Middle East
UN and aid groups reject US-backed Gaza aid model
Established with the support of the US and Israel, the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation is poised to take over aid distribution, yet it faces severe criticism due to its opaque structure, reliance on foreign mercenaries, and the location of its distribution points.
According to a report in the Financial Times (FT), dozens of foreign mercenaries have been brought into Israel as part of a controversial US-backed humanitarian aid plan. The plan aims to transfer control of humanitarian aid in Gaza from the United Nations (UN) to the largely unknown Switzerland-based Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation (GHF).
After a blockade lasting approximately three months, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged was driving the populace to starvation, Israel this week permitted over 90 aid trucks to enter Gaza following international outcry. However, Israel describes these aid deliveries as merely a temporary “bridge solution” and aims for the new system, advocated by the US administration, to be operational by the end of the month.
Can the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation replace UN agencies?
The report indicates that the new system envisages aid being distributed by the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation from centers protected by the Israeli army and private security companies. The UN and other organizations wishing to deliver aid would reportedly be compelled to use these centers. This arrangement would necessitate civilians, particularly those seeking access to centers concentrated in southern Gaza, traveling long distances.
Since the plan’s introduction in May, numerous technical and ethical issues regarding its implementation have emerged. Sources close to the project, for which former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is also alleged to be an unofficial advisor, state that the current system is far from meeting the needs of over two million Palestinians.
The UN has long been the primary aid provider in Gaza. The organization has sharply criticized the GHF model, calling it a “cover to disguise forced displacement.”
It has also been revealed that some “board members” named in the foundation’s documents have not accepted these positions.
Structure is not transparent, funding is uncertain
The GHF announced plans to distribute 300 million meals within the first 90 days. The cost of this distribution—including security expenses for foreign mercenaries—is reported to be $1.30 per meal. However, how the foundation is financed remains unknown.
According to three sources close to the matter, no international donors had contributed to the foundation as of last week. Another source claimed there was a pledge of at least $100 million in donations but did not disclose the names of these individuals.
Tony Blair intervened
From the outset of the project, prominent figures in the aid world were sought for inclusion in the plan. According to three sources, Tony Blair met with former UN World Food Program (WFP) Director David Beasley, asking him to evaluate the plan. Beasley’s name appears in GHF documents as a potential board member, but he has not responded to requests for comment.
Similarly, draft documents showed Nate Mook, former CEO of World Central Kitchen, as an “indispensable board member.” However, Mook told the FT, “I am not on the board.”
Foreign mercenaries draw attention
The GHF’s complex and opaque structure is noteworthy. The foundation was reportedly established in Switzerland in February 2025 by an Armenian citizen, and it has a second, undisclosed branch in the US. Details regarding the foundation’s financial structure are largely kept secret.
Israeli media recently shared images of uniformed foreign private security personnel arriving in the country. These individuals are reportedly assigned to duty at aid convoys and distribution centers.
Two US security companies involved in the project—Safe Reach Solutions and UG Solutions—operated a small-scale checkpoint system in Gaza during a brief ceasefire. Both firms did not respond to requests for comment.
Jake Wood, director of the GHF and a former US marine, stated that despite the project’s shortcomings, it was the only model approved by Israel. Wood declared, “We are committed to delivering aid humanely, without militarizing it. Distribution will be managed entirely by civilian teams.”
No support for GHF from UN and aid organizations
The UN and other international humanitarian aid organizations have so far not supported the Gaza Humanitarian Aid Foundation model. The concentration of aid centers primarily in southern Gaza raises concerns that Palestinians will be forced to travel to areas near the Egyptian border.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated yesterday that the ultimate goal of the military operation in Gaza was to completely displace the people of Gaza from the region.
Tom Fletcher, the UN’s humanitarian aid chief, also opposed this plan, stating that the system “ties aid to political and military objectives.” Fletcher remarked, “Hunger is now being used as a bargaining chip.”
Proposed changes to the model are on the agenda
The GHF announced that it plans to make some adjustments in response to international reactions. The foundation stated in a letter to the Israeli government that it had requested the establishment of aid distribution centers in northern Gaza as well and that the personal data of aid recipients would not be shared. It also promised to facilitate the passage of non-food medical and household supplies. However, it remains unclear whether Israel will accept these demands.
The plan has received full support from the US administration despite uncertainties regarding how private security companies will manage large crowds and potential Hamas attacks in Gaza. Each distribution center is planned to serve approximately 300,000 people.
A US State Department spokesperson said, “President Trump called for creative solutions to deliver life-saving aid to the people of Gaza while ensuring peace, protecting Israel, and excluding Hamas.” He added, “Thanks to his visionary leadership, we are on the verge of a major gain.”
Middle East
UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Lebanon’s National Council for Scientific Research have released a rapid assessment report on building damage in southern Lebanon.
According to Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar newspaper, the study relied on satellite imagery and geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) technologies to assess externally visible damage to buildings along the southern border between October 23, 2025, and April 29, 2026.
The report found that a total of 11,095 buildings had been completely destroyed in the areas surveyed. Based on an assumed average apartment size of 150 square metres, these destroyed structures are estimated to correspond theoretically to 17,891 housing units.
The volume of debris generated in the region is estimated at 3,107,756 cubic metres.
In addition to the buildings that were completely destroyed, the assessment identified partial damage to 2,242 buildings and minor damage to 9,311 others.
At the housing-unit level, the report estimates that alongside the approximately 17,891 units that were completely destroyed, around 5,219 homes sustained partial damage and 18,282 suffered minor damage.
The report stressed that these housing figures are not based on direct field surveys but on mathematical modelling using average floor-space assumptions and therefore constitute theoretical estimates.
Preliminary cost of building damage estimated at $1.38 billion
The report calculated reconstruction costs using a standard benchmark value of $450 per square metre. On that basis, the total preliminary cost of building damage was estimated at $1.384 billion.
Geographically, Nabatieh Governorate accounted for the largest share of the damage, estimated at $1.053 billion, while losses in South Governorate were assessed at $331 million.
At the district level, preliminary costs were estimated at $688 million in Bint Jbeil, $333 million in Marjayoun, $315 million in Tyre, $32 million in Nabatieh district and $16 million in Sidon.
The report emphasised that these figures cover only external physical damage to buildings and do not represent the final cost of reconstruction or the total economic losses caused by the war.
In Bint Jbeil district, the highest levels of destruction were recorded in Aitaroun, where 1,658 buildings were destroyed, followed by Bint Jbeil city with 1,076, Ayta al-Shaab with 539, Beit Lif with 371, Yaroun with 242 and Ainata with 227.
In Marjayoun district, 969 destroyed buildings were recorded in Mais al-Jabal, 824 in Taybeh, 285 in Houla, 199 in Markaba, 184 in Blida and 174 in Deir Siryan.
In Nabatieh district, 71 buildings were destroyed in Yahmar al-Shaqif, 69 in Zoutar al-Sharqiya and 37 in Kfar Sir. In Tyre district, 370 buildings were completely destroyed in Burj al-Shamali, 216 in Naqoura, 162 in Abbassiyeh, 80 in Tyre city and 65 in al-Mansouri. In Sidon district, destruction was concentrated mainly in Zirariyeh, where 65 buildings were destroyed, and Arzi, where 62 buildings were levelled.
The report also outlined significant limitations that prevent the findings from being treated as a definitive final assessment.
The study did not cover entire administrative districts but was limited to areas where clear satellite imagery was available.
As a result, the area south of the Litani River constituted the main focus, while only limited data from areas north of the river were included. Some municipalities were fully surveyed, while only selected sections of others could be examined.
For example, all cadastral zones in Bint Jbeil district were surveyed. In Tyre district, 74 of 75 cadastral areas were fully covered, while one was only partially included.
In Marjayoun, 17 of 33 areas were fully surveyed and 21 partially covered. In Nabatieh, only four of 52 areas were fully analysed, while 15 were partially examined. In Sidon, none of the 77 areas underwent a complete survey, with only five areas partially included in the assessment.
The report listed several additional limitations:
Critical infrastructure damage, including roads, bridges, electricity networks, water systems and telecommunications facilities, was not assessed.
Damage to underground shelters, basements and non-visible interior sections of buildings could not be detected.
No clear distinction could be made between residential, commercial and industrial structures.
Buildings with minor damage were excluded from debris-volume and cost calculations.
Structural density, shadows and narrow streets introduced potential margins of error in satellite analysis.
No field visits or on-site inspections were conducted to verify the findings. The assessment was carried out entirely through desk-based analysis of satellite imagery.
Given the scale of destruction and confidence in the methodology employed, no on-site verification procedures were undertaken in cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).
UNDP said the findings should be regarded as preliminary planning data and that the scope of the assessment would be expanded as additional satellite imagery and field information become available.
Officials noted that once excluded categories and infrastructure losses are taken into account, the true cost of the destruction in southern Lebanon is likely to be significantly higher than the estimates contained in the report.
Middle East
Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US
Assessments that efforts to restrain Israel in Lebanon are being shaped less in Beirut or Tel Aviv than in closed-door talks between Iranian and American negotiators resurfaced ahead of negotiations in the Swiss town of Bürgenstock.
Unlike the current approach adopted by the Lebanese government, Iran continues to pursue a strategy of leveraging its influence on the ground to secure diplomatic gains.
The Lebanese government, meanwhile, remains committed to a separate negotiating track that critics say facilitates concessions to Israel at the negotiating table in Washington that could not be achieved on the battlefield.
US Vice President JD Vance, who arrived in Switzerland to participate in the latest round of talks, confirmed that efforts to make the ceasefire in Lebanon permanent would be among the negotiations’ top priorities.
According to CNN, citing a diplomatic source familiar with the matter, the US and Iranian delegations agreed to convene an emergency session on the situation in Lebanon as the first item of discussion, placing the issue at the top of the agenda.
US says it faces difficulties over Israeli withdrawal
According to diplomatic sources cited by Al-Akhbar newspaper, US officials informed the Iranian side that Washington had made intensive efforts to persuade the Israeli government to complete a full withdrawal from Lebanon but had encountered significant difficulties in the process.
US officials requested Iranian support in facilitating Hezbollah’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon as part of efforts to enable an Israeli pullout.
The Iranian delegation responded that Hezbollah was an internal Lebanese matter. While indicating that Tehran did not oppose an agreement by the Lebanese authorities on a timetable providing for a rapid Israeli withdrawal, the delegation outlined what it viewed as its own area of responsibility.
Iranian representatives said both Tehran and Washington had committed to implementing measures aimed at ending the war across the region, including in Lebanon, and argued that the United States should exert pressure on Israel not only to uphold a ceasefire but also to withdraw quickly.
Iran reiterates Lebanon condition for final agreement
An Iranian official also told CNN that ending the conflict in Lebanon was the most important item on the Iranian delegation’s agenda.
During the talks, Vice President Vance said Washington would continue working toward peace between Lebanon and Israel and expressed hope that the temporary ceasefire could be transformed into a permanent agreement capable of delivering long-term stability.
Speaking before the session, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said Tehran would not begin negotiations on a final agreement with Washington unless the war in Lebanon was halted, as stipulated in the US-Iran memorandum of understanding.
In a post on X, Baghaei wrote: “It is not possible to move to the negotiation stage for a final agreement unless these provisions are implemented, foremost among them the first clause, which calls for ending the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Military and diplomatic developments ahead of the Bürgenstock talks threatened to undermine the understanding reached between the parties. Following Israeli attacks in Lebanon and what Iran described as an escalation of military tensions in violation of the US-Iran agreement, Tehran announced that it had closed the Strait of Hormuz to traffic.
In a statement, Iran’s Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters said the closure of the strait was only the first step in a series of measures planned by Tehran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry subsequently announced the suspension of the Geneva negotiations with the United States.
Following those developments, reports indicated that Washington intervened and increased pressure on Israel, leading Israeli military commanders to issue definitive orders for a complete halt to military operations in southern Lebanon for the second time within 24 hours.
Israeli media reports said the decision was not taken solely on Tel Aviv’s own initiative and that military operations were curtailed as a result of intense US pressure following Iran’s move in the Strait of Hormuz.
Middle East
US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed
The United States has lifted its naval blockade of Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, ending restrictions on vessels entering and leaving Iranian ports.
Announcing the development, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the US military was no longer blocking maritime traffic to Iranian ports and had halted all operations related to enforcing the naval blockade.
The statement added that US warships would remain in the region to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.
The decision to lift the blockade follows the memorandum of understanding signed by the United States and Iran on June 18, aimed at ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to maritime traffic.
After signing the document in France, where he was attending the G7 summit, Trump sent the agreement to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian for approval.
In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said a formal signing ceremony between the two delegations, previously scheduled to take place in Geneva on June 19, would no longer be held.
Negotiations to continue in Switzerland
According to Axios, citing sources familiar with the matter, the signing process for the memorandum of understanding was accelerated in order to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping as quickly as possible.
A planned meeting between US and Iranian representatives in Switzerland has not been cancelled. The talks are expected to focus on launching negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, with US Vice President James David Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf set to take part.
According to CNN, the 14-point memorandum calls for an immediate ceasefire on all fronts, the lifting of the naval blockade, the resumption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of oil sanctions on Iran and the withdrawal of US troops from areas surrounding Iran.
The agreement also includes the allocation of $300 billion for Iran’s economic reconstruction, the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and a 60-day negotiation process aimed at reaching a final agreement on the nuclear programme.
In return, the authorities in Tehran pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
