分类： politics

In recent months, successive public statements from U.S. President Donald Trump suggesting Syria take charge of addressing the Hezbollah issue have rekindled deep-seated anxiety in Lebanon over a potential return of Syrian military involvement to the country, even as Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa and his administration have repeatedly rejected any plans for armed intervention. Trump’s increasingly explicit framing of a Syrian role has also exposed apparent inconsistencies in the Biden administration’s earlier messaging, directly contradicting a previous categorical denial from U.S. Ambassador to Syria Tom Barrack, who dismissed claims Washington had pressured Damascus to deploy troops into Lebanon as “false and inaccurate.”

The most recent comments from Trump came during a June 21 interview with Fox News, where the U.S. leader expressed open disappointment with Israel’s ongoing campaign against Hezbollah, criticizing the operation for its widespread collateral damage. “They can’t do anything without knocking buildings down,” Trump told the outlet, adding “I’m close to giving it over to Syria.” Notably, Trump offered no additional context to clarify his use of the phrase “giving it over,” leaving observers uncertain whether he was referencing a full-scale Syrian military operation, regional political mediation, targeted pressure on Hezbollah, enhanced cross-border security coordination, or expanded cooperation with Lebanon’s central government. Even so, his remarks mark the latest in a string of public signals that the White House has actively explored assigning Damascus a formal role in managing the Lebanese armed group.

The discourse around a potential Syrian involvement first emerged in public view on March 17, when Reuters published a report claiming U.S. officials had encouraged Damascus to consider deploying military forces into eastern Lebanon to support efforts to disarm Hezbollah. Citing five anonymous sources with direct knowledge of the behind-the-scenes talks, the outlet noted that Syrian officials had already expressed reluctance to move forward with the proposal, warning that intervention could drag Syria into a wider regional conflict and reignite volatile sectarian tensions in both Syria and Lebanon. According to the report, the proposal was first raised during bilateral talks between U.S. and Syrian officials in 2025, before being revisited in late February, shortly after the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Within hours of the report’s publication, Barrack issued a forceful public rejection of the claims, writing on the social platform X that “Reporting regarding the United States encouraging Syria to send forces into Lebanon is false and inaccurate.”

Despite these denials, regional outlet Middle East Eye (MEE) subsequently reported that Sharaa held a meeting with leaders of Syrian armed factions shortly after the Reuters report to discuss the circulating claims. A Syrian source briefed on the gathering told MEE that “Those present agreed that Syria had neither the intention nor the desire to intervene militarily in Lebanon.” A separate senior Lebanese source also confirmed to MEE that Lebanese authorities in Beirut had received multiple formal reassurances that Damascus had no plans to deploy troops across the shared border. The outlet further reported that Syrian officials have begun coordinating with regional allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey to push back against U.S. pressure for intervention. A second senior Syrian source told MEE that to avoid directly complying with Washington’s demands, Sharaa has laid out a series of preconditions for any Syrian involvement that would be nearly impossible for the U.S. to meet.

Trump first floated the idea of a Syrian role in Lebanon publicly during a June 5 appearance on NBC’s *Meet the Press*, where he called for a more “surgical” campaign against Hezbollah and suggested Washington could either directly assist the effort or “recommend Syria” take the lead. “We can help them with that, or we can recommend Syria,” Trump said at the time, praising Sharaa and claiming the Syrian leader “would love to help.” While that initial stop stopped short of an explicit call for Syrian troops to enter Lebanon, Trump adopted a far more direct tone during a press availability at the G7 summit in Evian-les-Bains, France, on June 16. “I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because, to be honest with you, I think they do a better job of doing it,” he told reporters. He doubled down on his criticism of Israel’s campaign, arguing it has progressed too slowly, caused unnecessary civilian casualties, and destroyed large swathes of residential infrastructure. He also reiterated his praise for Sharaa, claiming the Syrian leader has done an “amazing job” consolidating state control across Syria and “does not like” Hezbollah.

The following day, when pressed by reporters to confirm whether he had directly discussed the Hezbollah issue with Sharaa, Trump confirmed the conversation had occurred but declined to share whether the Syrian leader had agreed to take on a role, saying only that he would address the matter at a later date. The exchange confirmed that Trump’s proposal was not merely an abstract suggestion for Israeli policymakers, but that the prospect of a Syrian role had already been raised directly with the Damascus government.

In recent weeks, Sharaa has moved aggressively to quell growing speculation over potential intervention. During a June 11 meeting with dignitaries from the Damascus countryside, he dismissed reports of an imminent Syrian military entry into Lebanon as baseless rumors. Later, in an interview with Al Arabiya, Syrian presidential adviser Ahmed Muwaffaq Zaidan confirmed that Washington had proposed Syrian involvement amid the ongoing regional escalation, but said Damascus had rejected any military or security role in Lebanon. He added that Syria supports extending the authority of Lebanon’s central government across all of its territory, but that this goal should be achieved by strengthening Lebanese state institutions rather than deploying Syrian troops.

Sharaa expanded on this position in a June 21 interview with Al Mashhad TV, pushing back against claims that Trump’s comments were a signal Syrian forces would enter Lebanon imminently. He argued Trump’s remarks had been misinterpreted, explaining that the U.S. president had raised concerns over the ongoing war and discussed potential Syrian contributions to a peaceful, secure resolution, rather than calling for an invasion. Sharaa emphasized that Syria’s top priority is ending the war and halting Israeli bombardment, noting that Damascus has discussed political, economic, and social pathways forward with U.S. officials. “Our vision is based on supporting the Lebanese state once again, strengthening its institutions, and seeking a solution that everyone believes in,” he said. “We are looking for economic channels between Lebanon and Syria, not military ones.” Sharaa also noted that Damascus is open to dialogue with all Lebanese political factions, including Hezbollah, acknowledging that the group’s role in Syria’s civil war left a “deep Syrian wound” but adding he would meet with Hezbollah representatives if it advanced the shared interests of both Lebanon and Syria.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed Sharaa’s public clarification, saying the reassurances had been well received in Beirut and helped put an end to rampant speculation over a Syrian military role. While Syrian statements have eased immediate public anxiety in Lebanon’s capital, Trump’s repeated calls for a Syrian role, paired with conflicting accounts of earlier U.S.-Syrian talks, have left lingering, unresolved questions about what role Washington ultimately expects Damascus to play in the future of Hezbollah and Lebanese stability.

Fresh turmoil has erupted in Lebanon’s capital Beirut after hundreds of Hezbollah supporters launched mass street demonstrations opposing a landmark framework agreement brokered by the United States between Beirut and Jerusalem to end months of cross-border fighting. The protests, which stretched from late Friday into Saturday, saw demonstrators cruise through central Beirut, near the national parliament building, and along the key airport highway on motorbikes and mopeds, just hours after the deal was formally announced in Washington.

Local media and social media footage captured crowds of protesters gathering in Dahieh, Hezbollah’s stronghold in southern Beirut — a neighborhood that was heavily damaged by Israeli airstrikes during the recent escalation of hostilities. Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA) confirmed that some demonstrators blocked a major arterial road near the prime minister’s office, while other groups used burning tires to shut down the airport road. Lebanese military forces intervened to disperse the blockading protesters, reopened the route, and deployed temporary security checkpoints across multiple districts of Beirut to contain unrest.

The framework deal, hammered out over five rounds of direct negotiations between Israeli and Lebanese delegations in the U.S. capital, outlines a pilot plan that would see Lebanese armed forces take control of two small parcels of territory currently held by Israeli troops, alongside a formal process aimed at disarming Hezbollah, the Iran-aligned militant group that has long operated as a de facto military force independent of the Lebanese state. Critically, the agreement leaves the timeline and conditions for a full Israeli withdrawal from all occupied areas of southern Lebanon undefined, tying any pullout to improved security conditions and the elimination of what Israel defines as threats to its territory — effectively making full withdrawal dependent on the completion of Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Hezbollah has repeatedly rejected any demand to surrender its weapons as long as Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory remains in place and the country faces security threats from Israel. Hassan Fadlallah, a senior Hezbollah member of Lebanon’s parliament, issued a stark warning Friday, arguing that Lebanese national authorities would only be able to enforce the Washington-brokered deal if they launched a civil war against the group with backing from the U.S. He added that the agreement was an intentional effort to undermine a prior U.S.-Iran understanding designed to prevent a full-scale regional war that would engulf Lebanon, and that no provision of the deal would be implemented without Hezbollah’s acquiescence.

Even as protests unfolded in Beirut, cross-border activity continued Saturday: the NNA reported that an Israeli military drone carried out a strike in the Nabatieh region of southern Lebanon, and a second drone dropped an explosive sound device near a Lebanese army checkpoint in the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa.

Fadlallah reaffirmed that Hezbollah would actively resist all attempts to enforce the deal, and that the group would only strengthen its hold on its weapons stockpiles. He emphasized that Hezbollah’s opposition is uncompromising and would block the Lebanese government from meeting any of its commitments under the framework, but stressed that the group has no intention of clashing with the Lebanese national army. “The army will remain, the resistance will remain and the people will remain,” Fadlallah said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed the deal, framing it as a diplomatic victory that allows Israeli forces to maintain their occupation of southern Lebanon until Hezbollah is fully disarmed. He positioned the agreement as a significant setback to Iran, which has long backed Hezbollah as a proxy force. “Iran is trying to force us into a withdrawal from southern Lebanon by force. In effect, Israel, Lebanon, and the United States are telling them: this is none of your business,” Netanyahu said.

A senior anchor on Israel’s Channel 12 echoed a common strategic reading of the deal, noting that sowing internal division in Lebanon has long been a core Israeli policy goal. “It seems we’re leading Lebanon to a civil war. Maybe it’s not so bad for us, let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah… That’s been the goal from the start,” the anchor said.

The emerging standoff over the framework agreement has already raised fears of renewed domestic unrest in Lebanon, a country already grappling with a years-long economic collapse and the lingering fallout of months of cross-border conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

Against the backdrop of fragile ongoing ceasefire talks between the United States and Iran, a striking historical parallel drawn by an ancient history scholar offers a stark warning: reaching a lasting peace may prove just as destabilizing and painful as enduring open conflict. As the future of any potential US-Iran agreement remains uncertain, with no clear consensus on its terms or longevity, Peter Edwell, an associate professor of ancient history at Australia’s Macquarie University and a specialist on ancient Persia (the historical predecessor to modern Iran), argues that the current diplomatic gridlock facing the Trump administration should come as no surprise.

For centuries, the two great competing powers of the ancient world — the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, ruled first by the Parthian dynasty from 247 BCE to 224 CE, then by the Sasanian dynasty until 651 CE — cycled endlessly between open war and fragile peace deals that rarely resolved core disputes, and often left underlying tensions worse than before. For these ancient rivals, peace treaties were rarely tools of lasting reconciliation; instead, they were most often just strategic pauses to buy time for military rearmament and preparation for the next conflict.

The first major military clash between Rome and Parthia came in 53 BCE, when Roman general Marcus Crassus launched a disastrous invasion of Parthian territory. The campaign ended in catastrophic defeat on the plains of Carrhae, in modern-day southern Turkey, where Crassus himself was killed and thousands of Roman troops lost their lives. The defeat emboldened Parthia, and by 20 BCE, Rome was forced to accept a peace agreement that formalized the Euphrates River as the official border between the two empires — a major concession for a power that had previously known unbroken territorial expansion.

Conflict reignited in the mid-first century CE, this time over control of strategically located Armenia, a buffer state nestled between the two empires in what is now modern Armenia and eastern Turkey. After the conclusion of hostilities, Roman Emperor Nero and Parthian King Vologases I agreed to the Treaty of Rhandeia in 63 CE, which allowed Parthia to nominate Armenia’s king, on the condition that the coronation be performed by the Roman emperor in Rome. While the treaty resolved the immediate crisis, its awkward power-sharing structure proved unworkable over time. When Parthia ultimately disregarded the agreement’s terms, Roman Emperor Trajan launched a full-scale invasion of Parthia in 114 CE. Though Trajan’s forces won early victories, including capturing the Parthian capital, the invasion ultimately collapsed, and all Roman territorial gains were lost within just three years, by the time of Trajan’s death in 117 CE.

After the Sasanian dynasty replaced the Parthians as rulers of Persia in 224 CE, tensions with Rome escalated dramatically, with control of Armenia once again at the center of most disputes and peace agreements. When Roman Emperor Gordian III died during an invasion of the Sasanian Empire in 244 CE, the two powers struck a new treaty that imposed heavy financial reparations on Rome and included a clause banning any Roman interference in Armenian affairs. Within just a few years, however, Rome violated the agreement, triggering a wave of devastating Sasanian invasions of Roman territory that culminated in the capture of Roman Emperor Valerian by Sasanian forces in 260 CE. A famous rock relief from the period, which depicts Valerian kneeling in submission to Sasanian King Shapur I, remains a lasting symbol of this humiliating Roman defeat.

Rome won a major victory over Sasanian King Narseh in the late 290s CE, and the resulting 299 CE Treaty of Nisibis extended Roman influence deep into the east and gave Rome full control of Armenia. But the lopsided agreement planted deep seeds of resentment among the Sasanians. By the 350s CE, Sasanian King Shapur II launched a major invasion of Roman territory explicitly to overturn the 60-year-old treaty. The conflict escalated when Roman Emperor Julian launched a counter-invasion of the Sasanian Empire in 363 CE, a campaign that ended in devastating Roman defeat and Julian’s death on the battlefield.

While conflict between the two empires cooled slightly in the fifth century CE, it intensified dramatically again in the sixth and seventh centuries CE, when Rome and Persia were almost continuously at war. Dozens of peace treaties were negotiated during this period, but none endured. The most infamous example was the so-called Eternal Peace of 532 CE, which collapsed completely in less than eight years.

Edwell notes that history repeatedly demonstrates that even highly celebrated peace agreements, celebrated as breakthroughs at the time of signing, often lay the groundwork for future discord and renewed conflict. It took more than 400 years of intermittent war and dozens of failed negotiations before Rome and Persia finally reached a lasting agreement to partition Armenia between the two powers in the 380s CE.

Centuries of cyclical conflict, broken treaties, and stalemate preceded even that partial resolution. Today, as the US pursues a peace deal with Iran against the backdrop of a shaky ceasefire, the question lingers: will the current negotiations follow the same fraught path as the ancient clashes between Rome and Persia? Only time will reveal the answer — but the scholar’s hope is that a lasting resolution will not take centuries this time around.

In a recent appearance on Tucker Carlson’s political talk show, prominent American author and geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert has delivered a scathing assessment of the US-Iran ceasefire memorandum of understanding, reached after months of joint US-Israeli military action against Iran, calling the document nothing less than a formal conditional surrender by the United States.

Weichert’s core argument centers on the massive drawdown of American missile stockpiles over the course of the conflict, which he says left the Trump administration with no viable option but to enter negotiations and accept a deal that ultimately handed Iran a strategic victory.

“Ultimately, this is a conditional surrender document,” Weichert stated during the interview. “The United States started a war and it promptly lost. The Iranians have, unfortunately, at a strategic level, achieved victory.” He added that while the Trump administration had no other choice given the pressing timeline of looming resource shortages that left it backed into a corner, the end result remains a surrender regardless of the administration’s reasoning.

Weichert’s controversial remarks land amid intense ongoing partisan and policy debate over the text of the memorandum, which establishes a foundational framework for sustained diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran and codifies the ceasefire that halted months of open military confrontation between the two sides. Citing only unclassified, publicly available data on American weapons usage throughout the conflict, Weichert laid out staggering figures for depleted US munitions inventories.

According to his analysis, roughly half of the United States’ total stockpile of Patriot ballistic missile interceptors were fired during the war, alongside between 50% and 80% of the nation’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) interceptors. Weichert also claimed that more than 1,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles — approximately one-third of the entire US stockpile — were expended in the conflict. He added that large numbers of JASSM air-to-surface standoff missiles were used, and that nearly the entire pre-war inventory of newly produced Precision Strike Missiles was completely consumed in military operations.

Beyond ground and air-launched munitions, Weichert argued that US naval forces faced far greater and more underreported threats during the kinetic phase of the war than the White House has publicly acknowledged. “The Navy reports that they expended large quantities of their SM-3 and SM-6 naval interceptors,” he said. “That indicates to me, if I may conjecture here, that there must have been one hell of a fight over the security of our ships when the war was in its kinetic phase.” From these figures, he concluded that the White House deliberately misled the public when it claimed US naval vessels operating in the region remained completely safe throughout the conflict, arguing the high interceptor expenditure proves American ships faced severe, unacknowledged risks.

One of the most alarming parts of Weichert’s assessment is his projection of multi-year delays to replenish these drained arsenals. According to his timeline, Precision Strike Missiles can be fully restocked by the end of this year, while JASSM inventories will not be fully replaced until the middle of 2026. Naval SM-3 and SM-6 interceptors, he estimates, will not be back to pre-war levels until 2028. Patriot and THAAD interceptor stockpiles could take until roughly 2030 to fully replenish, and Tomahawk cruise missile inventories may require another five years to restore.

“So, we’d better hope that the Chinese or some other area of interest is no longer requiring our assistance because we have depleted ourselves,” Weichert warned.

Weichert’s analysis aligns with a recent bombshell report from *The New York Times*, which revealed that former President Trump and senior Pentagon leaders have been pressuring major defense contractors to speed up weapons production, while simultaneously pushing Congress to approve an extra $70 billion in funding to cover war costs and restock depleted arsenals. The *Times* reporting confirms that defense companies have told the Trump administration that expanding production capacity will require massive new capital investment, and the administration’s funding request is already projected to face fierce bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill. The *Times* also independently verified the broad scope of US munitions depletion, confirming that the military used roughly 1,100 long-range stealth cruise missiles, more than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles, over 1,200 Patriot interceptors, and more than 1,000 Precision Strike and ATACMS missiles throughout the conflict.

Beyond the immediate military implications of drawn-down stockpiles, Weichert argued that the conflict has accelerated an irreversible long-term geopolitical shift across the Middle East, moving the region rapidly toward what he calls a “post-American” order that diminishes the central role Israel has played for decades as the anchor of Washington’s regional security architecture.

“There is now going to be a new Middle East,” he said, outlining his prediction that five regional powers will shape the future balance of power in the area: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey. Weichert argued that Turkey’s rapidly expanding domestic defense industry, Pakistan’s established nuclear capabilities, and the competing regional influence of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt will combine to form a new regional order that is far less dependent on Washington for security and governance. “Those greater Middle East powers are gonna form a new post-American order,” he said. “Where it goes from here really is up to Mr Netanyahu and his government.”

To date, the White House and senior US military officials have publicly defended the memorandum, framing it as a favorable deal that advances US national interests. Even so, the Trump administration has faced widespread criticism from across the US political spectrum for failing to achieve the core stated objectives it laid out at the start of the conflict, including removing the Iranian government, permanently weakening Iran’s regional influence, and decimating its military capabilities.

A new firestorm has erupted in New York City’s charged political landscape after more than 700 pro-Israel rabbis and cantors signed an open letter released Friday calling on Mayor Zohran Mamdani to walk back inflammatory remarks that compared the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) to monsters.

Widely recognized as one of the most influential foreign policy advocacy organizations in the United States, Aipac has built its reputation by spending millions of dollars to defeat electoral candidates who take public critical stances toward Israel. The open letter was organized by The Jewish Majority, a relatively new advocacy group launched by Jonathan Schulman, a former Aipac staffer with nearly 20 years of experience working with the organization.

The letter opens by acknowledging the diverse ideological backgrounds of its signatories: “We are rabbis and cantors from across the United States. We serve different communities, hold different political views, and do not speak with one voice on every question concerning Israel, American politics or the war in Gaza.” But it quickly establishes unified condemnation of Mamdani’s rhetoric, adding: “But we are united in our belief that Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s recent speech about pro-Israel civic participation is dangerous, unacceptable and beneath the office he holds.”

Mamdani first made the controversial comments during a June 18 campaign rally alongside independent US Senator Bernie Sanders. At the event, he framed Aipac as a group of “monsters” that leverages millions in unreported dark money to advance a singular goal: holding onto political power by sowing division among the American public.

In the open letter, the rabbis argue that Mamdani’s language constitutes an act of dehumanization that amplifies rising antisemitism across the United States. “History demonstrates that campaigns against Jews often begin with rhetoric portraying them as uniquely sinister, uniquely powerful and somehow less deserving of equal treatment,” the letter reads. “Mr. Mamdani’s words invoke a familiar story about Jewish power, Jewish money and Jewish manipulation of public life.”

For his part, Mamdani has long pushed back against claims that criticism of Israel or anti-Zionist views equate to antisemitism, and he has refused to apologize for his remarks. When pressed by reporters to clarify his comments earlier this week, the mayor doubled down on his criticism, tying his remarks directly to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

“I want to be very clear. We’re talking about a status quo where children are being killed on a daily basis. More than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military since the so-called ceasefire, [including] Al Jazeera journalist Ahmed Wishah, who was killed this past Saturday by an Israeli strike,” Mamdani told reporters.

“When I am speaking about Aipac, I’m speaking about an organisation that has been supportive of the status quo, that has fought any attempt to actually deliver safety to people, not just in Palestine, but frankly, through much of the region – and it is a status quo for immorality,” he added. “It is one that I will not accept.”

When asked specifically if he regretted using the term “monsters”, Mamdani claimed he was quoting a widely cited line from Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci, though scholarly analysis has repeatedly found the specific phrasing he used is often misattributed or misquoted. “The old world is dying and the new world struggles to be born. Now is the time of monsters,” Mamdani explained, arguing he used the term to describe all actors blocking systemic change, not just Aipac.

Mamdani’s refusal to apologize drew fierce condemnation from right-wing media outlets across the US, which lambasted the mayor for his stance. The open letter from rabbis comes just one week after Mamdani’s progressive political movement passed a critical early electoral milestone: all three of the congressional candidates he endorsed won hotly contested Democratic primary races.

All three of the winning candidates have maintained open, consistent criticism of Israeli policy toward Gaza. In the most high-profile upset, public defender and first-time candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated five-term incumbent Congressman Adriano Espaillat, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Former city comptroller Brad Lander unseated incumbent Representative Dan Goldman, while state assembly member and former union organizer Claire Valdez defeated Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso in the race to fill the open seat left by retiring Representative Nydia Velazquez.

Supporters of the progressive movement quickly celebrated the three victories as evidence that Mamdani’s political project is not a passing fad, but rather the start of a lasting ideological shift within New York’s Democratic Party. Not all reactions were positive, however: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a prominent national pro-Israel organization, labeled the primary wins antisemitic, claiming they sent a “chilling” message to Jewish New Yorkers. On Friday, the ADL publicly endorsed the rabbis’ open letter on its social media platform X.

Alongside backing the letter, the ADL also issued condemnations of two unrelated political developments this week: a recent United Nations report that documents allegations of Israeli forces intentionally targeting Palestinian children, and a nuclear deal signed by former President Donald Trump’s administration to end escalating hostilities with Iran.