Lebanon: Israel Kills 3,884 Civilians, Injures 11,856

The Lebanese Health Ministry announced the total death toll from the Israeli military offensive, from 2 March to 17 June, 2026, rose to 3,884 martyrs and 11,856 people injured.

The Health Ministry stated, Thursday, these figures are the documented cumulative toll of victims from 2 March to 17 June, 2026, amidst the ongoing Israeli military operations and airstrikes on different Lebanese regions.

Israeli airstrikes and shelling are targeting towns and villages in southern Lebanon. This is whilst there are direct attacks on civilian vehicles, including the targeting of a car in the southern town of Zifta.

On the humanitarian front, reports issued by UNICEF indicate that the Israeli offensive is causing, on average, the death and injury of 11 children every day.

These developments coincide with intensive diplomatic and regional efforts aimed at reaching understandings to halt the fighting and end the military escalation on the Lebanese front.

Diplomatic circles have circulated information about anticipated meetings and negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, directly or indirectly, in Washington between 23-25 June, to discuss withdrawal and the cessation of military operations.

This escalation coincides with discussions and leaks regarding a non-binding memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, with Tehran asserting that any progress in the negotiation process requires a complete end to the war in Lebanon.

In the international context, diplomatic sources spoke of American pressure on Israel to adhere to the ceasefire, while France called for the immediate implementation of agreements related to de-escalation and respect for Lebanese sovereignty.

On the other hand, Hezbollah Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem affirmed the party’s adherence to its positions and stressing his rejection of the disarmament of the group.

Continue reading
Iran: ‘Strategic Patience’ to ‘Sustained Confrontation’

By Najih Mohammad Ali

In a clear and direct language, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) affirmed that regional “peace and stability will not be achieved unless there is withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese territories.” This stance followed Hezbollah’s Secretary-General’s rejection of the Washington talks, emphasizing his refusal to separate the arenas and the “Dahieh for the North” equation.

This statement expresses a coherent strategic vision that considers regional stability inextricably linked to ending occupations and aggressions. It places the defense of Lebanon, Syria, and the region among Iran’s political and military priorities.

This shift to a strategy of “eternal war”—or continuous confrontation—and reflects a pragmatic and principled decision made by Tehran after decades of pressure and aggression. Iran did not abandon the idea of ​​a settlement in vain; rather, it realized that relying on partial agreements with Washington, which imposes unilateral conditions and disregards the rights of peoples, is no longer a viable option.

The cowardly assassination of Martyr Qassem Soleimani, followed by direct strikes targeting high-ranking Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, proved that relying solely on “strategic patience” is mistaken for weakness. Therefore, Iran has shifted to a doctrine of active deterrence based on the entire axis of resistance, making any aggression costly for its adversaries.

This transformation was not the result of the absolute dominance of a hardline faction, as Zionist-American narratives and their Arab proxies (and, of course, the Iranian opposition abroad) claim. Rather, it is a natural evolution of the Iranian elite that stood united in the face of external aggression.

After significant losses, the priority of maintaining national and revolutionary cohesion emerged. Defending revolutionary principles—exporting the spirit of resistance and confronting arrogance—has become an essential part of the regime’s identity that has become a source of strength to prevent internal collapse whilst uniting the people behind the leadership in the face of sanctions. Pragmatists and hardliners alike now agree that continued confrontation better protects national interests than concessions that could lead to disintegration.

The leaders of the Iranian regime believe—and I think they are right—that continuing the confrontation will yield greater strategic gains than any fragile peace agreement. History proves that America understands only the language of force and attrition. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, wars of attrition forced Washington to withdraw.

Today, the “Axis of Resistance” is cleverly applying this equation: Linking the arenas to prevent separate deals that would weaken Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen, and imposes a heavy price on its adversaries. Iranian diplomacy has been transformed into the diplomacy of the field, as General Soleimani envisioned, and is now a flexible tool that buys time and exposes the contradictions of the other side, while maintaining full military readiness.

The American-Israeli strikes have already altered Tehran’s calculations in favor of adopting an offensive-defensive posture. Instead of settling for limited responses, Iran is developing comprehensive deterrent capabilities through its natural allies, who represent the will of the region’s peoples in the face of occupation.

This is a calculated escalation, a precise strategic calculation based on resilience and strategic depth. Within the elite, a balance prevails between caution, fearing losses, and resolve, which sees resistance as the only path to dignity and independence.

Compared to the previous “strategic patience,” the strategy of sustained confrontation has proven effective in preserving battlefield gains and preventing the regional collapse of the resistance axis. It has succeeded in exhausting the enemy and strengthening internal unity, despite economic challenges primarily attributed to unjust sanctions, not Iranian policy.

The most serious risk facing this strategy lies in the possibility of miscalculation by adversaries and their attempts to impose a full-scale war, but Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience and adaptation.

We are indeed facing a “simmering cold war,” where there is no false peace imposed by force, nor a total war that destroys everyone. This situation serves Iran and its axis because it maintains the strategic balance, prevents surrender, and opens the door to a comprehensive and just settlement based on withdrawal from occupied territories and respect for the sovereignty of states.

In conclusion, this “perpetual war” relies on the long-term vision of the Iranian character. It is not a whim, but an existential choice imposed by the ongoing aggression against Iran and the peoples of the region.

Iran is defending itself and the dignity of the nation, and affirms that true stability begins with ending aggression, occupation, and foreign interference. This path, despite its difficulties, reinforces Tehran’s position as an indispensable regional power and paves the way for a new balance of power that respects the rights of peoples. The region needs such firm stances to achieve an honorable peace, not surrender.

The author is a researcher in Iranian and regional affairs and this article is reproduced from the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading
For South Lebanon, All You Need is Few Miracles!

The fourth round of negotiations between representatives of the Lebanese Government, in the person of the Lebanese Ambassador to Washington, and representatives of the Israeli government, under the cuddling attitude of the State Department, to reach some kind of agreement between the two odd neighbors in the Middle East, look like a friendly, yet an absurd endeavor of witch-hunting, that can only render the caterers and planners of the event, happy! For each team are supposed to ask their counterparts to agree to things that are beyond their jurisdiction or authority, to say yes or no, under the current circumstances!


Israel wants the government of Lebanon to agree to a peace accord with it like the ones concluded, long time ago, with Egypt, PLO and Jordan, just to give a finger to Iran and its Shia active and militarily strong allies in Lebanon. For their part, the Lebanese delegation would be shyly telling the Israeli negotiators that before any other item is considered, Israeli forces have to be out of Lebanese territories first.

Official Israel and Lebanon are fully aware that such meetings will lead to nowhere, as long as back home and on the ground, where the real cooking is taking place, ‘chefs’ are having good time doing their best to burn the food further!


But as hopeful amateurs, certain individuals in Washington DC who are probably not educated enough or familiar with Middle Eastern zig-zags, or just pretending to be up to something, seem to be rehearsing for
future similar events!


A special tailored ceasefire in Lebanon now will be absolutely not useful for the Israelis. But it could be arranged with American urging and blessing, just to give the impression that something can be done. It will be a message to the Iranians and the world that, yes we can have a ceasefire in Lebanon now, it is your turn to be flexible on the Hormuz entanglement! While the original story was a complete reverse, meaning we can have a ceasefire around Hormuz, only if we had one in south Lebanon! But here is the real picture on the ground.


Israel is holding the whole area of south Lebanon and its nearly 400 villages as a hostage, thanks to its ability to hit any spot in Lebanon and in Beirut in particular. It is a bargaining chip to pressure the Lebanese government to submit to an official deal that would by-pass Hezbollah and the Shia component in the Lebanese Parliament. While Hezbollah and their local allies refuse to concede their arms to the central government in Beirut, claiming that such a move would be interpreted as a concession to Israel.


So, if I were to advice the Israelis on how to outsmart their opponents in Lebanon, I would tell them, you can stop your absurd war in Lebanon immediately, and start withdrawing your soldiers from areas they entered after the last ceasefire announced between Iran and the US and Israel, and wait for their reaction to that!


And if I were to advice Hezbollah, I would tell them do not target villages or civilians within Israel international borders and make clear that you only target Israeli military presence within Lebanese international borders, and wait for a reaction!

And finally, if I were to advice the Americans on this particular issue, which looks actually like a replicate of their other similar moves and initiatives in the region, since June 2025, when President Trump, willingly swallowed the pill prescribed to him by Dr. Netanyahu, to end the Iranian headache, I would say this: Might, like cash, is not the answer to all problems! It is only a temporary remedy, like the cash that cannot buy you happiness, but the delusion that you are experiencing
it!


The entanglement in south Lebanon will not be solved by apprentices in history and geography meeting in air-conditioned elegant rooms in Washington DC, but there on the grounds of south Lebanon, where valleys, trees, rivers, mountains, villages and people have long time ago, concluded among themselves, without external interference, an eternal verbal memorandum of understanding, that they were doomed to live or perish there in rotation, exactly like the four seasons of the
year!


It all worked out smoothly there since, without miracles!

Continue reading
How Trump Burned Western Friendships

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values ​​and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading
Why is Iran’s FM in Oman?

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Muscat, Oman’s capital, on Saturday evening, leading a diplomatic delegation, according to Tasnim news agency.

Araghchi is expected to meet with senior officials in Oman to discuss bilateral relations and exchange views on regional developments.

The visit follows his trip to Pakistan, where he said in a statement that he shared his country’s “position concerning a workable framework to permanently end the war on Iran,” without providing further details.

He also expressed skepticism about Washington’s intentions.

“Have yet to see if the U.S. is truly serious about diplomacy,” he said on the US social media company X.

Pakistan has been acting as an intermediary between Tehran and Washington amid ongoing tensions following recent military escalation.

Araghchi arrived in Pakistan late Friday and met with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in Islamabad on Saturday, amid efforts to revive stalled peace talks between the US and Iran to end their eight-week war.

The first round was held in Islamabad two weeks ago but failed to reach an agreement to end the conflict that began on Feb. 28 and engulfed the entire Middle East. Those talks came after Pakistan brokered a two-week ceasefire on April 8, which was later extended by US President Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump on Saturday said that he has cancelled a planned trip to Pakistan by special envoy Steve Witkoff and adviser Jared Kushner.

“I’ve told my people a little while ago they were getting ready to leave, and I said, ‘Nope, you’re not making an 18 hour flight to go there. We have all the cards. They can call us anytime they want, but you’re not going to be making any more 18 hour flights to sit around talking about nothing’,” Trump told Fox News via phone.

Iran has refused to hold direct talks with the US and said observations would be conveyed to Pakistan.

Some of the sticking points are said to be the Strait of Hormuz, the US blockade of Iranian ports, and Iran’s enriched uranium. Anadolu

Continue reading