博客

In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye, France’s ambassador to Oman Nabil Hajlaoui has delivered a sharp diplomatic rebuke of the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, characterizing the operation as both unjustified and outside international legal frameworks. The ambassador’s remarks, recorded for The David Hearst Podcast, represent a significant public divergence between Western allies regarding Middle East military strategy.

Hajlaoui articulated France’s position with notable clarity: ‘This military operation exists outside of international law and we cannot endorse it in any way. We see no justification, no supporting Security Council resolution, nor any situation requiring such rapid escalation to military action.’

The timing of the offensive, launched on February 28th, proved particularly troubling according to the French diplomat. The attacks coincided with a critical juncture in Oman-mediated negotiations between Washington and Tehran that had shown promising developments. Ambassador Hajlaoui revealed that French officials had received briefings indicating substantive progress in these talks, with several elements ‘moving in the right direction.’

This assessment aligns with recent statements from Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who three weeks prior had announced Iran’s agreement to never stockpile enriched uranium and to degrade existing nuclear material to ‘the lowest level possible’ through an irreversible conversion process into fuel. The US-Israeli military operation commenced merely one day after these diplomatic breakthroughs.

Hajlaoui expressed understanding regarding Iran’s anger following the attacks, noting the natural frustration when ‘you discuss and then you are attacked.’ While acknowledging that Tehran’s concessions remained ‘very far from American expectations,’ the ambassador identified broader sticking points including Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional activities that Western powers view as destabilizing.

The French diplomat suggested Israel likely drove the momentum toward military confrontation rather than prolonged negotiations, stating: ‘I’m really not informed of the way the Israelis and Americans discussed this preparation, but we can just see that the momentum was pushed by the Israelis.’

This military escalation has generated profound disappointment in Muscat according to Hajlaoui, who described the mood as one of ‘clear dismay’ at what he termed a ‘collective failure to prevent war.’ The ambassador warned that Gulf states are being unwillingly drawn into a conflict they did not seek, despite their recent efforts to rebuild relations with Tehran.

Hajlaoui issued sobering warnings about the conflict’s potential expansion, noting the absence of clear limits to escalation. He highlighted the particularly grave economic implications should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz—the world’s most critical oil chokepoint through which approximately 20% of global oil output and one-third of liquefied natural gas transit.

While France has deployed an aircraft carrier to the region as reassurance to partners, Hajlaoui emphasized that France has no intention of involvement ‘in any way in this war.’ The nation is collaborating with allies to monitor the strategic strait but will refrain from active intervention during ongoing military operations.

The ambassador characterized potential US troop deployment as ‘a very big game changer’ that would contradict the administration’s stated policy of avoiding ‘endless wars.’ Such escalation would represent ‘an incredible political risk’ and a total policy shift according to Hajlaoui.

Finally, the diplomat expressed concern about the undermining of multilateralism internationally, citing reduced US contributions to UN agencies and the creation of alternative forums competing with established international institutions.

The Middle Eastern military confrontation enters its third week with escalating intensity as Iran demonstrates unexpected resilience against combined US-Israeli operations. The conflict, initiated on February 28 as a voluntary military engagement by Washington and Jerusalem, has evolved into a protracted struggle with no clear resolution in sight.

Tehran’s Islamic regime is engaged in a battle for survival while simultaneously executing a strategy of asymmetric warfare designed to inflict maximum regional and global economic disruption. Despite inferior conventional military capabilities compared to the US-Israeli alliance, Iranian forces have maintained operational continuity and institutional stability, rapidly appointing Mojtaba Khamenei as successor to the slain supreme leader.

The American position, characterized by contradictory objectives and unclear strategic goals, contrasts sharply with Israel’s explicitly stated ambition to dismantle both the Iranian regime and diminish Iranian state sovereignty. Prime Minister Netanyahu has further articulated expansionist territorial ambitions based on biblical references to ‘greater Israel,’ receiving unexpected endorsement from US Ambassador Mike Huckabee.

Military analysts observe that the conflict has entered a critical phase where missile and interceptor inventories may determine the eventual outcome. Meanwhile, Iran continues to leverage regional proxy networks and economic pressure tactics, attempting to transform the bilateral confrontation into a broader regional crisis that might compel Gulf Arab states to intervene diplomatically.

The humanitarian consequences continue to mount, with Iranian and Lebanese civilian populations bearing disproportionate casualties. The conflict has already triggered global energy market disruptions through attacks on critical infrastructure including Kharg Island’s oil export facilities, though Trump administration officials maintain these economic impacts remain temporary.

As the war progresses without clear exit strategies, international observers anticipate either material exhaustion or political declaration of victory as potential conclusion scenarios, though neither outcome promises regional stability in the polarized post-conflict landscape.

In a landmark move to safeguard agricultural stability and protect farmer interests, China has announced a comprehensive 30-year extension for rural land contracts upon their expiration. The policy directive, jointly issued by the General Offices of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and the State Council on March 18, 2026, establishes detailed frameworks affecting hundreds of millions of rural residents.

The guideline outlines 15 specific measures centered on preserving collective land ownership, maintaining the household-based contract system, and ensuring social stability across rural communities. This extension represents a critical component of China’s ongoing rural reform initiatives, building upon pilot programs that have been progressively expanded since 2020 under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs.

Implementation will commence with large-scale pilot programs across 29 provincial-level regions throughout 2026. The policy explicitly prohibits the redistribution of farmland between villages and mandates that existing land arrangements remain fundamentally unchanged. No organization or individual may illegally adjust or reclaim contracted land, ensuring stability for current landholders.

The extension process will follow standardized procedures including formation of specialized working groups, verification of land data, public consultation on extension plans, contract signing ceremonies, and certificate updates. Particular attention is given to protecting vulnerable groups including women affected by marital status changes and farmers who have migrated to urban areas.

Notably, the guidelines introduce mechanisms for voluntary and compensated withdrawal from land contract rights, while imposing strict limits on reserve land management—capping such allocations at 5% of total collective farmland. Local authorities are instructed to complete all contract extensions within one year following expiration of existing agreements, with emphasis on coordinated implementation and transparent ownership clarification.

China’s Ministry of National Defense has issued a strong condemnation of recent Philippine Coast Guard activities near Huangyan Island (also known as Scarborough Shoal), characterizing them as carefully orchestrated propaganda efforts rather than legitimate maritime operations. Senior Colonel Jiang Bin, speaking as defense spokesman, delivered Beijing’s official response to what he described as Manila’s provocative tactics in the disputed waters.

The criticism specifically addresses an incident on March 7 when a Philippine reconnaissance aircraft carrying journalists allegedly received warnings from Chinese naval vessels while conducting patrols near the island. The Philippine Coast Guard had announced intentions to increase transparency through enhanced public communication and additional patrols, claiming these measures would counter Chinese assertiveness in the region.

Jiang dismissed these actions as ‘self-directed farces’ designed to fabricate a false narrative of victimhood. ‘Edited footage and fabricated lies can never change China’s sovereignty over our islands and reefs in the South China Sea, including Huangyan Island,’ he stated during Wednesday’s briefing. The spokesman emphasized that China considers its sovereignty over the island and adjacent waters ‘indisputable’ under international law.

The defense spokesman further asserted that China’s response to Philippine maneuvers remained ‘legitimate, professional and restrained’ given the circumstances. Jiang confirmed that China would continue implementing ‘effective countermeasures’ against any actions deemed violations of Chinese rights or provocations in the region, underscoring Beijing’s determination to safeguard its territorial claims through appropriate legal and military channels.