🔴 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,

"We will not coexist with Hezbollah, regardless of the results of negotiations happening abroad."

👌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

"save what remains of Hezbollah’s forces."

🤔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

"existential abandonment" of their political narrative.

📌 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

"IDF troops in southern Lebanon enjoy complete freedom of movement without restrictions"?

✌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?

🔢The Hypocrisy of "The State":

✌The right-wing factions consistently demand that "the state" make decisions.

✌Yet, when the actual institutions of the state—including President Joseph Aoun—coordinate directly with US Vice President JD Vance and Qatari mediators to implement this de-confliction cell under the condition of a total Israeli withdrawal from occupied lands, Geagea responds by threatening to pull down the government over a ministerial seat. Is their priority the survival of Lebanon, or the survival of their sectarian veto power?


🔽 The Shift in Geopolitical Balances


🌕The frantic nature of these reactions confirms that the Axis of Resistance has successfully converted its monumental battlefield sacrifices into permanent diplomatic concrete. While the Zionist enemy carries out treacherous violations—such as the recent martyrdom of a resistance fighter near "Ali Al-Tahir" and the targeting of municipality workers clearing rubble in Nabatieh—the Tripartite Committee provides a macro-strategic hammer to hold the aggressor accountable via its American patron.


🌕The era when local factions could rely on Western hegemony to distort Lebanese demographics and disarm the defensive shield of the nation is officially over. The weapons of the Resistance remain intact, the Swiss MOU recognizes Tehran’s indispensable regional veto, and the frantic screams of Lebanon's right-wing factions are merely the echoes of a dying political order.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Behind the Scenes: What is the Tripartite Committee?

🔘The Core Mission:

🤲The Tripartite Committee was conceived during the Swiss-mediated MOU talks as a dedicated, strategic channel to oversee the permanent cessation of hostilities across regional flashpoints—most notably the Lebanese-Zionist front—and to guarantee that Western or Zionist incursions are met with systematic accountability.

🔘The Membership:

🤲The committee consists of high-ranking diplomats and military strategists representing three pillars: The United States, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Switzerland (acting as the neutral host and mediator).

🔘The Mandate:

🤲Unlike localized security arrangements, this committee operates at a macro-strategic level. Its primary function is to prevent tactical violations from escalating into a full-scale regional war by establishing direct, crisis-management protocols between Tehran and Washington.

🤲How It Differs From the Previous "Mechanism" Committee
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.

🤲By removing the Zionist entity and France from the core cell and inserting the Islamic Republic of Iran alongside the United States and Switzerland, the power dynamic has shifted permanently. Iran now acts as a direct, sovereign weight, completely neutralizing any back-channel Western leverage and ensuring that Lebanon's security is no longer held hostage to Zionist whims or unilateral American dictates.

🔘Dealing with Hezbollah and Israel: The Resistance Equation
The Tripartite Committee fundamentally alters how the conflict between the Lebanese Resistance and the Zionist entity will be managed:

1⃣ Shielding Lebanon from Zionist Blackmail: Under the previous five-member mechanism, Israel frequently attempted to transform security meetings into platforms of political pressure, demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah north of the Litani River or pushing for an artificial "buffer zone" that would displace Lebanese villagers. The Tripartite Committee strips Israel of this leverage.

2⃣ Iran as the Guardian of Resistance Rights: Hezbollah does not negotiate with the Zionist enemy, nor does it yield to American dictates. By having Iran at the center of this trilateral committee, the political and military achievements of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon are fully protected. Iran ensures that any discussion regarding ceasefires or border arrangements is conditioned on the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Lebanese territories and an absolute halt to Zionist aerial and ground violations.

3⃣ Restraining the Aggressor: If the Zionist entity attempts to breach the ceasefire—as seen in recent treacherous airstrikes or firing on civilians clearing rubble—the matter is no longer left to toothless UNIFIL reports. It is raised directly within the US-Iran-Swiss channel, forcing Washington to restrain its regional proxy (Tel Aviv) under the threat of collapsing the entire Swiss MOU agreement.
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.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Strict security measures inside the Green Zone in Baghdad, coinciding with the landing of a helicopter at the "Third Al-Tawhid" base inside the US Embassy.

⚪️Geopolitical Investigation: What is Happening Behind the Scenes?


👍The sudden lockdown of Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone and the emergency landing of an American military helicopter at the "Third Al-Tawhid" (Union III) tactical base inside the US Embassy compound is not a routine logistical operation. Coming on the heels of intense regional friction and the fragile diplomatic maneuvers surrounding the Swiss MOU, this incident points to a high-stakes intelligence or security emergency.
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.


📌 Behind-the-Scenes Scenarios


🔢 High-Value Evacuation or Tactical Panic
🤲The US Embassy in Baghdad remains a primary symbol of Western hubris and occupation in Iraq, having repeatedly come under precise drone and missile fire from the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Air defense system failures at the compound during recent escalations have proved that the embassy's military wing is highly vulnerable.
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.


🔢 Secret Transport of Regional Directives
🤲As Washington scrambles to manage the regional fallout of its understandings with Iran, Baghdad has become a critical node for back-channel communications. The helicopter may be transporting high-level American or regional envoys carrying urgent, non-digitized strategic directives directly to Prime Minister-designate Ali al-Zaidi's circle or top military commanders. By locking down the Green Zone, the US military ensures that these physical communications—away from the prying eyes of the electronic surveillance of the Resistance—are delivered securely to dictate the next political transition in Iraq.


🔢 Immediate Precaution Against an Imminent Attack
🤲Historically, the US military locks down the "Third Al-Tawhid" base and deploys helicopters to secure the perimeter whenever their early-warning intelligence detects imminent retaliatory operations by Iraqi factions. The recent martyrdom of resistance fighters across the region has kept the Islamic Resistance in Iraq on high alert. The sweeping security measures on the ground suggest that Washington received credible intelligence of an incoming drone or rocket package, prompting them to clear the airspace, ground sensitive personnel, and scramble helicopters for immediate tactical surveillance.


🤔 Critical Analytical Questions

🔘 The Illusion of Sovereignty: If the US Embassy claims to be a purely diplomatic mission, why does it house a full-scale military base ("Third Al-Tawhid") capable of altering Baghdad's municipal security architecture at a moment's notice?

🔘 A Failed Deterrence Shield: Despite the deployment of advanced C-RAM systems and localized air defenses, the immediate panic and total lockdown of the Green Zone whenever a helicopter touches down proves that the US military remains in a state of permanent anxiety.

🔘The Message to Local Proxies: While the American embassy attempts to project power, these frantic security scrambles signal acute vulnerability to the Iraqi street and political elite. It serves as a stark reminder that the real power on the ground lies with the armed factions that have successfully rewritten the rules of engagement, forcing the foreign occupiers to live under a permanent status of siege.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Lebanese President Joseph Aoun called for an end to the “Israeli occupation” of southern Lebanon, saying the country would accept “nothing less” than full Israeli withdrawal.

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.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Hemmati Implicitly Aligns with Trump-Vance: Is Iran Factually Paying a "Disguised Indemnity" to U.S. Farmers?

🔰TEHRAN – Agencies

🌕The Governor of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), Abdolnaser Hemmati, stated to Tasnim News Agency that Tehran faces no obstacles in purchasing agricultural goods and inputs from the United States, provided the price and quality are competitive. Hemmati noted that Iran's historical agricultural purchases have traditionally been funneled through major U.S. and European corporations. He clarified that while the agreement signed in 1402 (Iranian calendar) regarding the first $6 billion earmarks those funds for essential goods and medicine, the second $6 billion tranche will allow for the procurement of other non-sanctioned goods.

📌 Political & Economic Analysis

🔢 Implicit Endorsement of the "Trump-Vance" Doctrine
👍Hemmati’s flexible tone serves as a pragmatic acknowledgment and implicit endorsement of the stance held by Donald Trump and his Vice President, JD Vance. The U.S. leadership has consistently pushed to mandate that Iran’s unfrozen assets be spent exclusively within the U.S. market to purchase American agricultural products.

🔢 A Facto "Penalty" Paid by Iran to the U.S.
👍In practical terms—stripping away legal jargon—this economic equation means Iran is footing the entire bill. Instead of the U.S. government paying subsidies or relief to American farmers out of its own budget to cushion market or wartime disruptions, Iran is effectively forced to liquidate its frozen assets directly into the pockets of U.S. corporations and farmers. This functions as a de facto indemnity, fully protecting the American farmer without costing Washington a single dime.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴“What Is the Lebanese Delegation Negotiating in Washington?”

✍️By Akram Bazi – Writer

👌Analyses continue to scrutinize the potential agreement between Washington and Tehran, revealing the contours of a geopolitical landscape undergoing profound transformation. Available indicators suggest that the balance is shifting noticeably in Iran’s favor, while America’s regional allies—foremost among them Israel and the Gulf states—find themselves confronting a new reality marked by unprecedented security and economic challenges.

👌A close reading of the reported provisions points to a significant retreat from the traditional dominance of U.S. policy. Washington appears willing to sacrifice aspects of its allies’ regional stability in pursuit of an understanding with Tehran. This has heightened concerns in both Israel and the Gulf, particularly as the United States appears committed to restraining Israeli actions and reducing its military presence in the region—long viewed as a security guarantee for Gulf states. At the same time, this evolving environment opens a rare strategic opportunity for Lebanon to demand an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire.

👌Iran’s gains, according to this assessment, are extensive. Tehran is not only securing promises to end conflicts across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, but is also obtaining recognition of its sovereignty, commitments to lift the maritime blockade, and the withdrawal of forces from surrounding areas. Such measures would effectively redefine the rules of engagement in Iran’s favor.

👌Economically, Iran is expected to receive guarantees for reconstruction funding amounting to no less than $300 billion, comprehensive sanctions relief, exemptions for oil and petrochemical exports, and the release of frozen assets held abroad. The arrangement would also reportedly include assurances against new sanctions, limitations on additional U.S. military deployments in the region, and the conversion of the agreement into a binding United Nations Security Council resolution to prevent any future unilateral U.S. withdrawal similar to what occurred in the past.

🤲Against this backdrop, Lebanon faces what may be a historic and exceptional opportunity that should be seized immediately. The first provision of the agreement—requiring the United States to pressure its allies to end hostilities on all fronts, including the Lebanese front—would provide unprecedented international and regional cover for imposing a lasting ceasefire.

🤲Within this context, and after Iran reportedly succeeded in placing Lebanon as a central issue in the Bürgenstock negotiations, any bilateral negotiations between Lebanon and Israel become, in the author’s view, futile exercises—“negotiations for the sake of negotiations.” The Lebanese delegation, therefore, would no longer be obliged to continue such talks. It possesses few leverage points in those tracks and risks making concessions, while the resistance’s military operations have, according to the author, established new realities on the ground. Citing descriptions from Hebrew-language media, the author argues that these developments have left the Israeli army exposed and vulnerable. Consequently, Lebanon should withdraw its delegation and focus instead on the international commitments emerging from broader agreements sponsored by major powers.

🤲The American concessions described in the agreement are not merely technical details; they represent a strategic reordering of priorities at the expense of Israeli and Gulf security. Rather than serving as a deterrent force, the U.S. presence would become a mechanism for constraining and containing Israeli actions. Meanwhile, Gulf states would be left to deal with the consequences of renewed commercial activity that benefits Iran without additional tariffs or costs.

🤲What is unfolding, the author contends, is a structural shift that overturns long-standing expectations, making Iran the principal beneficiary while forcing regional actors to reassess their strategies amid the decline of America’s traditional guarantor role.

✌This new reality strengthens Lebanon’s ability to assert its sovereignty and distance itself from conflicts increasingly governed by binding international commitments to de-escalation. It also places Lebanon in a stronger negotiating position to demand its rights and reinforce its national security, particularly through coordination with the Speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, whom the author credits with balancing the successful Islamabad track and the Washington track, which he argues has become more symbolic than substantive.

✌For Lebanon to capitalize on this political moment, intensive diplomatic efforts will be required to connect international commitments made by Tehran and Washington with the imperative of shielding Lebanon from the devastation of continued conflict. The presumed international consensus surrounding the agreement provides Beirut with an opportunity to transform a ceasefire into an unavoidable political obligation.

✌The next phase, the author argues, requires Lebanese decision-makers to formulate a unified national vision that takes advantage of this regional opening—not only to halt military operations but also to launch a political process capable of securing long-term stability and protecting the country from regional rivalries. Historic opportunities are rare, and ignoring these developments could mean losing a valuable chance to pull Lebanon out of its current predicament and restore balance to its sovereignty within the regional order.

✌Ultimately, these developments demand that all Lebanese parties move beyond traditional divisions and focus on a higher objective: reclaiming political initiative. With the international community increasingly invested in sustaining the agreement, Lebanon’s voice may now carry greater influence. What is needed, according to the author, is a clear strategy rooted in international resolutions and the commitments contained in the agreement, aimed at securing a comprehensive ceasefire, ending the suffering of the Lebanese people, and opening the door to reconstruction and economic recovery.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴From the Assassination to the Ten Conditions: The Behind-the-Scenes of the Pre-Ceasefire Negotiations


🗒Mehdi Khanalizadeh’s account of the hidden aspects of post-war negotiations (Part 1)


🔹 Mehdi Khanalizadeh, a media member of the Iranian negotiating team, frankly reviewed the behind-the-scenes opposition of the Leadership to the course of the negotiations, and how the agreement was passed by the Supreme National Security Council. According to his account, the Leader was fundamentally opposed to the principle of the negotiation process, addressing the negotiating team by saying: "

There is no good in these negotiations, neither for your worldly life nor for your hereafter."

⚠️ The Usual American Trick: Assassination, Then a Request for a Ceasefire
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.

🔄 Back-and-Forth Between the National Security Council and the Leadership
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).

⛔️ The Main Red Line: A Ban on Nuclear Negotiations
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...

🤔 To be continued...

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Crossing Red Lines in Islamabad and the Leadership's Stern Response

🗒Mehdi Khanalizadeh’s account of the hidden aspects of post-war negotiations (Part 2)


🔹 After the initial American approval of Iran's ten conditions, the negotiating team headed to Islamabad. However, during the rounds of dialogue, the course of the negotiations abruptly veered off track.


🤔 The American Assessment of the Iranian Team's Weaknesses
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.

🔻 A Fierce Reaction from the Leader: "These Negotiations Are Illegitimate"
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.


✉️ The Justificatory Letter from the Supreme National Security Council
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...

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴The Story of Imposing the Agreement and the President’s Written Pledges


🗒Mehdi Khanalizadeh’s account of the hidden aspects of post-war negotiations (Final Part)

🔹 Following the justificatory letter from the Supreme National Security Council, Sayyid Mojtaba conveyed a reply that read: "

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."

🔄 Bypassing the Leadership's Conditions and the Birth of the 14-Point Plan
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!

🕓 Two Weeks of Silence and the "Silence Implies Consent" Assumption
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.


✍️ The President's Written Pledge and the Issuance of Permission
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.


📌 Conclusion: "Conceptually, I Had a Different Opinion"
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.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴An existential conflict or a procedural file? A sharp contrast between Trump and Tehran!


🔹While Iranian officials issue statements attempting to "dwarf" the crisis with Washington, turning it into an administrative file or a divergence of views that can be resolved via a hotline or commercial deals, Trump publishes a video rooting the historical hostility with Iran, concluding it with a single word regarding its nuclear ambitions: "Never."


🤔The video illustrates the massive gap in reading the scene; Trump views the battle as strategic and a long-term conflict of influence, while Tehran looks for quick, technical settlements.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴A Reading of Alexander Dugin’s Commentary on the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding

✍️ Prepared by Dr. Badra Gaaloul

I continue to reflect on the news, trying to understand and interpret what is happening in the Middle East, the Zionist-American aggression against Iran, and the implications of the U.S.–Iran Memorandum of Understanding. The devil, as always, lies in the details. Every word, whisper, and movement carries layers of consequences, interpretations, and readings. I have never trusted what the West says, nor what the cunning Trump and his entourage proclaim. Everyone appears to have reached an understanding—except Arab leaders, who have rarely achieved either consensus or genuine awareness.

The world today stands at a crossroads, living through one of the dirtiest and most difficult periods of moral and ethical decay. No standards or laws seem capable of governing it. We are witnessing an era of distortions, sharp turns, and continuous decline.

Russian philosopher and political thinker Alexander Dugin considers the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and the ceasefire agreement to be a reflection of the collapse of international law and the triumph of American brute force. In his view, the agreement also serves as a rescue mechanism for the United States at a moment when it faces a significant strategic predicament.

Dugin’s principal positions regarding the agreement can be summarized as follows:

⚪️Rejection of Negotiations

Dugin had previously warned the Iranian leadership against any form of settlement, arguing that merely sitting at the negotiating table with the United States constitutes a concession. In his view, maintaining pressure on Washington was the only path toward achieving a genuine victory against American power.

⚪️A Shift in the Balance of Power

He believes that the joint American-Israeli attack, followed by the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding, has fundamentally altered the rules of international politics.

⚪️The Collapse of International Legitimacy

Dugin sharply criticized the contents of the agreement. He argues that the United States’ decision to strike Iran—a sovereign state that later accepted negotiations—demonstrates that the world has entered an era governed by the law of the jungle rather than international law.

⚪️A Threat to Russia

He warns that if the United States succeeds in subduing Iran, Western powers will be encouraged to undertake similar interventions against other sovereign states, foremost among them Russia.

Dugin’s analysis is rooted in his broader Eurasianist theory, which advocates the strategic unity of Russia, Iran, and Asian nations in a common front against American hegemony.

Since the beginning of the war on February 28, 2026, Dugin has argued that the American-Israeli attack on Iran signaled the collapse of international law and the beginning of a new era in which global politics would be governed by brute force. Today, following the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran, he reiterates the same assessment, viewing the agreement as fragile and ultimately serving Zionist-American interests more than Iranian interests.

Dugin also warns that Iran could fall into what he describes as a Zionist-American trap, a development that would encourage Western powers to target and violate the sovereignty of other states, particularly Russia.

In the same context, Dugin argues that the first day of the American-Israeli war against Iran fundamentally transformed global power relations and the rules of international politics, stripping away what he sees as the illusion of international legitimacy.

He recalls a statement attributed to Trump: “International law does not exist. What I consider moral is what I consider moral.

” According to Dugin, after attempts to impose external control over Venezuela and the subsequent attack on Iran—a sovereign and independent state—along with the targeted destruction of the country’s military, political, and religious leadership, as well as historical landmarks, universities, and schools, it is no longer possible to speak of rules, laws, or meaningful standards governing international relations.

Those who betray agreements once, he argues, will do so again. Therefore, the current talks in Switzerland should not necessarily be viewed as the end of aggression or hostilities. In his view, those responsible for such actions are skilled in betrayal and are capable of returning to the negotiating table afterward without hesitation.

According to Alexander Dugin, the only principle now operating in this unbalanced world is the right of the strongest, the fastest, and the most ruthless. It is not merely the law of the jungle, but rather the law of a savage humanity unconstrained by ethical, legal, or legitimate standards.

We seem to be living in a world where whoever strikes first and acts fastest is automatically considered “right,” even though concepts such as justice, legitimacy, strength, and, above all, human morality have become increasingly blurred. Everything else becomes little more than an additional justification.

In this framework, Dugin suggests that the priority becomes delivering a decisive blow to the enemy, breaking its resistance, destroying its leadership, and targeting its military, strategic, and energy infrastructure. Afterward, one can justify the action in any manner desired, rationalize it however one wishes, and sign agreements whenever convenient. No one, he argues, will hold the perpetrators accountable.

Perhaps only centuries from now will historians pass judgment. Future professors of history and students of politics may ask:

How did these societies live? By what standards did they govern themselves?

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴MOU or Capitulation? How IAEA Dictates Insult Iranian Sovereignty


The recent statements by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the upcoming inspections in Iran do not reflect a diplomatic compromise; they represent a flagrant violation of national sovereignty and a blow to the principles of a multipolar world order.

For a nation anchoring the Axis of Resistance, accepting these concessions via the latest Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States is a dangerous step backward.


Here is how these dictates directly insult Iran’s sovereignty:


The Re-Establishment of Unilateral Oversight:

The IAEA’s aggressive demand to track down highly enriched uranium stockpiles
"as soon as possible"
treats Iran not as a sovereign state with legitimate defense and scientific rights, but as a rogue entity under international trusteeship.


The Trap of Western Tech-Bureaucracy:

By reducing a profound geopolitical struggle to technical "procedural files," Tehran risks falling into a Western-designed trap. Allowing foreign inspectors unfettered access to strategic facilities compromises military security and intelligence under the guise of "verification."


Inviting the Hegemon:

The agency's suggestion that Tehran can
"invite Washington or other observers"
to the inspections is a psychological insult. It attempts to normalize the presence of the very Western hegemony that the Axis of Resistance has spent decades fighting to expel from the region.


The Critique from a Multipolar Perspective:


True multipolarity requires sovereign centers of power that refuse to bow to biased international institutions functioning as arms of Western foreign policy. By conceding to these aggressive inspection timelines and metrics under US pressure, Tehran undermines its own leverage and compromises the collective security posture of the regional resistance network.

Technical settlements with a hostile hegemon never guarantee security; they only expose a nation's strategic depth to its adversaries.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴Strategic Analysis | The Bürgenstock Negotiations: Tactical Concessions and Institutional Divergence in Iranian Foreign Policy


Recent statements by the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs and US officials regarding the US-Iran diplomatic channel in Switzerland reveal an escalating divergence between Tehran’s ideological rhetoric and its strategic execution. The disclosed framework—encompassing the nuclear file, frozen assets, the Lebanon de-escalation cell, and maritime protocols in the Strait of Hormuz—signals a significant shift in Iran's negotiating posture.


1. Rhetorical Defiance vs. Institutional Pragmatism


The inclusion of the nuclear portfolio directly contradicts the strict ideological parameters set forth within the conservative establishment, most notably outlined in recent communications attributed to Sayyed Mojtaba Khamenei. While the hardline faction consistently demanded that the nuclear file remain isolated from broader regional containment talks, the active participation of Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi in Switzerland proves that Iranian state institutions are operating on a highly pragmatic parallel track. Faced with systemic economic strain, the executive and legislative branches have prioritized state preservation over ideological red lines.


2. The Strait of Hormuz: Capitulation on Maritime Leverage


The most stark policy reversal lies in the maritime domain. Tehran had previously spent months propagating a new regulatory framework for the Strait of Hormuz, floating proposals for transit tolls, security permits, and environmental fees under the pretext of joint management with Muscat. This was intended to institutionalize Iranian sovereignty over a vital global chokepoint.
The Pakistani Foreign Minister’s confirmation that Iran will enforce

"no transit tolls, fees, or permit mandates"

marks a definitive retreat. This concession was directly triggered by a US executive ultimatum threatening the immediate termination of talks if maritime commerce was disrupted. While Iranian state media attempts domestic damage control by differentiating between illegal international "tolls" and legitimate "maritime service fees," the geopolitical reality is clear: Tehran has surrendered its primary maritime leverage to secure an economic exit ramp, explicitly aimed at unfreezing assets earmarked for agricultural and food imports.


3. Conclusion: Independent Rules of Engagement


The political factions driving Iran’s state apparatus (the Pezeshkian administration and Qalibaf’s legislative team) have effectively established independent rules of engagement based on material survival rather than ideological continuity. While ballistic capabilities are maintained as a nominal red line to satisfy the domestic core, the nuclear and maritime files have been leveraged as transactional assets to defuse imminent economic collapse and military escalation.


☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴 U.S. Senate Limits Trump’s Military Powers on Iran

The U.S. Senate has voted in favor of a resolution that bars President Donald Trump from launching any military action or war against Iran without prior and explicit approval from Congress.

The resolution aims to prevent the White House from making unilateral and abrupt wartime decisions in the Middle East, while restoring the authority to declare war to Congress.

☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5

🔴 Ten Points Regarding Today’s Congressional Resolution

✍🏼By Dr. Foad Izadi

1. The text of the resolution "directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran... unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization for the use of military force against Iran." This means any subsequent attack on Iran without congressional approval would be illegal.

2. Trump's anger in his tweet stems precisely from this reason; where he wrote:

"So, I have Iran on the "ropes," ready to go down for the fall, willing to give us practically anything, and for the first time in decades, respecting the hell out of the United States and its President, ME, and the U.S. Senate decides to have a poorly timed and meaningless War Powers Act Vote, telling the Number One Sponser of Terror in the World that the United States doesn't like what I am doing to them, and I must stop, and by so doing has provided aid and comfort the Enemy. Four Republican Losers voted with the Dumocrats..."

3. Since the text is framed as a "Concurrent Resolution" between the Senate and the House of Representatives and carries the phrasing "directs the President," it will not be sent to Trump for endorsement or signature. This means Trump does not have the option to use his veto power against this congressional directive.

4. Over the past months, Trump has made many negative remarks about this law, yet he has complied with its implementation simultaneously. At the beginning of the hostilities, he officially notified Congress in accordance with the law, and at the end of the 60-day deadline, he sent another official letter to Congress stating that due to the ceasefire, there was no need to trigger the War Powers Act.

5. This resolution makes any future attack on Iran much more difficult; without congressional approval, it would be illegal. American officials completely disregard international laws, yet they strictly comply with their domestic laws (unlike us!).

6. A military assault requires a financial budget, and ultimately, it is the members of Congress who must approve the budget for any future strike against Iran. This vote signals that securing approval for the budget of the next war against Iran is far from guaranteed, and for this reason, the resolution is not merely symbolic.

📌Conclusion:
7. Please do not give away free concessions to the other side under the pretext of "averting the specter of war."

8. Experience has shown that concessions and negotiations do not keep the specter of war at bay; because as the martyred Imam said, "America wants to swallow Iran." This means no concession, no matter how large, will ever be enough for them. Over the past three months, we have seen zero evidence to contradict this analysis by the martyred Imam.

9. As a matter of principle, the country’s top priority must be to break this vicious cycle: (attack, ceasefire, negotiation, and attack again); and not accepting American or non-American wheat in exchange for Iran's frozen assets.

10. The correct way to keep the specter of war away from the country is "military deterrence." Please publish a list of the desalination plants and oil facilities targeted by Iran in the region; in the event that Iran is attacked again, these facilities must be destroyed in such a manner that rebuilding them would take at least two years.
Limited destruction does not create the necessary deterrence; Trump views limited destruction of these facilities merely as reconstruction projects for American corporations. Mass destruction, however, will keep global oil and gas prices high for at least two years, creating the required deterrence. Alternative routes to the Strait of Hormuz must be at the very top of Iran's target list.
If the Americans know that Iran will actually respond in this manner, they will not attack us—especially after the passage of this congressional resolution.


☑️ Our website

🔵Link to the article in Arabic

🖋@observer_5