Middle East
A 24-hour ‘civil war’ trial in Iraq
Hundreds of supporters of Sadr raided the Presidential and Government Palace in the Green Zone in the capital Baghdad yesterday, and nearly 30 people lost their lives in the clash with the militia. Activists entered the buildings of rival Shiite organizations, set fire to some of them, and detained militia forces until Sadr’s announcement to end the protest today.
Muqtada es-Sadr, who emerged as the first party in the October 2019 elections and obtained the majority of seats in the Assembly, challenged the ethnic and sectarian political system established by the US after the invasion, and he announced that he would establish a government of reconciliation that would include all national parties, Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish. No matter how many votes they received, they were, however, accustomed to being attached to the government according to the quota system, and some faced obstacles from other Shiite groups directly affiliated with Iran. Led by Nuri al-Maliki, the Coordination Framework, using its effectiveness in the judiciary, passed the “two-thirds” decision, which made it impossible for Sadr to form a government. The Sadr group, which refused to agree with the Coordination Framework, resigned from the Parliament and turned to street protests. Sadr supporters, who held a protest in front of the Federal Supreme Court, which discussed the sit-in action in the Green Zone, the raid of the Parliament and the Presidency and the latest application to dissolve the Parliament, did not back down on the following three issues:
- We will not agree to a compromise that includes the “evil trio” (Nuri al-Maliki, Qays al-Hazeli and Ammar al-Hakim).
- Parliament shall be dissolved.
- Early elections shall be held.
Why did Sadr withdraw from politics?
While awaiting the decision of the Federal Supreme Court’s Assembly, Sadr announced that he had withdrawn from the political arena with a sudden decision, within 24 hours of the call “Let’s build a new Iraq without militias, uncontrolled weapons, violence, war, sectarianism, tried parties and sectarian quotas”. So what prompted Sadr to make this statement, which led many cities, especially Baghdad, to turn into battlefields?
The fact that the Shiite Taklid Merci Kazim al-Hairi called for Sadr supporters to follow the Iranian religious leader Ali Khamenei while he was retiring, citing health problems, was undoubtedly the most important factor that prompted Sadr to make this statement. The statement by Hairi, who is the second-ranking religious leader, is not commonplace, as it is not only a sign of disrespect for the biggest Taklid Merci Ayatollah Sistani, but also different from the usual practice of his colleagues, who normally leave the matter to the conscience of the people. Hairi, who had a very limited following apart from the Sadr movement, aimed to undermine Sadr’s legitimacy with this statement he made under pressure from Iran, according to some commentators.
However, Sadr movement is a political and social formation rather than a religious movement in the classical sense, which will be resolved with a fatwa of Hairi, which they follow as a religious authority. Therefore, Hairi’s statement does not seem to have affected Sadrists, except Sadr, who is known to be emotional. Moreover, it is also a mystery whether Sadr took this decision “emotionally” or whether he was at any stage of a grand plan. If someone comes out and says that they watched the trailer of what Sadr can do as a show of strength, there wouldn’t be too much of an objection.
The country done through a 24-hour hell
As a matter of fact, about an hour after Sadr’s decision, yesterday, thousands of Sadr supporters entered the Green Zone and stormed the Presidential Palace. Upon the entry of the Sadr Movement’s armed force Seraya es-Selam (Peace Brigades) into the Green Zone with heavy weapons, Prime Minister Kazimi canceled its routine program, while the Joint Operations Command declared a nationwide curfew ‘until further notice’. Hashd al-Shaabi units within the Coordination Framework against the Peace Brigades, wearing the uniforms of the security forces, opened fire on the demonstrators. In the videos circulating on social media, it was seen that the demonstrators were targeted and killed by snipers. The clashes in which nearly 30 people, most of whom were pro-Sadr lost their lives and more than 150 were injured, continued today.
The Peace Brigades raided the offices and headquarters of the “evil trio” and especially Kays al-Hazeli, not only in Baghdad but also in many places such as Basra and Najaf. Sources close to Sadr said that around 300 headquarters and offices of Maliki’s Dawa Party, Kays al-Hazeli’s Asayib Ahl al-Haq Movement and Ammar al-Hakim’s National Wisdom Movement and their armed militias were raided and some set on fire.
Making a statement at noon today, Sadr asked his supporters, who were clashing on the street, to return to their homes within an hour. Sadr said, “I apologize to the Iraqi people for the conflicts. This revolution is not a revolution the very moment it ceases to be peaceful, thus I cannot call it a revolution. Down with such a revolution.” With Sadr’s call, the curfew in the country was lifted as his supporters returned to their homes.
On the other hand, it should be noted that while the country is going through a 24-hour hell, there has been no call for calm or any statement from the leaders of the Coordination Framework, who are candidates to form a government and run the country.
Why cannot Sadr get along with the “evil trio”?
Sadr’s animosity with Maliki, one of the leaders who formed the Coordination Framework, dates back to 2008. Maliki, together with the US troops, attacked the Iraqi army against Sadr’s Mahdi Army and smashed the Sadrists. Especially the massacres in Basra were engraved in the memory of the Sadr members.
The Asayib Ahl al-Haq Movement and its leader Hazeli, which was founded in 2006-07 by leaving the Mahdi Army, argued that Sadr’s resistance should be suppressed by force after the election. Asayib Ahl al-Haq, which is close to Iran and partially financed by Iran, also came to the fore as an organization that used disproportionate violence to the public in the protests in 2019.
Ammar al-Hakim, who has political weight, seems to be on Sadr’s list due to his inability and indecision to stand up to the Maliki-Hazeli duo, who advocated the use of harsh force against the Sardis.
Why is Sadr against Iran?
Sadr, who marked the recent history of Iraq with his anti-US sentiment, took part in the Shiite governments established after the occupation until 2018. Sadr, who had the most seats in the 2018 elections, which was similar to what happened in the October 2019 elections, could not form a government again due to the obstruction of other Shiite organizations. From the side of Sadr, who is also a Shiite, the picture was as follows: Shiite organizations, some of whom were directly led by Iran, and others close to Iran, blocked Sadr’s path.
While these were happening in the political arena, the economic crisis peaked in the country, which was struggling with problems after ISIS, and the names of politicians began to be mentioned with scandals such as corruption and bribery. All these developments led to the most extensive and widespread protest actions in Iraq after 2003. In addition to economic reasons such as unemployment, lack of basic infrastructure and lack of livelihood, the Iraqi people also took a stance against foreign interventions. The Sadr movement, which could not form a government in the parliament and went into opposition, rose to a position leading this popular movement from the grassroots, thanks to its power in the streets. Now, Sadr has developed a discourse that opposes not only the US intervention but also the total “foreign intervention”. However, the real “relation severing” development in Sadr was the US murder of Iranian Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani and Hashd al-Shaabi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis near Baghdad International Airport with a drone attack on January 3, 2020, and then a week later. Iran has also had missile attacks targeting the US presence in Iraq. In summary, Iraq, which is in political instability and economic bottleneck, has also become a piece of land where the USA and Iran openly share their trump cards.
When Sadr hosted Ismail Kaani, who replaced Qasem Soleimani as the leader of the Quds Force, he made his position clear by openly telling him, “Don’t interfere in Iraq.” After the 2021 elections, he refused to meet with the Quds Force commander, who came to Iraq to “mediate” between Sadr and the Coordination Framework.
Is Iran against Sadr?
Sadr’s opposition to foreign and therefore Iranian intervention is understandable. So, how much is Iran against Sadr? First of all, every country, if it has such an opportunity, wants political forces directly connected to it or closer to it to be in power. The same is true for Iran. However, it would not be the right approach to try to read Iran’s attitude through figures like Hazeli, who are close to Iran. Because in this case, it becomes impossible to explain the attitude of Hadi al Amiri, who is undoubtedly the closest name to Iran, towards Sadr. The leader of the Fatah Alliance, Amiri, the most important name of the Coordination Framework, is the name that broke the hard power insistence of the Maliki-Hazeli duo against Sadr. Amiri, who is also the leader of the Badr Organization, which was established directly by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards of Iran, is at the forefront of the policy based on reconciliation and dialogue towards the Sadr movement, and Sadr is careful to keep Amiri apart in his speeches where he criticizes the Coordination Framework. Putting all the facts at the bottom, Tehran’’s stance becomes even clearer: Putting up with Sadr rather than fighting Sadr. Tehran knows that a possible Shiite-Shiite conflict will cause great harm to itself along with Iraq.
But why?
It seems that Sadr, who refused reconciliation, is responsible for all these events, but the main reason is the freak system that the USA brought with the occupation. The insistence of the “corrupts”, who have been benefiting from this system for 20 years, to keep their lucrative positions. The fact that the faces whose corruption and failures are revealed deserve to rule. The endless love of armchairs for those who do not take the country a mile further, those who draw weapons against the people who object, those who leave the cities to terrorist organizations, and those who render the state apparatus inoperable…
Sadr is challenging this political order. However, his open-ended rhetoric, sudden decisions and his refusal to even sit at the table harm both Sadr himself, his movement and the Iraqi people. Sadr, who is an important and trusted figure not only for Shiites but also for Iraqis from other sects and ethnic backgrounds, can be successful not today, but in the near future, if he acts within the framework of a program, not with sudden decisions or sudden outbursts. Maybe Sadr should roll up his sleeves to overthrow the sectarian political system with a “non-sectarian political party”. The rule of a political party that includes Shiites, Sunnis, Turkmen and Kurds will automatically lift the system in which Sadr rebelled into the dusty pages of history. As Gandhi said, “If you want to change the world, start with yourself.”
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.
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.
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.
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon
India’s Russian oil imports hit record high as Middle East tensions disrupt markets
Israel looks to Latin America as Isaac Accords seek to expand regional partnerships
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
-
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
