Dossiers

The Lebanese case is no longer only dealt with in the Washington Canal between Lebanon, Israel and the United States. It now depends on the Iran-USA negotiations, where the ceasefire in South Lebanon has become a regional clause. This evolution penalizes several Lebanese errors: withdrawal of the army from sensitive positions, breaking the official channel with Iran and processing the disarmament of Hezbollah as a pre-emptive promise rather than as a negotiating map.

The Swiss agreements resulting from the first round of talks between Iran and the United States established Lebanon as the first test of compromise. The Iranian document MINAB 168 highlights five points: Lebanon's conflict management mechanism, Ormuz direct line, Article 13 technical groups, Iran-Qatar agreement on frozen assets and US oil exemption. The actual scope will depend on the application texts and the field.

The role of Youssef Rajji in the negotiations between Lebanon and Israel has become a central political subject. Without official announcement, the Foreign Minister seems to be less present in the decisive channels, in favour of the presidency, the army, Nabih Berri and American mediation. The Iranian ambassador's episode, which the presidency wanted to limit to a reprimand according to political rumours, weakened its method and reinforced the informal channels linked to Hezbollah.

The United Arab Emirates appears to be one of the indirect losers of the conflict with Iran. Their model was based on three pillars: Dubai's role as a re-export platform to Iran under sanctions, the strength of Abu Dhabi's oil revenues and the image of a secure financial refuge in the heart of the Gulf. The war has weakened these three advantages at the same time, while revealing the limits of the American security umbrella and the political cost of normalization with Israel.

Iran is emerging from the conflict with the United States and Israel, but its victory remains fragile. By turning the Strait of Ormuz into a deterrent, Tehran has gained a major strategic advantage. But if it seeks to win this passage or to impose lasting restrictions, it risks provoking a hostile coalition, speeding up alternative roads and turning peace into a new regional crisis.

As the 250th anniversary of their independence approaches, the United States appears to re-evaluate its relationship with Israel. The Islamabad agreements, concluded with Iran despite Israeli reservations, revealed a divergence between Washington and Benjamin Netanyahu. The influence of AIPAC, annual military aid, espionage affairs, the shift in American opinion and the "America First" push are reshaping the contours of an alliance that has long been presented as intangible.

The war between the United States, Israel and Iran did not transform Tehran, but could make lasting changes in the Middle East. Bernard Raymond Jabre analyses the transition from a world of empires to a world of networks, where sovereignty rests less on domination than on strategic diversification.

Versailles is not the exact place where the treaty recognizing the independence of the United States was signed. It was concluded in Paris in 1783. Yet the castle remains a major symbol of American history. He embodied the French alliance, the European treaties that accompanied peace, Wilson's international ambition in 1919, and the patronage of the Rockefellers, which helped save the estate in the 20th century.

The Islamabad memorandum between the United States and Iran provides for a permanent ceasefire, including in Lebanon, the gradual lifting of sanctions, the reopening of Ormuz, a $300 billion fund and a nuclear mechanism under international supervision, before validation by the UN Security Council.

Lebanon accuses Israel of spraying glyphosate with a high concentration on several border villages in southern Lebanon. Analyses cited by Beirut suggest levels up to 20-30 times higher than usual concentrations, with a reported peak of 22,750 micrograms per gram of soil. This contamination poses risks to crops, soils, water, pollinators and the return of displaced people.

Bezalel Smotrich claims that Israel will not withdraw from southern Lebanon after the expected signing of the US-Iran agreement. Itamar Ben Gvir defends the continuation of Israeli control and destruction, even against Donald Trump's opinion. For Lebanon, these statements place a major concern: can American diplomacy produce a real de-escalation if Israeli ministers assume a lasting occupation and prevent the return of the inhabitants?

The Montaigne Institute provides a serious analysis of the war against Iran. The operation was to weaken the Islamic Republic, reduce its nuclear programme and restore American deterrence. It would have had the opposite effect: a more central Iran, a more distrustful Gulf, a more tense American-Israeli relationship and a marginalised Europe. The Iranian file thus becomes a lesson on the limits of raw power.

I went walking alone in the night. Not to think. Not to find an answer. Not even looking for a little peace. I went walking to check out something much simpler. I wanted to see if the stars still existed. I wanted to see if the moon was still there. This may seem [...]

A human process indicates the momentum, inspiration and, gradually, the management of moments and stages. The interactive dynamic, at various levels, is truly personalized when it is initiated by the intuitive-logical potential, from childhood to the precious seniors at the end of the journey. It is only a subjective, spontaneous and exclaimed impulse. It puts in [...]