvement in Middle East conflicts and US national security priorities.

International experts and analysts have unanimously agreed that the military confrontation witnessed in the Middle East over the past four months did not result in a clear winner in the traditional sense. Despite the weakening of Iran's military and economic structure, Tehran succeeded in thwarting the major strategic objectives that the United States and Israel had set their sights on at the outbreak of the conflict.

This assessment comes after the surprise signing of a memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran in Switzerland, a step that postponed the resolution of more complex issues and opened the door for sixty days of arduous negotiations. This agreement put Israel in a critical position on the sidelines, while the major powers try to rearrange their cards in the turbulent region.

Iran emerges from this conflict burdened with deep wounds, especially after the devastating blow it received on the first day of the war, which was the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Despite the absence of his presumed successor, his son Mojtaba Khamenei, from the public scene so far, the power structure in Tehran showed unexpected cohesion in the face of intense airstrikes.

Researcher Ross Harrison believes that Iran achieved a 'survival victory,' as it prevented its adversaries from overthrowing the regime or definitively destroying its ballistic and nuclear capabilities. Harrison considered that Tehran was able to re-establish its deterrence concept, although this came at a very high cost in terms of human and material losses.

For her part, researcher Burcu Özçelik pointed out that Tehran's ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz remained its strongest card throughout the conflict. She explained that the continuation of this threat will cast a shadow over regional security for many years, as Iran will use it as a pressure tool to extract major concessions during upcoming rounds of negotiations with the US administration.

The recent agreement included provisions that grant Iran significant economic breathing room, including the recovery of billions of dollars in frozen assets abroad and the suspension of sanctions imposed on the oil sector. In return, Tehran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, while retaining the right to impose transit fees under a legal clause added at the last moments of the negotiations.

On the American side, President Donald Trump was quick to describe the agreement as a historic victory, coinciding with his 80th birthday celebration. Observers believe that Trump's primary motive was to lower global energy prices and secure oil flow, especially with the approaching congressional midterm elections, which represent a real test of his popularity and his party.

However, French analysts, including Bernard Hourcade, believe that what Trump achieved was a 'media victory' rather than a political one, emphasizing that the war proved the limits of American military power. Hourcade added that the United States lost a significant part of its international credibility after failing to resolve the conflict militarily and ultimately resorting to the negotiating table with a regime it sought to overthrow.

Major capitals such as Moscow and Beijing are closely monitoring the results of this conflict to draw lessons on how Washington manages its alliances and international crises. Security experts believe that the way the war ended will directly affect the shaping of future crises in other parts of the world, far from the borders of the Middle East.

In contrast, Israel appears to be the party most affected by this diplomatic path, described as the 'biggest loser' in this round. The postponement of a decision on the Iranian nuclear file dashed Israeli hopes of definitively ending this threat, and the momentum for normalization and strategic relations with countries in the region declined.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces immense internal pressure and criticism from his American ally himself, with Trump describing him as a 'tough guy.' The Israeli opposition accuses Netanyahu of failing to achieve any of the war's objectives, and even endangering Israel's security through military operations in Lebanon that nearly derailed the major negotiations.

Although the agreement stipulates a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, the roots of the conflict in Lebanon remain unresolved. Observers warn that continued Iranian support for armed factions will remain the main obstacle that could reignite the situation at any moment during the next sixty days.

The Iranian nuclear issue remains the 'ticking time bomb' that the current agreement has not directly touched, leaving it for anticipated marathon negotiations. Despite Trump's repeated assurances that Iran will not possess nuclear weapons, the reality on the ground indicates that Tehran is closer than ever to possessing the necessary technology.

In conclusion, it seems that the region has entered a phase of 'anxious truce,' where each party seeks to repair its losses and prepare for the next round of diplomatic conflict. While Washington celebrates the return of oil flow, and Tehran fortifies itself with its political gains, Israel remains in a state of anticipation and concern about an uncertain future that does not guarantee its national security as it had hoped.

Strategically and geopolitically, the only real winner in this phase is Iran, but it is a high-cost victory that Tehran paid to prevent its adversaries from achieving their goals.

Washington Message

Washington – Said Arikat – 6/16/2026

News Analysis

Forty-eight hours after US President Donald Trump announced a framework agreement with Iran to end the four-month confrontation, initial indications appear encouraging for supporters of the deal. So far, neither Washington nor Tehran has issued conflicting statements or taken field actions that would undermine the announced understandings, nor have public disagreements emerged over the basic terms that were agreed upon. In the world of diplomacy, where understandings often collapse in their early hours under the weight of political calculations or internal pressures, the passing of the first day without setbacks is an important indicator, though insufficient to judge the fate of the agreement.

This initial resilience gains double importance with the convening of the G7 summit, where the US-Iranian agreement has become one of the most prominent issues on the table for Western leaders. The understanding announced by Trump does not represent merely a ceasefire or a limited bilateral settlement; rather, it constitutes a test for the future of stability in the Middle East and for the American administration's ability to transform war outcomes into lasting political and diplomatic gains. It also places European allies before a new reality that differs greatly from the scenarios that were on the table weeks ago, when the region seemed closer to a widespread regional confrontation than to a negotiated settlement.

Under the memorandum of understanding announced by both parties, a roadmap has been established to end hostilities, gradually reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, and begin a sixty-day negotiation phase to address the most sensitive issues, foremost among them Iran's nuclear program, economic sanctions, and regional security arrangements. However, the importance of the agreement lies not only in its announced provisions but in the fact that it represents the first practical acknowledgment by both parties that the cost of continuing the war has become higher than the cost of returning to negotiations.

In this context, recent experience reveals once again that military force, no matter how intense, does not guarantee the achievement of stated political objectives. The war began under slogans related to stopping Iran's nuclear program and forcing Tehran to change its regional behavior, but it ended with both parties returning to the negotiating table. This outcome raises an old question about the limits of power in managing complex conflicts, where military confrontations often end in political settlements very similar to the proposals that were on the table before the outbreak of the conflict.

Despite the positive atmosphere surrounding the announcement, the agreement leaves the most complex issues open. Iran's nuclear program, which constituted the primary justification for the war according to the American narrative, has not yet been resolved; instead, it has been deferred to subsequent rounds of negotiations. Issues of uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles, Iran's relations with its regional allies, monitoring mechanisms, and the lifting of sanctions also remained outside the framework of a final solution.

It is likely that the coming weeks will witness more difficult negotiations than those that preceded the agreement's announcement. The deferred issues are not technical matters that can be easily settled; rather, they are directly linked to the balance of power in the Middle East and to the security and political considerations of both parties. If negotiations fail to make tangible progress, the agreement could turn into a temporary truce that prevents immediate explosion but does not address the real causes of the conflict.

The agreement also highlights the contradiction between political rhetoric and the actual outcomes of the war. The Trump administration presented the confrontation as a means to impose new conditions on Iran, but it ultimately found itself negotiating most of the same issues that were points of contention before the outbreak of fighting. This does not necessarily mean a failure of diplomacy, but rather indicates that political solutions might have been available from the beginning, and that the cost of resorting to force exceeded the gains ultimately achieved.

Diplomatic circles expect Iran to quickly leverage the agreement to improve its economic situation and recover some of its frozen funds, which could provide the Iranian leadership with important breathing room after months of pressure. However, the success of this path will remain contingent on Washington's readiness to fulfill its economic commitments, as any slowdown or retreat could revive the atmosphere of doubt and distrust that has characterized relations between the two countries for decades.

On the regional level, the agreement reflects a growing realization among various parties that continued confrontation threatens everyone's interests. The Strait of Hormuz crisis demonstrated the interconnectedness between regional security and global economic stability, and that any long-term disruption in the Gulf could directly impact energy markets and global supply chains. Therefore, economic calculations appear to have played a role no less important than military considerations in pushing the parties towards de-escalation.

Conversely, Israeli opposition to the agreement is not expected to cease. Rather, it is likely to escalate in the coming period, both within Israel and among influential circles in Washington. Many Israeli officials and commentators believe that the current settlement does not achieve the objectives that were discussed since the beginning of the war, which explains the increasing criticism faced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from various political parties who believe that the outcomes of the confrontation fell short of announced expectations.

It is also likely that the American political arena will witness increasing debate about the outcome of the war itself. While Trump will try to present the agreement as a historic achievement that ended the conflict and prevented the outbreak of a widespread regional war, his critics will argue that Washington ended up accepting a settlement similar to what could have been reached months before the fighting and losses.

The most important question remains concerning the future of the regional order after this war. If the agreement succeeds in holding up in the coming weeks, it could open the door to broader security arrangements in the Gulf and the Middle East, including navigation and energy security and regional de-escalation. However, this scenario will remain contingent on Washington's and Tehran's ability to build a minimum level of mutual trust, a task that does not seem easy in light of decades of conflict and mutual suspicions.

In conclusion, the passing of a full day since Trump's announcement of the agreement without clear signs of its collapse represents an encouraging development, but it is not enough to remove the doubts surrounding its future. The war has stopped, but its causes have not disappeared. The agreement has withstood its first test, but tougher tests still await it, whether at the negotiating table during the next sixty days or in the corridors of the G7 summit, where Western leaders seek to find out whether this settlement represents the beginning of a sustainable peace or merely a temporary respite in a long conflict whose final chapters have not yet been written.

Sergei Lebedev, an expert in international political affairs, highlighted a series of structural flaws in the American approach to the Iranian issue. In an article published by the Russian newspaper 'Izvestia', Lebedev noted that Washington is in a state of confusion between verbal escalation and promises of peaceful solutions. This contradiction is clearly evident in Donald Trump's statements threatening to control the Strait of Hormuz, coinciding with leaks about an imminent agreement in mid-June.

Reports from Tehran speak of a document being prepared that includes 14 clauses for a potential settlement, reflecting the complexity of the diplomatic scene between the two parties. Regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, the current conflict has revealed the limits of American strategic action in managing complex crises. Observers believe that America's ability to impose its political will is facing unprecedented challenges in light of recent technological developments.

The issue of American military bases spread across Iran's neighboring countries is one of the most prominent weaknesses that has recently surfaced. After these bases once symbolized strength and protection, they have practically become direct targets for Iranian missiles and drones. This shift has led regional allies to reconsider the utility of hosting these forces, which now attract threats instead of deterring them.

Sources reported that the discussion within Arab political circles has become more intense regarding the security risks associated with the American military presence. Iran has succeeded in proving that these bases are not immune, but rather 'magnets' for precise strikes targeting vital infrastructure. This reality places Washington in a strategic dilemma regarding how to protect its assets and allies simultaneously.

This strategic concern extends to other international theaters, especially in the event of a potential confrontation between the United States and China over Taiwan. If Iran has succeeded in turning American bases into a security burden, China possesses far greater capabilities to target the 'first island chain'. This places countries like Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines before extremely complex and dangerous security equations.

The Asian theater lacks a comprehensive alliance umbrella similar to NATO, making host countries for American bases more vulnerable. Despite bilateral agreements, the space for neutrality narrows for these countries in the event of a direct conflict between great powers. Japan's options, in particular, appear limited and complex given its organic link to the American defense system.

The conflict also revealed a surprising Iranian ability to cause 'partial blindness' to American intelligence and surveillance capabilities in the region. Iranian drones targeted at least ten sites containing highly advanced and sensitive radar systems. Among these systems are AN/TPY-2 radars, which are a fundamental pillar of the American missile defense system.

On the military field level, the United States has not succeeded in fully neutralizing Iranian firepower despite intensive strikes. Estimates indicate that Tehran retained sufficient capability to carry out effective strikes even after the destruction of part of its launch platforms. This resilience reflects the limits of traditional military superiority in the face of technological 'guerrilla warfare' strategies and flexible platforms.

International powers such as Russia and China adopt an 'anti-access/area denial' (A2/AD) doctrine to undermine the freedom of American military action. This approach aims to create prohibited zones that impose exorbitant costs on any hostile forces attempting to intervene or operate within them. What Iran is doing today is seen as a miniature model of what Washington might face in future major conflicts.

Historically, past decades have proven that the United States often excels on the military field but fails to achieve the desired political victory. The Iraqi model is a stark example of this inability to translate firepower into stability or sustainable political influence. In the Iranian case, it appears that Washington lost the political gamble early on before achieving any real military decisive action.

Washington long bet on the movement of the 'internal opposition' to overthrow the Iranian regime under the weight of economic and military pressures, but the results were counterproductive. External pressure led to the cohesion of Iranian society behind a national anti-American discourse, postponing internal disagreements. This cohesion thwarted the 'change from within' strategy that American diplomacy usually relies on.

Technological development has brought about a qualitative shift in the balance of power, where the weaker party is now able to employ low-cost tools to contain a major power. Drones and cruise missiles have changed the rules of engagement, making it difficult for traditional armies to protect vast areas of targets. This Iranian military innovation has forced Washington to conduct a comprehensive reassessment of the cost of any direct confrontation.

The deeper dilemma lies in the limits of American political capacity to bear the human and material costs of long conflicts domestically. Modern wars are not only decided by advanced technological systems from afar, but also require actual control on the ground and human power willing to engage. It seems that the American public is less willing to engage in 'forever wars' that do not serve direct national interests.

The analysis concluded that the Trump administration, despite its inclination towards compromises, clashes with hard geopolitical realities that require indivisible resolve. War, as political theorists described it, is either fought with full seriousness and clear objectives or not fought at all. The current American hesitation between escalation and de-escalation only serves to strengthen the position of adversaries and expose more weaknesses.

War must be fought with full seriousness, or not at all; and the United States always fails to translate its field superiority into political decisiveness.

Hebrew press sources revealed that the Israeli occupation authorities continue to detain a group of doctors from the Gaza Strip without trial or clear evidence of conviction against them. The case of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of Kamal Adwan Hospital, has come to the forefront following widespread international and human rights demands for his immediate release.

A recent photo of Dr. Abu Safiya, whose hospital in the northern Gaza Strip was completely destroyed by the occupation, sparked a wave of anger and human rights criticism. The doctor, who has been detained since December 2024, appeared in a deteriorating health condition and remarkably emaciated body, reflecting the extent of suffering inside prisons.

Sources observed clear signs of bruises and skin injuries on Abu Safiya's arms, which observers considered definitive indicators of the physical torture he is subjected to. This appearance occurred during a Supreme Court session held via video conference to consider a petition against his continued detention.

Data indicates that the occupation is holding Abu Safiya along with 13 other doctors from Gaza under the umbrella of the 'Unlawful Combatant' law. This legal framework allows the occupation to detain Palestinians for long periods without the need to file an indictment or conduct a regular criminal trial.

The detention of these medical personnel is periodically extended every six months by a decision of the Central Court in Beersheba. Reports confirm that these procedures lack the minimum standards of international justice and are based on secret files that the defense is not allowed to access.

In a serious development, testimonies from detainees reported the transfer of Dr. Abu Safiya from his cell in 'Ketziot' prison to solitary confinement in 'Nafha' prison. Human rights activists believe that this transfer was a direct punitive measure in response to his recourse to the judiciary and challenging the legality of his continued detention.

Human rights organizations confirmed that the policy of solitary confinement has become a common practice against prisoners who try to assert their legal rights. These steps are consistent with the escalation of violations inside Israeli prisons since the far-right took control of the Ministry of National Security.

Lawyers revealed that many detainees now prefer to waive their right to appear before the judiciary for fear of physical assaults. Prisoners are subjected to systematic abuse during their transfer from cells to video conference rooms or courtrooms.

Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya is considered one of the most prominent symbols of medical resilience in Gaza, as he continued to perform his professional duty despite the harsh conditions. He continued to manage Kamal Adwan Hospital despite the martyrdom of his son by occupation fire and his own injury in previous attacks.

International reports warned that the continued detention of doctors exacerbates the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, which is suffering from the collapse of its health system. The absence of these personnel deprives hundreds of thousands of citizens of necessary medical care amid the ongoing war of annihilation.

On the international level, the prestigious medical journal 'The Lancet' published a petition signed by dozens of international medical organizations. The petition calls for a boycott of the Israeli Medical Association due to its silence and failure to uphold professional ethics regarding what is happening in Gaza.

The petition accused doctors within the Israeli prison system of participating in or covering up the torture of Palestinian prisoners. The signatories demanded the need for international pressure to stop these blatant violations of international laws and medical norms.

The sources stressed that if the occupation possesses any evidence against Abu Safiya, it should present it publicly before the judiciary and provide clear charges. Continued arbitrary detention is a war crime that requires immediate intervention from UN institutions to release all medical staff.

It is worth noting that the last visual documentation of Dr. Abu Safiya before the last session was in February 2025, where he appeared shackled under heavy guard. The footage at the time showed him being abused and subjected to show interrogations by occupation intelligence officers inside one of the detention centers.

The continued detention of Abu Safiya and other doctors not only represents an injustice to them but also affects hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who need their medical services.

Politics, in its complexities, resembles natural sciences like nuclear and quantum physics, where systems and spaces intertwine in a way that understanding political phenomena requires multiple levels of interpretation. Just as the rules of mechanics alone are insufficient to explain atomic phenomena, political action demands analytical tools that transcend traditional linear logic.

Great powers often fall into the trap of using outdated thinking tools to confront the challenges of a new era, leading to a gap between changing reality and political decisions. This detachment from reality explains why empires fail to predict moments of popular uprising or radical shifts in non-material power balances.

The dilemma of imperial collapse lies in the realist school's inability to explain the erosion of power despite overwhelming material superiority, as this logic overlooks the role of legitimacy and popular acceptance. When a dominant power loses the consent of the governed, a silent erosion begins within its structure, unseen by eyes engrossed in calculations of weapons and money.

Dominant powers deny their new reality and, instead of adapting to it, insist on policies of elimination and monopolization, relying on past glories and tools that are no longer valid. This insistence generates accumulated grievances that, at a certain historical moment, lead to a sudden explosion that shatters linear interpretations of events.

What the world is witnessing today represents a profound shift in consciousness and will, the two most dangerous factors for any hegemonic system, as changing perceptions are the true key to historical change. Peoples have begun to transcend the patterns of thinking imposed by great powers, moving towards a new world based on challenge and rejection of subservience.

The importance of the current stage lies in the steady change in human thought's view of the United States and Israel, as their standing in people's hearts has changed unprecedentedly. The grievances of hegemony have accumulated in various arenas, whether through economic, intellectual, or political marginalization, creating a global environment that rejects the status quo.

Resistance communities have succeeded in delegitimizing the occupation and breaking the illusion of weakness that had overshadowed the region for decades, motivating peoples to reclaim their will. This actual resurgence began with faith in rights and freedom, and evolved into possessing the will to defend and sacrifice, deepening the justifications for a culture of resistance.

The historical steadfastness and field creativity that emerged since the 'Al-Aqsa Flood' events represent a major turning point that revealed the hidden truth behind the American and Israeli facade. According to analytical sources, the resistance front alone was able to repel the most severe attack in modern history thanks to the cohesion of political and military paths.

What the occupation and Washington promote as military achievements quickly turns out to be a strategic loss in the broader cognitive and social system of the world. The overall calculation of profit and loss cannot be confined to one angle, but requires a comprehensive vision that takes into account the surrounding systems of the action and their interactions.

What is required at this stage, as the confrontation approaches decisive stations, is steadfastness and continued will to challenge the most powerful hegemonic force known to history. Humanity today is transcending the tools of American administration, which have become completely exposed, while rising powers seek a foothold in a multipolar world.

The American administration is in a state of regurgitating past tools despite their limitations and the decline of its systemic creativity, which is clearly evident in its commitment to the agenda of the far-right in Israel. This agenda, based on spreading chaos and destabilizing nation-states, increases Washington's isolation even among its traditional allies.

The world today sees its interests lying in stability and construction, while the 'system of chaos' pursued by dominant powers poses a threat to the elements of trust necessary for international cooperation. The policy of destabilization abroad will not remain confined there, but will inevitably find its way into the troubled American interior.

American society suffers from internal conflicts and identity disputes, which makes the export of chaos abroad negatively rebound on its internal cohesion due to the intertwining of global systems. Betting on military force alone without moral or legal cover is a gamble with the future of the empire itself.

In conclusion, a reading of the depths of history confirms that popular consciousness is the rock upon which the illusions of absolute power are shattered, and that the next stage will witness further erosion in the influence of powers that refuse to recognize the legitimate rights of peoples, foremost among them the Palestinian people.

The most dangerous thing facing a hegemonic power is the loss of acceptance of its control, which the empire usually does not notice due to its immersion in the illusion of material power.