U.S. Deputy Special Presidential Envoy to the Middle East Morgan Ortagus arrived in Beirut on Monday with a mission that cuts deeper than diplomacy.

Officially, she’s there to discuss Lebanon’s “monopoly on weapons.” In reality, her visit marks Washington’s clearest signal yet: Hezbollah’s disarmament is back on the table.

Fresh from a two-day tour of Israel — including a stop at the northern border — Ortagus enters Lebanon at a moment of escalating Israeli strikes and rising uncertainty.

Over the past week, Israeli forces have intensified their air operations across southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, reportedly killing 11 people, including at least eight Hezbollah fighters. Israeli media say the group has been hit more than 365 times since the November 2024 ceasefire.

According to Al Arabiya, Ortagus’s visit is tied to the upcoming ceasefire supervision committee meeting on Wednesday. But behind the official agenda lies a deadline-driven strategy.

U.S. officials, the outlet reports, want Lebanon to take “concrete measures” within weeks — not months — to curb Hezbollah’s military reach and open the door for direct negotiations with Israel.

Hezbollah, meanwhile, insists its weapons are non-negotiable. “We are the resistance, and we will remain the resistance,” declared Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, describing Israel’s current advantage as “temporary.”

His rhetoric, though defiant, underscores the group’s vulnerability after months of attrition.

For Israel, the calculus is clear. Defense Minister Israel Katz has vowed to “take all necessary measures” to protect the country’s northern communities, hinting at further operations if Hezbollah refuses to back down.

During Ortagus’s Israel visit, Katz briefed her on what officials describe as Hezbollah’s quiet effort to rebuild its southern infrastructure — a move Jerusalem sees as a provocation.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun is expected to meet Ortagus first, with U.S. envoy Tom Barrack and newly appointed Ambassador Michel Issa set to follow in November.

Together, their visits mark a broader American effort to reshape Lebanon’s security landscape — and test whether Beirut is still capable of reining in a militia that acts as a state within a state.

The message is unmistakable: Washington’s patience with Hezbollah’s armed dominance is wearing thin.

As Israel pushes harder and Lebanon’s sovereignty hangs in the balance, Ortagus’s visit signals not just pressure — but the possibility of a reckoning.

The resumption of high-level talks between Washington and Tehran, framed publicly as a necessary de-escalation effort, is increasingly being viewed by seasoned regional observers as a strategic miscalculation with profound implications for allied security.

This latest diplomatic initiative risks projecting an illusion of stability while, in reality, creating a perverse incentive structure for malign actors across the Middle East.

At its core, the policy reflects a short-term political preference in Washington to mitigate domestic friction at the expense of a coherent, long-term geopolitical strategy.

This pursuit of temporary calm directly undermines the foundational principles of deterrence. By engaging under the current conditions—conditions often engineered through proxy escalation—the United States appears to be rewarding tactical provocation.

The danger here is not merely a negotiation lapse; it is the systemic erosion of confidence among key regional partners who rely on American resolve.

For allies like Israel, this dynamic presents an acute strategic dilemma. The perception is growing that Washington is accepting a new, more aggressive Iranian baseline, effectively ceding strategic ground and leaving indispensable partners increasingly exposed.

The human cost of this strategic ambiguity is often borne out in rising regional tensions and a greater necessity for unilateral action by threatened states.

In the complex calculus of the modern Middle East, the failure to clearly delineate and defend established red lines is never interpreted as a gesture of goodwill. It is understood, rather, as a retreat.

The challenge for Washington is to recognize that genuine stability is achieved not through compromise with those who fundamentally reject the status quo, but through the clear and unwavering defense of allies whose stability underpins the entire strategic balance.

Until this core principle is restored, this “diplomacy” will be interpreted as a failure of nerve, not a triumph of statesmanship.

On March 10th, the geopolitical map of the Middle East quietly but irreversibly shifted.

In a hotel conference room in Beijing — far from Washington’s watchful eye — Saudi and Iranian diplomats shook hands under Chinese mediation, marking a moment that symbolized the end of an era: the age of uncontested U.S. dominance in the Middle East.

The China-brokered Saudi–Iran deal did more than reestablish diplomatic ties; it announced Beijing’s arrival as a credible power broker in a region long defined by American might.

While the details of the agreement remain thin, its symbolism is thick with meaning — and its message unmistakable. The global order is no longer U.S.-centric.

The Middle East, once Washington’s chessboard, now plays by multipolar rules.

Beijing’s Quiet Revolution

China’s foray into Middle Eastern diplomacy was not about ideology, democracy, or human rights — the language of Washington — but about trade routes, ports, oil, and political leverage built on economic gravity.

Unlike the U.S., China doesn’t moralize. It invests, builds, and stays quiet.

For Beijing, both Saudi Arabia and Iran are energy lifelines — key suppliers and potential partners in its Belt and Road Initiative.

Their reconciliation helps stabilize China’s energy corridors and signals a strategic alternative to Western dependency.

This is not China trying to replace the United States militarily — it is replacing it economically, one deal at a time.

The more Washington demands its allies “decouple” from Beijing, the more those same allies — from Riyadh to Cairo — quietly pivot eastward.

Saudi Arabia’s Power Play

For Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, this deal was personal. He’s tired of American lectures and unpredictable presidents. His Vision 2030 depends on stability, investment, and leverage — not on military confrontation.

His war in Yemen exposed the limits of force; now he’s using diplomacy as the new weapon.

By reopening ties with Tehran under China’s patronage, Riyadh signals a strategic independence unseen in modern Saudi history.

No longer content to be Washington’s junior partner, the kingdom is now testing a “nonaligned” posture: open to the U.S., cooperative with China, and pragmatic with Iran — a balancing act designed to make Saudi Arabia indispensable to everyone.

Tehran’s Desperate Reset

For Iran, the motivation is survival. Years of sanctions, economic suffocation, and global isolation have left Tehran cornered. Its alliance with Russia over Ukraine deepened its pariah status, and domestic unrest further exposed its fragility.

Reconciliation with Saudi Arabia — even if temporary — gives Iran room to breathe. It opens trade doors, legitimizes its diplomacy, and possibly eases its regional isolation.

Iran is not reforming; it’s repositioning — leveraging China’s shield to resist U.S. containment.

A Region Rearranging Itself

From Cairo to Doha, Ankara to Abu Dhabi, Middle Eastern capitals are recalibrating. Enemies are becoming partners, and old rivals are rediscovering the value of stability.

Egypt and Turkey have reopened dialogue. Qatar and Saudi Arabia buried their feud.

Everywhere, economic pragmatism trumps ideological divisions. The U.S.-led “peace through pressure” model is being replaced by “peace through profit.”

A New Order, Not of Washington’s Making

The Middle East is no longer choosing between East and West — it’s choosing both, on its own terms. The “rules-based international order” still exists, but the rulemakers are multiplying.

The new order is transactional, not ideological — built on sovereignty, self-interest, and strategic ambiguity.

Washington once set the rules. Beijing just reminded the world that rules can be rewritten.

MOSCOW — The Kremlin’s gilded doors opened to an unfamiliar visitor on Wednesday: Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, the man who toppled Bashar al-Assad’s two-decade rule and now seeks to rebuild a broken nation without breaking its old alliances.

Standing beside Vladimir Putin in the ornate Kremlin hall, Sharaa pledged that Syria would “respect all agreements made with Russia,” a statement designed to calm Moscow’s most pressing concern — the fate of its two strategic military bases at Hmeimim and Tartous.

For Putin, those words were the assurance he wanted to hear: Russia’s anchor in the Mediterranean remains intact.

But the handshake masked a deeper recalibration. Sharaa’s first visit to Moscow was not just about gratitude; it was about redefining who holds the reins in Syria’s new order — and testing how far Russia’s loyalty to Assad still runs.

The Unspoken Tension

Behind closed doors, the agenda was sensitive. According to Syrian officials, Sharaa planned to formally request the extradition of former President Bashar al-Assad, who has lived under Russian protection since fleeing Damascus last December.

Assad’s presence in Moscow has become a political and moral shadow over Sharaa’s government, which now seeks to put the ex-dictator on trial for crimes against Syrians.

The Kremlin, however, remains protective. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov repeated this week that Moscow granted asylum to Assad on humanitarian grounds, saying “his life was under threat.”

In a pointed rebuke to speculation, Lavrov also denied reports that Assad had been poisoned. “He lives comfortably in our capital,” he said, ending the topic.

For Russia, Assad’s exile is a transactional arrangement — a human shield against future accountability and a reminder to Damascus that its sovereignty still has strings attached.

A War-Torn Country in Diplomatic Balancing

Sharaa’s rise — from militant leader to head of state — marked one of the most dramatic turns in Syria’s modern history.

Once accused of commanding jihadist factions, he united rival militias, ousted Assad, and promised “a sovereign, democratic Syria built on reconciliation.” Yet the new president has quickly learned that sovereignty is negotiable when Russia still controls the skies.

Syria remains dependent on Russian fuel, grain, and weapons. The two bases on the coast give Moscow access to the eastern Mediterranean and proximity to Israel, Turkey, and Egypt — advantages the Kremlin will not easily relinquish.

Before the meeting, Lavrov even floated using the bases as logistics hubs for delivering aid to Africa, signaling that Moscow sees Syria as part of its broader geopolitical supply chain.

Israel and the Southern Front

Sharaa also arrived in Moscow with a regional grievance: Israel’s expanding presence in southern Syria. After Assad’s fall, Israel deployed troops to a UN-patrolled buffer zone, claiming to protect Druze communities from crossfire. Damascus calls it encroachment.

Sharaa reportedly asked for Russia’s backing to block Israeli demands for a widened demilitarized zone and proposed redeploying Russian military police as a deterrent.

The request places Moscow in an uncomfortable spot. It values its security coordination with Israel but cannot afford to alienate Damascus, especially when U.S. and Gulf influence in the Levant is waning.

Putin’s Strategic Patience

Putin’s public tone was warm but measured. He congratulated Sharaa on holding parliamentary elections — “a great success for the consolidation of society,” he said — and praised Syria’s “many useful beginnings.”

But the Kremlin chief avoided direct mention of Assad’s extradition, signaling that Moscow will play mediator, not accomplice.

For Putin, the meeting is a study in controlled adaptation: preserving Russian military privileges while embracing the new ruler who overthrew Moscow’s old client.

For Sharaa, it’s a diplomatic debut — one that tests whether he can balance justice at home with dependency abroad.

A Fragile New Era

A senior diplomatic source in Moscow told media that the talks were “cordial but cautious,” describing them as a “reset of necessity, not ideology.”

Sharaa, the source said, wants to rebuild Syria’s army with Russian help — but under Syrian command, free from Assad’s loyalist networks.

Whether Moscow will oblige remains uncertain. What’s clear is that Russia, bogged down in Ukraine and under Western sanctions, cannot afford to lose its last Middle Eastern anchor.

And Sharaa, facing Israeli pressure and economic collapse, cannot afford to lose Russian wheat or weapons.

Both need each other — but for different reasons.

As Sharaa’s motorcade left the Kremlin without a joint press conference, it was evident that Syria’s revolution has entered its diplomatic phase.

Assad may be gone, but his ghost still sits at every negotiating table.

In Sharm El Sheikh — the city once called “the gateway to peace” — U.S. President Donald Trump has proclaimed the end of the two-year Gaza war, calling it “the dawn of a new Middle East.” Standing before the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem and later beside Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Trump announced the full release of all surviving hostages and the beginning of phase two of his 20-point peace plan, aimed not only at rebuilding Gaza but at restructuring the region’s political order.

The last 20 living hostages were freed Monday morning, concluding a harrowing saga that began with the Hamas-led massacres of October 7, 2023.

Their return — alongside Israel’s release of 250 Palestinian prisoners and more than 1,700 Gazan detainees — has unleashed emotional scenes across Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Families embraced at hospitals in Tel Aviv; crowds filled the streets of Gaza as buses unloaded freed prisoners.

“This is not simply about restoring Gaza,” said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, flanking Trump and Sisi in Egypt.

“It is about transforming the region.” His words echoed the ambition now shaping Washington’s broader vision — an extension of the Abraham Accords that could expand normalization between Arab nations and Israel and, in time, open a new channel of dialogue with Iran.

Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — the architects of the original peace framework — told reporters they began implementing the deal “the minute it was signed.

” Egypt, which hosted the negotiations, will now coordinate reconstruction in Gaza with U.S. sponsorship. Sisi hailed Trump as “the only one capable of bringing this about,” declaring, “Enough with war — welcome to peace.”

The next steps remain delicate. The bodies of four deceased hostages are to be repatriated in coordination with the Red Cross, while humanitarian corridors must remain open under international supervision.

Phase Two of Trump’s plan will focus on rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure, establishing joint Israeli-Arab security mechanisms, and creating a provisional civil administration backed by regional partners.

Behind the choreography lies a shifting power balance. Trump’s re-entry into Middle East diplomacy — after years of drift under previous administrations — reasserts American primacy in a region that had increasingly tilted toward Russian and Chinese influence.

His peace drive also pressures Arab capitals to align behind a U.S.-led security vision rather than Tehran’s expanding “axis of resistance.”

In Jerusalem, Trump framed the moment as both vindication and rebirth. “After decades of bloodshed, the peoples of this region now have a choice — endless war or enduring peace,” he said. “Today, they have chosen peace.”

Whether this accord becomes the cornerstone of a genuine Middle East transformation or merely a fragile truce will depend on what follows in the weeks ahead. But for now, in Sharm El Sheikh — where past peace efforts began and faltered — the world witnessed the return of hostages, the release of prisoners, and the first tangible sign that the longest war in Israel’s history may finally be ending.

CAIRO — In a dramatic diplomatic breakthrough, U.S. President Donald Trump announced early Thursday that Israel and Hamas have agreed to a peace framework that will lead to the release of all remaining hostages in Gaza and the gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops. The agreement — finalized after marathon negotiations in Cairo — marks the most significant development since the October 7, 2023 massacre that ignited the two-year-long war.

“I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first phase of our peace plan,” Trump wrote on social media, calling it “a strong, durable, and everlasting peace.” According to U.S. and Israeli officials, the hostages will be freed within 72 hours after Israel’s cabinet votes on the deal, expected later Thursday.

Trump described the accord as a “great day for the world,” crediting his direct diplomacy with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and regional leaders for achieving what he called “the impossible.”

In a statement from Jerusalem, Netanyahu’s office confirmed that the two leaders held an “emotional and warm conversation,” congratulating one another on what they called a historic achievement. Trump is expected to travel to Israel on Sunday, where he will reportedly address the Knesset in a symbolic show of unity.

Sources close to the talks said the deal — brokered with Egyptian mediation

Grief and anger define the anniversary of Hamas’ attack as Netanyahu faces protests and Gaza descends deeper into ruin.

Two years after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack shattered Israel’s sense of security and ignited a regional war, thousands gathered in southern Israel on Tuesday to mourn the dead and remember the day that changed the nation — even as the fighting in Gaza grinds on with no clear end in sight.

The main memorial, organized by families of the victims, took place near the Gaza border, separate from the government’s official commemoration planned for next week.

The split itself reflected the country’s deep divisions over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership and his failure, critics say, to secure a ceasefire that would bring home the remaining hostages.

In Gaza, Israeli bombardments and ground operations continued, displacing civilians yet again. Tens of thousands have been killed, and much of the enclave has been reduced to rubble. Many Gazans are trapped between advancing Israeli forces and the near-impossible journey southward.

The original Oct. 7 assault — the deadliest attack in Israel’s history — saw thousands of Hamas-led fighters storm across the border after a rocket barrage, killing roughly 1,200 people, most of them civilians, and abducting 251 more. Nearly all but 48 of the hostages have since been freed through exchanges and ceasefire deals; Israel believes around 20 remain alive in captivity.

Hamas has conditioned further releases on a permanent ceasefire and an Israeli withdrawal, demands Netanyahu has rejected.

The war’s ripple effects have redrawn fault lines across the Middle East. Israel’s campaign has expanded into open hostilities with Iran and its proxies in Lebanon and Syria, and a brief but fierce 12-day war in June saw Israel and the United States strike Iranian military and nuclear sites.

Several senior Iranian generals and militant leaders have been killed.

Yet at home, the sense of victory is elusive. The hostages remain in Gaza, weekly protests have rocked Tel Aviv, and Israel’s diplomatic isolation deepens. “We’ve won battles,” said one demonstrator, “but we’re losing our soul.”

At the Nova music festival site near Reim — where 364 people were murdered and dozens abducted — survivors and relatives gathered quietly. Hundreds of photos now ring the site, where at 6:29 a.m., the exact moment the attack began, music gave way to a minute of silence.

Elsewhere, explosions echoed across Gaza as a rocket launched from the north prompted air-raid sirens, though no injuries were reported.

Later Tuesday, the main public memorial was held in Tel Aviv, featuring speeches and performances. It was organized by Yonatan Shamriz, whose brother Alon was mistakenly killed by Israeli troops after escaping Hamas captivity — a grim reminder of the chaos and tragedy that still haunt the war.

Meanwhile, Israeli and Hamas representatives met indirectly in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh resort to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest “Board of Peace” plan — a proposal for a transitional technocratic administration in Gaza under international supervision.

According to Gaza’s health authorities, more than 67,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel’s invasion began, roughly half of them women and children. Aid groups warn that famine has taken hold in parts of Gaza City, while accusations of genocide and starvation tactics have reached the International Criminal Court, which has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister.

Israel denies the charges, arguing that it is fighting a lawful war against a terrorist movement that embeds itself among civilians.

For many Israelis and Palestinians alike, this anniversary feels less like remembrance than a measure of loss — of lives, of trust, and of hope. Two years after Oct. 7, both sides remain trapped in the cycle of vengeance that began that morning — and neither can yet see its end.

Top diplomat Kaja Kallas says Europe must be “a player, not just a payer,” in rebuilding Gaza.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said Monday that the EU wants to join U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed transitional authority for governing the Gaza Strip, known as the “Board of Peace.”

“Yes, we feel that Europe has a great role, and we should also be on board with this,” Kallas told reporters in Kuwait, where EU and Gulf Cooperation Council officials held a joint meeting.

The EU, one of the largest donors of aid to the Palestinians, maintains relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Kallas argued that Europe’s political and financial influence makes it a natural participant in Gaza’s reconstruction and governance efforts.

“I think Europe should be not only a payer, but also a player,” she said, emphasizing that the bloc has already worked with Arab partners on elements of the peace plan. “They understand that it is in everyone’s interest if we are there—so hopefully the Israelis agree to this as well.”

Her remarks come days after Trump unveiled a sweeping 20-point proposal to end the Gaza conflict and establish a transitional system of governance for the war-torn territory.

The plan calls for Gaza to be administered by an apolitical Palestinian technocratic committee responsible for public services, operating under the supervision of the “Board of Peace.”

The proposed board—chaired by Trump and expected to include former British Prime Minister Tony Blair—would oversee the flow of reconstruction funds and coordinate international support until the Palestinian Authority completes internal reforms and reassumes control of Gaza.

Hamas and Israel are currently engaged in indirect negotiations in Cairo over elements of the U.S.-backed proposal.

For the European Union, participation in the Board of Peace would signal a renewed attempt to shape Middle East diplomacy after years of limited influence.

EU officials have long complained that the bloc’s role in Israeli-Palestinian affairs has been reduced to writing checks for humanitarian assistance without a seat at the strategic table.

“We have the leverage, the expertise, and the relationships,” Kallas said. “If peace is to be sustainable, Europe must be part of it—not just financing it from the sidelines.”