Connect with us

Middle East

Trump’s return to power: Tehran is in the throes of fear and hope

Published

on

Undoubtedly, the news of Donald Trump’s victory as the 47th president-elect of the United States is without a doubt deafening for the Islamic Republic of Iran, because in the four years of his last-time as president in the White House, Tehran was in dire straits in every way.

Qassem Soleimani, Iranian major general and commander of the IRGC Quds Force, was assassinated by Trump’s order in Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq in January 2020. Trump was also ordered to put the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Iran on the blacklist of the US. In the same way, what the administrations of Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani under the name of “JCPOA” were with great difficulty, carelessly cottoned them in the blink of an eye and even in the context did not respect the point of view of his country’s western allies (European Troika).

However, Trump did not stop there and tried to further isolate Iran by supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Now that Trump has become the ruler again, it is obvious that what it has done against Tehran is circulating in the minds of Iranians again, and it evokes the fear that it may repeat the same path.

We don’t speak pessimistically. We discussed Trump’s possible confrontation with Iran that he may not act as he did in the past, but the point is how Iran will react or take action if Trump did not change.

Iran is ready to face Trump

It is important to know whether the Iranian side is ready to deal with Trump or not? If Iran is ready, to what extent? Of course, this is in the case that the American side gives a green light, otherwise, it is not possible. Since Tehran has received severe wounds by Trump, it is not unlikely that it will go to him with a green light. Anyway, the argument is aimed at proving the interaction-seeking tendency of Iran’s 14th government with Trump’s second government, which is explained below:

First:

It’s true that when Trump first entered the White House, no one knew him well. Maybe the Americans didn’t know it right either, because he suddenly entered the field of politics, he quickly won and achieved what he wanted. During his first election campaign and after winning, numerous articles and books were written about him, but when he went to the White House, he took actions that worried even the Western allies of his own country.

Qassem Soleimani, Iranian major general and commander of the IRGC Quds Force, was assassinated by Trump’s order in Iraq.

Therefore, from then on, his behavior is called unpredictable and what he says is mostly viewed with skepticism. Now, Trump’s four-year record is like a mirror before the eyes of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Of course, no country knows him better than Iran.

In the past, Tehran bowed its back under the pressure of Trump because it did not know him well and was always faced with actions which were already executed by the then Trump administration. Now that Tehran knows Trump, it is trying to reduce its level of effectiveness of what he is doing. Maybe this recognition will encourage the parties to agree to a new deal.

Second:

The fact is that Iran is in a situation where it cannot deal with Trump’s adventure. The inflammatory situation of the region is not to his benefit but to his detriment. It is true that Trump is a deal maker, but he is not a joker. The so-called “axis of resistance” in the Middle East has lost its former hegemony.

For example, Hamas, which was a strong bulwark against Israel, has been weakened and its future is unclear. Although Hezbollah has not been weakened to that extent, it is in unprecedented trouble, and it is not clear to what extent the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 will limit its “scope of action”.

Israel is also standing by the sword and if there is no apparent pressure from the White House, it will not hesitate to enter into a “decisive war” with Tehran. Considering the above cases, the Iranian side, understanding its prohibitions and the knowledge it has gained from Trump, is not disinterested in tuning the instrument of reconciliation with the USA.

Third:

If we pay attention to Trump’s election and non-election speeches, we can call him a “peace seeker”. Of course, his pacifism comes from his economic concern.” When he says he will end wars in the world, he means that his country’s economy will not suffer. In his election campaigns, he constantly emphasized the economy and used it as a tool to pressure his rival.

Even when he brings up the story of immigrants, his intention is that their presence harms the US economy. If Trump is serious in his pacifism, he can end the war in Gaza and Lebanon – something that will make the Iranian side inclined towards the USA.

Iran’s Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref during his visit to Saudi Arabia, said that the world is waiting for Trump’s slogans to end wars. This statement by Aref contradicts what Trump did against Iran in the last four years of his tenure, but still Iran hopes Trump delivers on his promises.

Trump got angry with Iran to such an extent that many thought that he was a warmonger, contrary to her slogans. Trump is not belligerent, but the pressure he puts on his rival is not less than the negative consequences of entering into a war. Maybe this time he wants to resolve the previous contradiction.

Only those in Iran, some of the US’s strong competitors in other parts of the world, see Trump’s return as an opportunity rather than a threat, for which Russia is a clear example. In Moscow’s view, Trump is a pacifist Republican who wants peace, and therefore, Moscow seeks to use his presence in the White House.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has fought stubbornly against Moscow with Washington’s money for the past three years and has killed thousands of Russian soldiers with American weapons. When the rulers of the Kremlin look at Trump as an opportunity with this situation, why should the Iranian side deny the necessity of dialogue with him.

Fourth:

Now that a reformist government is at work in Iran, it can be said that the prospects for the relationship between Tehran and Washington under Trump rule will not be as dark as in the past.

Apart from the fact that the reformists are interested in dialogue with the Westerners, especially the US, Masoud Pezeshkian, the president of Iran, cares more than any reformist to move on a calm and safe path in foreign policy.

He did not have a clear slogan in his election campaigns, except for the lifting of sanctions – something that will not be possible without coming to terms with America. But the dark side of the current reality is that Pezeshkian inherited the state of war with Israel, which definitely impacted any kind of talks with the US in regards to bilateral issues. But apparently, he will not allow his government to become a victim of a war.

Of course, there are those in Iran who take Trump’s return as a good omen – they think that while the narrow path of negotiation with the US will be blinded, the 14th government will not be able to fulfill what it has promised. Radical fundamentalists think this way, and Pezeshkian and top officials around him understand their intentions well.

Therefore, Pezeshkian and his close officials are vigilantly monitoring the situation and will respond to even a weak voice from the US that indicates negotiations. Pezeshkian’s 100 days of risky government has become the headline of Iranian media these days and a warm discussion is going on between supporters and opponents.

Middle East

UNDP estimates $1.38 billion in building damage across southern Lebanon

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Middle East

Iran makes Lebanon ceasefire prerequisite for final agreement with US

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Middle East

US lifts naval blockade of Iran after ceasefire memorandum signed

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey