Middle East
Lebanon finally got a president
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.
Middle East
Iran resumes ballistic missile assembly using stockpiled parts
Iran has resumed ballistic missile production in underground facilities, despite statements by Israeli and US authorities asserting that this capacity had been completely eliminated.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing US and Middle Eastern officials, the Tehran administration is utilizing pre-stockpiled components in the manufacturing process.
Officials report that despite strikes on missile sites and industrial installations at the beginning of the war, Iran continues the assembly of both solid- and liquid-fuelled missiles.
Intelligence data indicates activity at numerous underground centres, including the Khojir complex in the southeast of the country, along with efforts to establish additional underground assembly points to protect against new air strikes.
Current assembly operations are being maintained at lower volumes compared with pre-war levels, as US and Israeli operations destroyed several facilities and a naval blockade has impeded the import of components and solid-fuel ingredients.
Assessing the process, Tal Inbar, a senior analyst at the US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, stressed that damaged infrastructure can be repaired during periods when facilities are not targeted, and parts procured from other countries can be stored there.
Inbar noted that it would be naive to believe Iran is not rebuilding its missile production capacity.
Arguing that the facilities were destroyed and Tehran has suffered severe losses, the official stated that Iran remains weaker than ever before, and US President Donald Trump will never permit the country to acquire nuclear weapons.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that the US has destroyed up to 90% of Iran’s drone, ballistic missile, and naval industrial infrastructure, severely degrading Tehran’s ability to launch missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Another US government official pointed out that the Tehran administration may have revived production, albeit on a low scale, following preliminary talks conducted in mid-June with the Trump administration regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and ending the war. The official noted that existing stockpiles are sufficient to assemble at least two hundred missiles.
A CNN report in late May indicated that the Tehran administration was attempting to reopen underground missile shelters, struck by the US and Israel with costly munitions, using bulldozers and dump trucks.
Excavation activities accelerated after the April ceasefire decision; out of 69 tunnel entrances struck across 18 distinct locations, 50 have been made accessible again.
Experts stressed that it is impossible to destroy missile power solely by bombing tunnel entrances, underlining the limitations of such bombardments.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claimed in April that they had effectively ended Iran’s missile programme. However, an NBC News report noted that Tehran utilized the ceasefire period to reconstitute its military strength.
Middle East
Mohammed bin Salman urges Trump to strike Houthis after Mokha falls
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has requested that US President Donald Trump launch air strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.
According to two US officials who spoke to Axios, Trump rejected the request, and US officials emphasised that the administration has no plans for direct intervention against the Houthis for now.
Oil prices surged on Thursday after the resistance led by Houthi militias (Ansarallah) seized the strategic coastal city of Mokha in Yemen.
This development brought the Yemeni resistance one step closer to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which is vital for global trade and Saudi oil exports.
With Iran already disrupting traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, Houthi control over Bab el-Mandeb could provide Tehran with powerful new leverage over the US and its Gulf allies.
On Thursday, as Houthi forces advanced towards the coastal city of Mokha and Saudi-backed Yemeni forces retreated, bin Salman telephoned Trump to brief him on the deteriorating situation.
A few hours later, the prince called again to request that Trump carry out US air strikes against the Houthis.
Trump declined, but a US official stated that the administration would provide Saudi Arabia with intelligence and targeting data on the Houthis.
The official noted that approximately 200 US military personnel are currently stationed in Saudi Arabia, providing non-military support.
A senior Trump administration official indicated that Washington’s priority is keeping the Red Sea open, while leaving the broader fight to regional partners.
“We are in continuous dialogue with Saudi Arabia and the Government of the Republic of Yemen regarding regional stability,” the official said.
The official continued:
“The US remains focused on protecting our core national security interests, such as ensuring freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, while empowering our regional partners to take the lead in managing and resolving regional security challenges.”
The US is concerned by the rapidly escalating conflict in Yemen and is seeking to avoid direct military intervention while increasing its support for Saudi Arabia.
According to two sources familiar with the matter, Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander of US Central Command (CENTCOM), travelled to Saudi Arabia on Thursday for urgent coordination meetings.
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemeni resistance forces reignited in July after Riyadh blocked an Iranian aircraft carrying senior Houthi officials from landing in Sanaa following their return from Ali Khamenei’s funeral.
Bin Salman requested Trump’s political support to strike Sanaa airport, but made clear that Saudi Arabia did not require US military assistance. Trump granted his support.
The Houthis subsequently retaliated by attacking Saudi tankers in the Red Sea. These strikes threatened a route crucial to the kingdom’s oil exports, and the group later expanded its attacks to Saudi energy facilities.
Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies responded with air strikes and ground operations against Houthi positions.
Saudi Arabia’s request for direct US military intervention marks a sharp reversal from July, when Riyadh informed Washington that it could manage the Houthis on its own.
As clashes intensified, the Saudis began seeking progressively greater support from the US.
Sources close to the discussions noted that in recent weeks, US military and civilian officials informed their Saudi counterparts that Trump’s directive is to keep American forces focused on Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, and to avoid opening a new front.
Middle East
Netanyahu ignored MBZ warning on Hamas 7 October plan, report says
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly ignored a direct warning from UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the run-up to 7 October 2023, according to an investigation by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
The report states that the UAE leader, widely known as MBZ, was convinced in September 2023 that an explosion was imminent in the region, particularly given the escalating tensions in the West Bank.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who maintains close ties with bin Zayed, recounted: “In the months leading up to the war, he spoke with me about this issue frequently. He consistently conveyed the message that the situation needed to be de-escalated. He even dispatched a special envoy to Israel who met with the prime minister. The emir appeared to sense that the region was on the verge of erupting.”
MBZ also engaged in direct discussions with Netanyahu. These exchanges followed a standard operational protocol: a representative from the United Arab Emirates embassy would arrive at the prime minister’s office equipped with a specialised, secure telephone device to ensure confidentiality.
However, according to the newspaper, the call initiated by bin Zayed on this occasion was extraordinary in nature.
A week and a half before 7 October 2023, the UAE ruler placed a call to Netanyahu from the Presidential Palace in Abu Dhabi, and the two leaders spoke for 45 minutes.
During this conversation, bin Zayed warned that Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader in Gaza, was planning a major operation against Israel.
Bin Zayed voiced deep concern that such an event would not only lead to significant bloodshed, but would also destabilise the entire region and undermine the Abraham Accords.
Haaretz reported that three senior foreign sources possess direct knowledge of the call’s contents, marking the first public disclosure of the conversation’s existence.
A close Palestinian adviser to bin Zayed, who had emigrated from Gaza to Abu Dhabi years earlier and maintained extensive connections across the Gaza Strip, was also present during the exchange.
According to the adviser, the UAE ruler stressed to Netanyahu that Israel needed to prepare for this specific threat.
The adviser stated:
“The emir explained that, according to his assessment, Sinwar was preparing for a major event. He told Netanyahu that Israel had to be prepared. At the same time, he proposed working towards an economic solution for the Gaza Strip to prevent escalation, alongside calming the situation in the West Bank.”
Bin Zayed urged Netanyahu to take the matter seriously. Yet, to the emir’s surprise, the prime minister reacted with relative calm.
Netanyahu told bin Zayed that, in his own assessment, Hamas was planning to operate in the West Bank area. Reassuring the Emirati leader, Netanyahu insisted that Israel was prepared for any scenario.
The UAE leader later recounted his conversation with Netanyahu and his subsequent warning to CIA Director William J. Burns.
Bin Zayed shared with Burns the intuitive alarm he had sought to convey to Netanyahu—that “something over there is about to blow”—and noted the Israeli prime minister’s conviction that the unstable theatre was in fact the West Bank.
“The emir hoped that, despite Netanyahu’s reserved reaction, he would take the message seriously and take action,” the adviser said.
However, neither anticipated that the prime minister would hear the warning without briefing the heads of his defence and security establishments: neither the director of the Shin Bet, nor the director of the Mossad, nor the chief of staff of the Israel Defence Forces was informed of MBZ’s warning.
Haaretz noted that Gaza-related negotiations between Israel and Hamas had been proceeding smoothly in early 2023, providing the context in which the Emirati ruler’s concerns emerged.
The report received swift corroboration from the Israeli political opposition. Former prime minister and leader of the B’Yachad party, Naftali Bennett, stated that he knew the warning issued by UAE leader Mohamed bin Zayed to Netanyahu concerning Hamas’s plans prior to 7 October was genuine.
Speaking to 103FM, Bennett said: “I am telling you: I know this to be true.”
Bennett continued:
“Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE warned Netanyahu that Sinwar was planning an operation. The head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Abbas Kamel, also notified Netanyahu a few days before the massacre that a major operation was being planned. I do not wish to discuss my sources with anyone. I am telling you: I know this fact to be true.”
Contending that Netanyahu had led Israel “blindly into this horrific disaster,” the opposition figure asserted: “He was so deeply captive to the conception that Hamas was an asset that, despite receiving explicit warnings, he did nothing.”
Bennett maintained that Netanyahu bears direct responsibility for 7 October, not merely by virtue of being prime minister, but because “he spent 15 years strengthening Hamas and doing nothing.”
-
Europe5 days agoGermany’s CDU drafts tougher citizenship rules to counter AfD
-
Russia2 weeks agoWhat to know about Russia’s upcoming State Duma elections?
-
Europe2 weeks agoMarine Le Pen leads all 2027 French presidential scenarios, poll shows
-
Middle East2 weeks agoIran expands deterrence as Gulf strikes expose US munitions limits, analysts say
-
Diplomacy1 week agoGeoffrey Roberts sees Ukraine war concluding within coming months
-
Europe1 week agoGerman industrial bosses push for return to 40-hour working week
-
Russia2 weeks agoRussia warns NATO over Arctic militarisation and conflict risks
-
Asia2 weeks agoBOJ faces critical rate decision as US presses for faster hikes
