(Head of the Iranian Negotiating Delegation) :
To these dear people, I say: If we hadn’t gone to Switzerland, more blood of Muslims and Shiites would have been spilled in Lebanon by the moment.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
(Head of the Iranian Negotiating Delegation) :
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Targeting of Burial Ceremonies and Civil Defense Teams
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
23-06-2026
08 Muharram 1448 AH
#Battle_of_the_Eaten_Straw #Lebanon #Hezbollah #Israel
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔰 Martyrdom of an Islamic Resistance fighter in the vicinity of "Ali Al-Tahir" as a result of a hostile airstrike.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
This is a humanitarian crisis, and I feel it is necessary to help, NOW, before it is too late. Talks are going well! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔴 The Swiss MOU Shatters the Illusion: The "Tripartite Committee" and the Sovereign Tantrums of Maarab and Saifi
👍 The geopolitical tremors of the Lake Lucerne Summit (June 21–22, 2026) continue to reverberate across Beirut's political landscape, causing a severe psychological fracture within Lebanon's right-wing Christian political blocs.
👍 The creation of the high-level Tripartite De-confliction Committee—directly forged by the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran under Swiss mediation—has exposed a brutal reality that the traditional right-wing elite cannot swallow: Washington has recognized Tehran as the sovereign guarantor of regional stability, leaving its domestic Lebanese proxies entirely out of the equation.
📌 The Anatomy of a Sovereign Tantrum
🌕 For decades, leaders like Samir Geagea (Lebanese Forces) and Sami Gemayel (Kataeb Party) have wagered their political existence on the illusion of a direct American military and political intervention that would forcibly disarm the Islamic Resistance. The Swiss Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has abruptly shattered this fantasy.
🌕 By institutionalizing a trilateral oversight mechanism connecting Washington and Tehran to handle the structural test of the Lebanese front, the international community has effectively marginalized the local advocates of "neutrality."
🤔 Sami Gemayel’s Rhetorical Desperation:
👌 From Saifi, the Kataeb leader issued a furious tirade, declaring,
👌 Gemayel went as far as accusing Iran of using Lebanon as a tactical chip in its broader strategic calculus, claiming that the Swiss MOU aims only to
🤔 The Maarab Meltdown:
🤲 Concurrently, Lebanese Forces leader Samir Geagea has threatened a full-scale government collapse, drawing a red line around Minister of Foreign Affairs Youssef Rajji (appointed in Prime Minister Nawaf Salam’s cabinet in February 2025). Internal leaks indicate that Geagea views any political maneuver to replace Rajji—a career diplomat aligned with Western perspectives—as a direct tactical attack against Maarab’s remaining institutional leverage.
🤔 The Ashraf Rifi Clique:
✌ Joining the chorus of resentment, former general Ashraf Rifi and his sectarian entourage have echoed these anxieties, painting the US-Iran de-confliction cell as an
📌 The Crucial Analytical Questions
💬 From a critical and realistic geopolitical standpoint, these reactive statements prompt deep, challenging questions about the intellectual and political consistency of Lebanon's right-wing factions:
🔢 Who is Truly Violating Sovereign Dignity?
✌ While Sami Gemayel laments that Lebanon's sovereignty is being compromised by a US-Iran understanding, why do the Lebanese Forces and Kataeb remain dead silent when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu boasts that
✌ Why is an international diplomatic mechanism viewed as an occupation, while actual, boots-on-the-ground Zionist aggression is met with complicit domestic silence?
🔢 The Illusion of Alternative Choices:
✌ What is the realistic alternative proposed by Geagea and Gemayel? If the world's primary superpower (the US) and the region’s primary deterrent weight (Iran) have agreed that a permanent cessation of hostilities requires structured, direct coordination, do the political salons of Maarab and Saifi truly believe they can unilaterally alter global tectonic shifts?
"We will not coexist with Hezbollah, regardless of the results of negotiations happening abroad."
"save what remains of Hezbollah’s forces."
"existential abandonment" of their political narrative.
"IDF troops in southern Lebanon enjoy complete freedom of movement without restrictions"?
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Observer
🔴 The Swiss MOU Shatters the Illusion: The "Tripartite Committee" and the Sovereign Tantrums of Maarab and Saifi 👍 The geopolitical tremors of the Lake Lucerne Summit (June 21–22, 2026) continue to reverberate across Beirut's political landscape, causing…
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The regional landscape has completely outgrown the outdated "Mechanism" framework, which functioned during previous escalation cycles. While the old mechanism was a heavily localized, five-member military construct composed of the United States, France, Lebanon, the Israeli entity, and UNIFIL forces, this newly minted Tripartite Committee operates on an entirely different geopolitical plane. The previous setup was strictly tactical, narrowing its focus to border friction and the technicalities of UN Resolution 1701.
Historically, this allowed the Zionist enemy to utilize its Western allies—principally Washington and Paris—to exert direct diplomatic and security pressure on Beirut's negotiators. In sharp contrast, the Tripartite Committee bypasses localized military dictation entirely, elevating the dialogue to a macro-strategic level tethered directly to the broader US-Iran regional MOU.
The Tripartite Committee fundamentally alters how the conflict between the Lebanese Resistance and the Zionist entity will be managed:
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Observer
Ultimately, the Tripartite Committee proves that the era of unilateral Western mandates in the Middle East is over. The weapons of the Resistance remain the primary guarantor of Lebanese sovereignty, and any future stability must pass through the gates of Tehran.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
From a critical geopolitical and Axis of Resistance perspective, there are three primary scenarios unfolding behind the heavily fortified walls of the American diplomatic mission.
The rapid landing of a helicopter amid strict ground security measures strongly indicates an emergency evacuation of high-ranking CIA operatives, senior military advisors, or sensitive intelligence assets. The Americans are deeply aware that the geopolitical shifts in Switzerland mean they can no longer operate with impunity on Iraqi soil; any localized escalation could trap their leadership assets on the ground.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
In a statement issued by his office, Aoun expressed hope that the current round of negotiations would be “decisive” in achieving Lebanon’s goals, including restoring full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory and extending state authority across the entire country.
He added that Lebanon’s “only choice is our national sovereignty” and that the Lebanese state alone should be responsible for protecting all citizens and safeguarding their rights and freedoms.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🔰TEHRAN – Agencies
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
🤬1
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The Observer
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
There is no good in these negotiations, neither for your worldly life nor for your hereafter."
From the very first moments following the assassination of the martyred commander, the United States came forward with a request for a ceasefire. The American trick lay in striking first, then pretending to want a ceasefire to force Iran into submission and achieve its own interests—a proposal that remained suspended until the election of the new leader.
The Supreme National Security Council initially prepared a 5-point draft for dialogue, but the Leadership rejected it. This back-and-forth persisted for about 3 or 4 times until, ultimately and based on the Leader's own vision, a 10-point plan was drafted (which is the exact same statement announced on the night of the ceasefire).
On the sidelines of the ten points, the Leader penned 8 additional conditions and emphasized that they must be implemented; the most prominent of which was a ban on entering into any nuclear negotiations in any shape or form. The American side, which was in dire need of a ceasefire, accepted the ten conditions, to the point that Trump tweeted stating that the basis of the process was the Iranian conditions. However, in Islamabad, things turned completely upside down...
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
In Islamabad, the American side backtracked on its promises and announced its refusal to negotiate based on the ten conditions. At that exact moment, and contrary to the explicit written orders issued by the Leadership, the nuclear issue was brought to the discussion table! The Americans' assessment of the Iranian team was that they did not want the war to continue and desired to reach an agreement at any cost. As a result, the other party hardened its stance to blackmail Iran and extract greater concessions.
Following the conclusion of this round, reports were sent back to Tehran (one of which was penned by a prominent member of the negotiating team). The Leader showed a highly negative reaction accompanied by strong objection, stating explicitly: "You have committed a religious/legal violation (mukhalafa\ shar'iyya)," and declared that this path lacked legitimacy due to the nuclear file being raised and the failure to enforce the ten conditions.
In response to this objection, a number of National Security Council members addressed a letter to the Leadership, expressing their concern over the state of the infrastructure and the continuation of the war, claiming that negotiations could not proceed without addressing the nuclear file. However, the subsequent reply to this letter put all doubts to rest...
To be continued...
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
There is no good in these negotiations, neither for your worldly life nor for your hereafter. If the other side sees that conditions are favorable, they will strike Iran's infrastructure, and these negotiations will not stop them."
Despite this, the Supreme National Security Council took a different path. The ten conditions were completely scrapped, and on the initiative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a new 14-point plan was drafted, which ultimately produced the
"Agreement to End the War."
The formula was based on the following logic: first, declare an end to the war, then enter into nuclear negotiations and make concessions to guarantee peace!
The National Security Council approved this agreement and sent it to the Leadership, but the text remained without a reply for about two weeks. At this point, the council members held a meeting and decided to treat this silence as consent and move forward with the plan! However, right in the middle of that meeting, a letter arrived from the Leader containing fundamental and decisive questions.
Under the pressure of time, the council members responded to the questions in writing and provided a pledge clarifying the interpretation of the agreement's clauses. For instance, they pledged in writing that the "non-interference" clause included the shutdown of certain hostile media outlets. This is the exact same pledge the Leader later referred to in his speech when he said:
"The President has given us a pledge."
Based on this written pledge, permission was issued to announce the agreement.
This is the full trajectory that led to the Leadership's stance. The Leader was conceptually opposed to this entire path that followed the Islamabad round and did not believe in it. However, the agreement was ultimately pushed through under pressure and insistence from the Supreme National Security Council, leading to the outcome we are witnessing today.
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM