Connect with us

Middle East

Lebanon finally got a president

Published

on

Lebanon, which has been in a presidential vacuum since October 30, 2022, finally got its fourteenth president.

It is difficult for a poor, fragmented and weak country like Lebanon, where the presidency is the most important part of its government, to remain without an administrator for more than two years.

Joseph Aoun, the country’s army chief, was finally elected by Lebanon’s parliament as president. Aoun is being backed by several key political parties inside the country, as well as US, France, and Saudi Arabia in international affairs.

Aoun was sworn in as the president after winning 99 votes from the 128-member parliament and will remain in this position for six years.

While the parliament held thirteen special sessions over the past two years, it failed to elect a president. Aoun is the fourth military figure from the Maronite Christians who sits on the Lebanese presidential seat. Being a military man made him stay out of political circles and enter the field as a “cross-party candidate” and win the votes of many political currents.

Here are three points over selection of Aoun:

Frist:

Hezbollah fell short of its previous position, which if this does not indicate its weakness, it shows its flexibility. Of course, according to his critics, this flexibility is due to the weakness that has emerged after the attacks of Israel.

Hezbollah and the Amal Movement are two Shiite parties that have 27 seats in the parliament. Salmian Faranjieh, the leader of al-Murda movement, was the candidate of Amal and Hezbollah, who withdrew from the competition. While he entered the campaign in June 2023, he did not get votes and did not give his opponent a chance to win. One reason for delaying the election of the president was the difference between the candidates of Hezbollah and Amal and the candidates of other groups.

As a Maronite Christian, Franjieh had a favorable view of Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and the so-called “axis of resistance” whose victory was unacceptable to the United States of America, France and Saudi Arabia. These five countries are mentioned because the foreign factor acts more strongly than the domestic factor in directing the developments in Lebanon.

Now this time, Farnjieh refrained from entering the elections and supported Aoun – which made the latter win. It is clear that if the two Shiite currents had not shown flexibility, it is very likely that Aoun would not have won either.

For example, he got 71 votes in the first round and failed to get two-thirds of the votes (86 votes), Because the Shiite representatives were content with refusing to vote – but in the second round, after getting their consent, he managed to get 99 votes, while he needed 65 votes.

But since he was the head of the army, he could not become the president based on the provisions of the constitution, and he still needed two-thirds of the votes. Of course, it happened in 2008 as well, when Michel Suleiman, the commander of the army at the time, was a candidate for the presidency, the speaker of the parliament announced that if he won more than two-thirds of the votes in the second round, he would waive the amendment of the constitution, which happened.

Now it seems that this has become a tradition. Amal and Hezbollah apparently fell short because their candidate had no chance of winning and the latter is under more internal and external pressure than ever before. Maybe they did so in exchange for receiving promises or because they had no choice.

Second:

Although Aoun won the support of two Shia currents in the second round, after his victory, he made some points in his speech that were not pleasing to Hezbollah – it is in the situation that this group has been weakened and trying to revive it is time-consuming and costly.

The new president of Lebanon said “I will use my role as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces to confirm the government’s right to carry weapons. We should not rely on the outside to bully each other.”

If you pay a little attention, you can understand that Aoun is referring to Hezbollah, because when it comes to the disarmament of militias and the monopoly of weapons in the hands of the government, this group can be the target. It is also Hezbollah that does not respect the rulers of Beirut and other groups and bullies Aoun. Because the arsenal has weapons that the Lebanese army does not have. When Aoun talks about external forces, he apparently means Iran because it supports Hezbollah.

More importantly, Aoun played a role in the ceasefire talks between Hezbollah and Israel. The Lebanese army is also responsible for implementing the provisions of the ceasefire agreement. Being a military man, he understands well the importance of arms monopoly in the hands of the government, and the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council are also available in the field.

Therefore, it is not unlikely that he will make efforts to disarm Hezbollah, evacuate southern Lebanon from the presence of this group’s militias, strengthen the army, etc.; so as to arouse the dissatisfaction of the supporters of this group. If he did not do so in the past, it was because he was not in a decision-making position and perhaps, he did not want to involve the army in doing something that he could not handle. Now what is helping him is the support of America, the different UN resolutions, the absence of Bashar Assad and the weakness of Hezbollah.

Third:

Saudi Arabia’s greed for role-playing is also interesting. Aoun is on the receiving end of Riyadh’s support. It is even said that he made his financial aid to Lebanon conditional on his victory. America and France also wanted Aoun’s victory, which would pave the way for Riyadh to act in Lebanon.

While the Saudi rivals (Iran and Qatar) were looking for other options: Franjieh and Elias Albusiri, as mentioned in (first analysis), Farnjieh was the candidate of the Shiites, which is also favorable in Tehran’s opinion, but he withdrew. But al-Basiri, who is supported by Qatar, went against Aoun and did not get a vote.

More importantly, Yazid bin Farhan, adviser to the Saudi Foreign Minister, has been in Lebanon for a few days now, and his role was prominent in Aoun’s victory. Even one of the members of the Lebanese Parliament wrote the name of Ben Farhan on the ballot as “Joseph Amos Ben Farhan” and showed it to others. All this indicates the presence of Riyadh in the context of developments in Lebanon, something that can be interpreted as unfavorable space for Tehran and Doha.

All in all, the political deadlock in Lebanon was broken and now there is a promise of political opening. Now it is expected that Beirut will be removed from the conflict of interests of major regional and global powers and sectarian conflicts in order to find a way to get rid of the current chaos.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Middle East

France explores Syrian transit routes as alternative oil corridor to bypass Strait of Hormuz

Published

3 days ago

on

10/07/2026

By

France is evaluating the creation of alternative energy routes through Syria to mitigate potential disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz following the resumption of hostilities between the United States and Iran. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated that Paris is working on new transit routes for the transport of Persian Gulf oil, with Syria emerging as a prominent option in this context.

“Among the initiatives we have pursued since the beginning of this crisis is the concept of preparing alternative routes, in order to avoid remaining dependent on blockages that could occur here or there,” Barrot said.

Barrot indicated that Syria, which has entered a process of reunification following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad administration, could become a “new regional hub.” The French minister characterized the country as a strategic corridor that could transport Persian Gulf oil to the Mediterranean, thereby reducing the impact of potential shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz.

Stating that France wishes to expand commercial and economic cooperation with the Damascus administration, Barrot expressed that they aim to establish a secure transit route for Gulf producing nations through this cooperation.

According to Barrot, implementing this plan requires a comprehensive assessment of existing infrastructure and the provision of necessary security guarantees. The French minister noted that these efforts are of critical importance for securing global energy markets.

Barrot’s remarks followed French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Damascus on Tuesday. During the visit, Macron met with Ahmed Shara, the former al-Qaeda leader who has declared himself President of Syria.

Patrick Pouyanné, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of TotalEnergies, was among the delegation accompanying Macron. Characterizing Syria as a country situated “at the crossroads of the Middle East,” Pouyanné said it could establish a vital energy link between Iraq and the Mediterranean.

In response to the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Iraq has been shipping its oil via tankers through Syria for export since April.

More than 600,000 tons of fuel were exported through this route between April and June. Last month, Iraqi and Syrian officials discussed the reactivation of the Kirkuk-Baniyas oil pipeline and the establishment of energy transit mechanisms.

TotalEnergies has also signed a memorandum of understanding for an offshore exploration block in the Mediterranean. However, Pouyanné stated that beyond this, the company currently has no concrete projects under development.

Stating that security conditions in the country have not yet stabilized, Pouyanné said, “It is clear today that the security situation does not yet permit us to operate here. However, I believe coming here, to Damascus, is a positive initiative.”

Shortly after Pouyanné’s statements, two bombs reportedly exploded near the Four Seasons Hotel, where the French delegation was staying.

Stating that the Syrian administration must be given time to establish control over the country, Pouyanné said, “We must not demand too much,” adding, “We need to be a little patient.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

Senior US military officers ignored system alerts on obsolete targets, leading to strike on Iranian school

Published

5 days ago

on

08/07/2026

By

Senior US military commanders approved strike lists despite automated system warnings indicating that intelligence on certain targets in Iran was years out of date and required revalidation, according to a CNN report citing three sources familiar with the decision-making process.

The warnings were bypassed to “speed things up” under intense pressure to rapidly designate targets during the opening days of the conflict. One of the targets approved by commanders under these conditions resulted in a strike on a school in Minab.

This military decision is directly linked to the February 28 strike on the Shajara Tayyiba School in Minab, which killed at least 168 children and 14 teachers. The heavy loss of life makes the strike one of the mass casualty events involving the highest number of civilian deaths in the recent history of the US military.

According to the sources, automated system warning messages indicating that the intelligence was obsolete were already integrated into the database used during the target development process. Within this system, a target could only be added to a strike list with the approval of a senior officer. Two sources stated that the decision by senior commanders to ignore these warnings directly contributed to the school being targeted “by mistake.”

Military officials reportedly realized within days of the strike on the school that the error stemmed from outdated information. Despite the passage of months, the Pentagon has not released its investigation report on the incident.

A White House official stated that the investigation remains ongoing, asserting, “As we have said before, the US does not target civilians.”

The Pentagon referred inquiries on the matter to US Central Command (CENTCOM), which declined to comment, citing the active investigation.

School and military facility were located within the same compound

The strike reportedly occurred while the US military was targeting an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facility located near the Shajara Tayyiba School. Initial military investigative findings also pointed to this conclusion.

Satellite imagery reveals negligence in the target analysis process. Imagery from 2013 shows the school and the IRGC base located within the same compound, whereas imagery from 2016 clearly indicates that the school had been separated from the base by a fence and provided with a separate entrance.

In satellite imagery dated December 2025, dozens of children can be seen playing in the schoolyard.

The strike took place on the first day of operations following Donald Trump’s decision to launch military action, a period during which military officials and intelligence analysts worked under intense pressure to update thousands of targets.

Analysts were unable to update all records in the Pentagon database prior to the operation. As a result, records for multiple targets—including the IRGC facility adjacent to the elementary school—consisted of information that was more than 10 years old.

Due to the accelerated timeline, analysts prioritized updating “high-priority” records, which included moving targets with a high probability of being struck first and locations posing an immediate threat to US forces. Because fixed facilities were deemed a lower priority, the information for the facility near the school was not updated.

Disconnected databases and staffing shortages compounded the error

At the center of the investigation are two separate targeting databases used by the Pentagon. These are known as the Modernized Integrated Database (MIDB), which was built in the 1980s and relies on manual data entry, and the Mitigation and Analysis Reporting System (MARS), a new artificial intelligence-backed digital platform.

Both systems indicated that information needed to be updated before use. However, efforts to fully transition to the MARS system were reportedly years behind schedule, leaving official targeting data still dependent on the legacy MIDB system.

An intelligence analyst had previously noted changes on the ground in a separate digital tool, but because this tool was not connected to the official targeting database, the information did not reach commanders. How this disconnect influenced the targeting of the school is also being examined as part of the investigation.

Following the strike, Donald Trump suggested that Iran might be responsible for the incident, later asserting that responsibility might never be determined. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the strike would be thoroughly investigated, claiming that the US takes every possible measure to prevent civilian casualties.

However, due to cuts implemented early in Hegseth’s tenure, Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) teams within CENTCOM were reportedly facing severe staffing shortages.

Under the cuts made by Hegseth prior to the conflict with Iran, the 10-person civilian casualty specialist staff at CENTCOM was reduced to a single full-time employee.

Sources added that while the remaining staff did everything they could, they lacked adequate resources due to the budget and personnel cuts implemented by Hegseth.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US revokes Iran oil license and launches airstrikes following Strait of Hormuz tanker attacks

Published

5 days ago

on

08/07/2026

By

The US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has revoked a general license that permitted commercial transactions involving Iranian oil.

According to a statement issued by the agency, the “General License X” regulation, which had been in effect since June 21, 2026, was fully rescinded as of July 7, 2026, and replaced by the newly introduced “General License X1” regulation.

The statement noted that a wind-down period lasting until July 17 has been granted to allow for the completion of transactions initiated prior to the revocation.

The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs reacted strongly to the OFAC decision, declaring that Tehran will take all necessary measures to protect its national security and interests.

In a statement shared on the ministry’s official Telegram channel, Iran stated: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran decisively condemns the US Department of the Treasury’s decision to revoke the temporary suspension of sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil. This step is a flagrant violation of Article 10 of the memorandum of understanding concerning the cessation of military conflict.”

Following the decision, the US Armed Forces conducted a series of airstrikes targeting Iranian territory during the night of July 8. US officials maintained that the military operation was a response to Tehran’s actions in the region. Washington characterized Iran’s conduct as a violation of the ceasefire regime and a threat to the security of navigation in the region.

The Iranian state broadcaster, IRIB, reported that explosions occurred at various locations across the country. News sources noted that seven explosions were heard near the village of Taherui in the Sirik district, and six explosions were heard near the city of Qeshm.

Previously, US media outlets including The Wall Street Journal and Axios, citing US officials, had reported that despite the active ceasefire, forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had attacked oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz.

According to data shared by the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a tanker off the coast of Oman was struck by an unidentified munition, causing a fire on board. It was reported that the incident resulted in no casualties, injuries, or environmental pollution.

The Wall Street Journal reported that one of the targeted vessels may have been the “Al Rekayyat,” a tanker owned by the Qatar-based shipping company Nakilat.

The vessel sustained damage to its engine room, though the crew was reported to be safe. Axios reported that while the attacked vessels sustained damage, no major destruction had occurred.

On June 18, 2026, the US and Iran had signed a memorandum of understanding that established a two-month ceasefire and envisioned the initiation of negotiations for a more comprehensive agreement.

Following the start of the ceasefire period, the US had also struck targets in Iran on June 27 and June 28, citing Iranian actions against commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Following those strikes, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had announced that operations would be launched against US facilities located in Arab countries.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey