分类： politics

After the most recent round of direct military confrontation between the United States and Iran de-escalated, a curious public spectacle emerged: Washington declared its mission a success, Tehran claimed its own victory, and Israel reaffirmed it retained full autonomy to launch strikes against Lebanese Hezbollah. Competing claims over whether Lebanese de-escalation was a formal part of the agreement have left many outside observers writing off the deal as a confused, bad-faith arrangement already teetering toward collapse. But for scholars of war termination and peace durability who have spent decades studying how conflicts end, these apparent contradictions are not a red flag — they are evidence that negotiations are working as intended. The real threat to long-term peace is not competing narratives, but what the Trump-brokered ceasefire leaves unaddressed.

Diplomacy is never a single negotiation between two parties. Political scientist Robert Putnam famously framed international statecraft as a “two-level game,” where leaders must simultaneously strike a deal abroad and sell that agreement to domestic political audiences. No international agreement survives unless it can win buy-in at home. The U.S.-Iran deal is far more complex: it functions as a five-level negotiating game. Washington must satisfy not only Iran, but also its closest regional ally Israel, a divided U.S. Congress, skeptical Gulf Arab partners, and wary European allies. For Tehran, the domestic and international constraints are equally daunting: leaders must win approval from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s most powerful military institution, contain widespread public anger over crippling economic sanctions that could spill over into mass unrest, and maintain the support of its key global backers Russia and China.

Every concession and gain negotiated at the international table has to be packaged for stakeholders who were never present for the talks. This inherent dynamic is exactly what produces the contradictory public messaging that confuses outside observers. Each side is not speaking to its negotiating rival — it is speaking to its own domestic audience. Washington frames sanctions relief as a temporary, reversible move to appease hardline critics at home, while Tehran emphasizes its uncompromised national sovereignty to rally its public. Israel, meanwhile, underscores its unrestricted right to strike to satisfy its own domestic political base. This is not bad faith; it is standard diplomatic practice, with roots stretching back thousands of years.

The earliest recorded peace treaty in human history, struck between Egypt and the Hittite Empire after the 13th century BCE Battle of Kadesh, follows this exact pattern. Two distinct versions of the treaty survive, each carved into stone for a domestic audience, with framing that serves each side’s narrative. Peace between the two great powers endured not because they agreed on a single public story, but because each could sell the outcome to their own people. The cost of compromise varies by context: in Washington, it may come in the form of electoral backlash, while in Tehran, hardline factions have a long history of extracting severe political costs from leaders who negotiate with the West, as former President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif learned after the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal.

Contradictory public messaging is not the core problem with this latest deal. The real flaw is that the same multilevel negotiating pressures that produce messy public narratives also shape what negotiators are willing to include in the final text. Each side fights hard to secure visible, immediate rewards they can showcase to their domestic audiences, and pushes back hard against binding enforcement penalties that would force them to answer for noncompliance down the line. The result is a deal that is heavy on immediate benefits for all sides, and almost entirely lacking in credible enforcement mechanisms.

Research on conflict resolution bears out this risk. In research for the 2009 book *Securing the Peace*, it was found that negotiated settlements ending civil wars break down at roughly twice the rate of conflicts that end in clear military victory. While the research focused on internal conflicts, the core lesson applies broadly to all war settlements: agreements fail not because of conflicting public narratives, but because they lack credible enforcement once implementation begins. This weakness is hidden at the time of signing, when all parties are still collecting the immediate benefits the deal promises. It only emerges later, once those rewards are exhausted, and there are no penalties left to deter parties from defecting.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty illustrates the alternative path to durable peace. The deal endured not simply because Egypt regained the Sinai Peninsula and Israel earned formal international recognition, but because those gains were embedded in a robust enforcement structure. Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai was phased and tied directly to ongoing compliance, the U.S. committed to long-term economic and military assistance for both nations, and the Multinational Force and Observers was deployed in 1981 to monitor demilitarization. More than four decades later, the treaty remains intact, proving the value of built-in enforcement.

For the U.S.-Iran deal, this lesson is clear: lasting peace depends not just on what parties gain immediately, but on the institutions and incentives built to enforce compliance long after the signing ceremony ends. Measured by that standard, the current agreement is built on unstable ground. It offers generous immediate rewards: the U.S. lifts economic blockades, issues oil export waivers, releases billions in frozen Iranian assets, and promises over $300 billion in reconstruction support. In exchange, Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz and agrees to dilute its enriched uranium stockpile on domestic soil, while retaining all the infrastructure to ramp up enrichment again in the future. Almost every step delivers immediate benefit to one side or the other, and almost no step imposes meaningful costs on a party that chooses to walk away from the deal.

Enforcement is left to a hypothetical United Nations Security Council resolution that has not even been drafted, and the most contentious issue — long-term uranium enrichment limits — has been kicked down the road to a final agreement that may never be negotiated. An even deeper structural flaw is that the most powerful actors capable of derailing the deal are not bound by its terms at all. Israel, Hezbollah, and the broad network of Iranian-backed militias across the Middle East were never signatories to the agreement. They gain little from complying with its terms, and risk nothing if they choose to defect, leaving the deal with no mechanism to impose costs on spoilers that break the peace.

None of this means the deal is destined for immediate collapse. The history of peacemaking, from the Battle of Kadesh to the Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian War to the Belfast Agreement that resolved Northern Ireland’s decades-long sectarian conflict, shows that public disputes and threats to walk away are normal growing pains, not proof of imminent failure. But surviving early turbulence is not the same as lasting for the long term. History shows that setbacks are inevitable; the question is whether parties will build robust institutions to deter defection before the immediate rewards are exhausted and the incentives to comply disappear.

The core task for negotiators moving forward is not what most analysts are focused on: it is not reconciling competing public narratives. It is building automatic, meaningful consequences for any actor that returns to violence — including the powerful regional actors that never took a seat at the negotiating table.

This analysis is by Monica Duffy Toft, Professor of International Politics and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies at The Fletcher School, Tufts University, republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

In a landmark legal challenge that has sparked global debate about judicial independence and the power of unilateral U.S. sanctions, three sitting International Criminal Court judges have detailed the devastating personal and professional harm inflicted by restrictions imposed by the former Trump administration, in a complaint filed last month in a New York federal court.

The penalties were enacted under Executive Order 14203, signed by then-President Donald Trump in February 2025, targeting the three jurists for official judicial rulings that ran counter to U.S. and Israeli political interests. All three judges—Kimberly Prost of Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa of Uganda, and Reine Alapini-Gansou of Benin—have served on the ICC bench since March 2018. They are asking the court to strike down the sanctions, which they describe in their filing as “tantamount to a financial death penalty.”

Prost and Bossa were sanctioned for their participation in a 2020 Appeals Chamber decision that approved an ICC investigation into allegations of war crimes committed in Afghanistan, including claims of abuses by U.S. military and intelligence personnel. Alapini-Gansou was targeted for her role on Pre-Trial Chamber I, which issued widely publicized arrest warrants in November 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict.

The complaint, filed June 24 with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, lays out granular harms that have upended nearly every aspect of the judges’ daily lives, far beyond their professional work at the court based in The Hague. James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative and co-counsel representing Prost, called the sanctions an “unprecedented attack on judicial independence.”

“They are trying to induce judges to refrain from deciding on the basis of facts and law, and instead take into account their own personal interests—that is the threats to their own financial and personal wellbeing imposed by these sanctions,” Goldston told Middle East Eye in an interview.

For Prost, the sanctions have dismantled nearly every ordinary financial service she relied on for decades. Her primary HSBC account in Midtown Manhattan has been frozen, leaving her unable to use credit cards even from institutions based outside the United States. While she retains limited banking access in parts of Europe and Canada, even routine domestic transfers within the European Union are regularly rejected or blocked by financial institutions complying with U.S. rules. When she travels outside the EU or Canada, she is forced to rely entirely on cash, as any currency conversion transaction that passes through the U.S. financial system is barred. Access to mainstream digital services has also been cut off: her accounts with Amazon, Google, and Expedia have been restricted or shut down entirely, turning routine tasks such as booking a hotel, ordering groceries online, hailing a rideshare, or purchasing public transit tickets into difficult or impossible undertakings. Most critically, Prost has lost access to health insurance; her existing provider has refused to pay out on any of her medical claims despite collecting her premium payments, and no other insurer will offer her coverage.

The harm to Bossa mirrors that of Prost: her account at the UN Federal Credit Union in New York, which she has held since 2003, has been frozen, locking away her personal savings. She is also barred from using credit cards, converting currencies through the U.S. financial system, paying dollar-denominated bills, or transferring funds between dollar accounts. Booking international travel and accommodation has become nearly impossible, and she has lost access to her personal Google email account, cutting off a critical line of professional and personal communication.

For Alapini-Gansou, who holds no U.S. bank accounts, the impact of the sanctions has still crossed borders, disrupting her life in Europe and West Africa. Her personal account in France has been restricted, and her French-issued credit card no longer works, leaving her unable to cover even basic daily expenses. Like the other two judges, she is barred from conducting any U.S. dollar transactions through the global financial system, making travel planning a major logistical barrier. She has also lost her health insurance coverage, with no alternative provider willing to take on her policy.

Beyond financial harm, Alapini-Gansou now faces direct threats to her physical security and freedom of movement. The complaint notes that she can no longer walk freely to the ICC’s headquarters in The Hague, and must now be transported by armed security detail for her own safety. She has reduced the frequency of visits to her home country of Benin out of caution, and even routine travel across Europe requires her to notify local law enforcement and arrange dedicated security protection, turning simple professional trips into complicated, stressful ordeals.

The sanctions have also forced Alapini-Gansou to step back entirely from her longstanding outreach work with African civil society. She has canceled all planned seminars and workshops for non-governmental organizations across the continent, fearing that any collaboration would expose the groups and their staff to severe legal penalties under the U.S. sanctions regime, which allows for up to 20 years of criminal imprisonment for U.S. citizens who provide services to designated individuals. In multiple instances, event organizers have asked her to withdraw from public participation entirely to avoid regulatory repercussions.

Professionally, the sanctions have isolated all three judges from longstanding professional communities. Prost, who has deep ties to the U.S. academic and legal community, has been barred from entering the U.S. to speak at engagements, and even virtual participation has been blocked. Last October, she was scheduled to deliver the opening keynote address at Fordham University’s annual International Law Weekend, hosted by the American Branch of the International Law Association, but was unable to attend in person or join remotely. She has indefinitely postponed a planned visiting trip to Vanderbilt University and abandoned plans to attend the 2026 annual conference of the American Society of International Law in Washington, D.C. At the December 2025 meeting of the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties, U.S.-based human rights NGOs reportedly received informal guidance to limit interactions with Prost, cutting her off from a professional network she engaged with freely for years. Bossa faces identical professional isolation, barred from U.S. speaking engagements and cut off from collaboration with U.S.-based human rights groups.

The harm of the sanctions has extended beyond the judges themselves to their immediate family members. Prost’s relatives in Canada, many of whom travel to the U.S. routinely for leisure and work, now avoid trips to the country out of fear of legal repercussions simply for being related to a sanctioned individual. Alapini-Gansou’s son abandoned his plans to attend law school in the U.S., a decision that will permanently alter his career trajectory, and one of her daughters, who works for an international NGO, has been forced to cancel all work-related trips to the U.S., disrupting her own professional progress.

Despite the severe personal and professional cost of the sanctions, all three judges have continued to fulfill their judicial obligations in line with their oaths of office. “Judges Prost, Bossa, and Alapini-Gansou have resisted this immense pressure because they are committed to upholding the rule of law, including by discharging their judicial duties faithfully and independently, despite the great personal cost,” the complaint states.

In a historic legal challenge that tests the boundaries of executive power and the rule of law, three sitting International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have secured a court summons for former US President Donald Trump, forcing his administration to defend sweeping sanctions imposed over the tribunal’s investigations into alleged actions by US and Israeli nationals. The summons, issued Thursday by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, gives the administration 60 days to respond to the complaint filed one day prior by the three jurists: Kimberly Prost from Canada, Solomy Balungi Bossa from Uganda, and Reine Alapini-Gansou from Benin. Alongside Trump, the suit names Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (which manages the sanctions list), and OFAC director Bradley Smith as co-defendants. This marks the first time that sitting ICC judges have personally taken legal action to contest their designation under Executive Order 14203, the directive Trump signed into law on February 6, 2025. The order invoked a purported national emergency triggered by the ICC’s probes into US and Israeli citizens to authorize asset freezes and travel bans against foreign officials participating in or supporting those investigations. The three judges are not alone in facing penalties: they are among eight ICC-affiliated individuals sanctioned under the order, which has also targeted ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, his two deputies, the United Nations special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, and three Palestinian human rights organizations. Each of the three plaintiffs sits on judicial panels overseeing high-stakes investigations: Prost and Bossa work on the Afghanistan probe, while Alapini-Gansou handles the file on alleged crimes in Palestinian territories. James Goldston, executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative and co-counsel for Prost, has denounced the sanctions as “an unprecedented attack on judicial independence and the rule of law.” The measures, Goldston confirmed, have inflicted severe tangible harm on judges who have done nothing more than fulfill their official, oath-bound duties. The complaint itself describes the sanctions as “tantamount to the financial death penalty.” According to Goldston, speaking to independent outlet Middle East Eye, Prost’s personal US bank accounts have been frozen, she has lost access to conventional credit card services, and her accounts with major US-based tech and consumer firms including Amazon, Google and Expedia have been restricted or terminated entirely. Worse, Prost has effectively lost access to health coverage after her existing provider refused to process her medical claims, and no other insurer will agree to underwrite a policy for her. Before joining the ICC in 2018, Prost built a career focused on international sanctions regimes: she served as a federal prosecutor for Canada’s Department of Justice, and later as ombudsperson for the UN Security Council’s al-Qaeda sanctions committee, overseeing the exact type of punitive measures that are now being used against her. “She knows a great deal about sanctions, and in some ways it is rather extraordinary that she is now being subjected to these severe sanctions, really solely for undertaking her job as a judge seriously and professionally,” Goldston noted. The legal team has laid out three core constitutional and statutory arguments for why the executive order must be struck down entirely by the court. First, the plaintiffs argue the order far exceeds the authority Congress delegated to the president under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the legislation Trump relied on to impose the sanctions. They further contend that the penalties contradict a separate federal law, the 2002 American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), which was drafted specifically to address the risk of the ICC opening investigations into US or allied nationals who are not parties to the Rome Statute. Goldston explained that ASPA only permits the president to respond to such investigations through narrow, specific measures: providing legal representation for US citizens, submitting exculpatory evidence to the court, and defending US interests through official diplomatic and legal channels. The law does not grant any authority to impose punitive sanctions on ICC personnel. Even in the extreme scenario that an American citizen is taken into ICC custody, Goldston added, ASPA explicitly bars the executive branch from using financial or personal “inducements” to pressure the court into changing its rulings. The sanctions imposed under Executive Order 14203, he argued, fit exactly that prohibited definition. “They are trying to induce judges to refrain from deciding on the basis of facts and law, and instead take into account their own personal interests, that is, the threats to their own financial and personal well-being imposed by these sanctions,” he said. The plaintiffs also reject the administration’s claim of a national emergency justifying the order. IEEPA can only be invoked to respond to an “unusual and extraordinary” threat to US national security, but Washington’s opposition to the ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction over non-party nationals dates back nearly 30 years. President Bill Clinton first raised the same objection when he signed the Rome Statute in 2000, and earlier this year a senior US official confirmed to the United Nations that none of the concerns cited in the 2025 executive order are new, with Washington having reiterated the same position for almost three decades. Legal observers note that both Afghanistan and Palestine are ICC member states, and the Rome Statute has long enshrined the principle that the court can exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed on a member state’s territory, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. The second core argument centers on constitutional protections for property: the asset freeze imposed on Prost and Bossa, who both hold US-based assets, violates the Fifth Amendment in two distinct ways—by depriving them of private property without due process of law, and by seizing private property without just compensation. The third argument holds that the designation of the judges violates the Administrative Procedure Act, because the penalties are “arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” The complaint notes that the Trump administration has failed to produce any specific, concrete evidence justifying the sanctions against the individual judges, and also neglected to weigh the severe damage the measures inflict on international accountability efforts—including ICC investigations that the US itself openly supports, such as the probes into alleged war crimes in Sudan, Libya, and Ukraine. Goldston emphasized that all three arguments revolve around the same core violation: the sanctions pressure judges to prioritize their own personal and financial security over their oath to impartially adjudicate cases based on law and facts. “The sanctions seek to compel these judges to refrain from their sworn oath, to decide cases on the basis of an impartial assessment of the facts and the law,” he said. “That is a fundamental threat to the rule of law.” This lawsuit is the fifth legal challenge to Executive Order 14203 to date. In four earlier cases challenging the order, US courts have already ruled that the directive is unconstitutional, finding it imposes unlawful restrictions on the free speech rights of individuals and organizations that cooperate with the ICC. One of those earlier successful challenges was brought on behalf of Francesca Albanese, the sanctioned UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories. This current suit, however, is the first to directly challenge the designation of sitting ICC judges. The Open Society Justice Initiative leads representation for Prost, with international law firm Foley Hoag serving as co-counsel. When asked about the prospects of the suit succeeding, Goldston said his team is confident in the strength of their arguments, but noted that the judicial process will ultimately determine the outcome. “We are hopeful that these arguments will be persuasive, but that is what the judicial process is for. We will see what the outcome is,” he said.

A public dispute has erupted between Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte over the nature of Italy’s role in the U.S.-led conflict against Iran, opening a new rift in already strained transatlantic relations amid heightened tensions in the Middle East.

Speaking to Fox News this Thursday, Rutte pushed back against recent criticisms from U.S. President Donald Trump, who had accused multiple European Union allies of refusing to back the U.S.-Israeli military campaign codenamed Epic Fury. The NATO chief claimed that a large number of allied nations had opened their military bases to support the operation, estimating that between 4,000 and 5,000 aircraft had departed from European bases for strike missions. Specifically, he highlighted that 500 U.S. warplanes had taken off from U.S. bases hosted on Italian territory to support Epic Fury, calling the level of European involvement “massive.”

Meloni, who is already facing intense backlash from domestic political opponents over accusations that she has hidden the true extent of Italy’s involvement in the conflict from the public, swiftly rejected Rutte’s framing during a Franco-Italian summit held in southern France. She dismissed the NATO chief’s comments as an oversimplified and overly enthusiastic misrepresentation that blurred key distinctions between different categories of authorized flight activity. The Italian leader stressed that Rome had not taken part in active combat operations against Iran, noting that Rutte’s account directly contradicted Trump’s repeated public complaints that European allies have failed to contribute sufficiently to the conflict. “If we had participated in the Iran conflict, there would be no explanation for this disappointment that the US president keeps reiterating very often,” Meloni told reporters. She clarified that Italian bases were only used for logistical support activities, not for offensive combat sorties.

The disagreement comes against a backdrop of growing friction between Rome and Washington, sparked by a series of hostile comments from Trump targeting Italy and its leadership. Just weeks before the NATO chief’s remarks, Trump drew fierce condemnation from Italian officials after he falsely claimed Meloni had “begged” him for a photo during a side meeting at the G7 summit. Meloni hit back at the accusation on social media, saying she could not understand why the U.S. president repeatedly takes such aggressive stances against his own allies. She added that it was disappointing that Trump shows far more leniency toward the leaders of Western and American adversaries than he does to close partners like Italy. In response to Trump’s “serious and offensive words,” Italy’s foreign minister also announced he would scrap a planned official trip to Washington, further escalating the diplomatic row.

Iran has also weighed in on the dispute, with Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs Kazem Gharibabadi pointing to international law to back a critical stance. In a post on the social platform X, Gharibabadi noted that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 clearly defines the act of a state permitting its territory to be used by a third country to launch attacks on another sovereign nation as a form of aggression.

This report was originally published by Middle East Eye, an outlet that provides independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East, North Africa and surrounding regions.

In a landmark ruling that marks a high-profile reckoning for South Korea’s former political leadership, Seoul Central District Court has sentenced Kim Keon-hee, the wife of ousted ex-president Yoon Suk-yeol, to seven years behind bars on criminal bribery charges. The conviction was issued on Friday, after the court unanimously found Kim guilty of accepting hundreds of millions of won in illicit luxury gifts in exchange for leveraging her position as first lady to secure job placements and other political favors for private gain.

According to South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency, the court upheld all charges brought against Kim, confirming she received approximately 300 million won ($195,000) in valuable goods in return for facilitating favor requests from individuals across multiple sectors of society. The seven-year sentence handed down is six months shorter than the total prison term prosecutors with the special counsel team had initially requested in the case.

Kim’s defense team had contested the charges throughout the trial, arguing either that the former first lady never accepted the gifts in question, or that the items were not tied to any specific formal requests for favors. The court rejected these claims outright in its written ruling, issuing a sharp rebuke of Kim’s conduct while holding public office.

“The defendant neglected the social responsibility demanded by her position as first lady and instead used it as a tool for private gain,” the court wrote in its ruling. It further noted that the widespread willingness of figures from diverse industry and political sectors to approach Kim with gifts and solicitation requests confirmed that an extensive, informal patronage network had formed around her during her time in the Blue House.

“Public decision-making processes, which should be fair and transparent, became entangled with money and were reduced to tradeable goods for her personal benefit. This fundamentally undermined the fairness and trust in public decision-making,” the ruling added.

Immediately after the sentence was issued, Kim’s legal representatives told reporters that they believe the court overemphasized evidence and circumstances unfavorable to their client, announcing plans to launch a full review of the written judgment ahead of a formal appeal. The special counsel team, by contrast, welcomed the court’s verdict, framing it as a balanced, appropriate ruling that aligns with widespread public expectations of justice in South Korea.

This sentencing marks the second major conviction for Kim this year. In April, an appellate court threw out a lower court’s 20-month sentence and instead handed down a four-year prison term for Kim in a separate, unrelated case involving stock manipulation and additional bribery charges. Legal analysts note that the cumulative sentences could result in a decades-long prison term for the former first lady if both convictions are upheld on appeal, marking one of the most severe penalties ever issued for a South Korean first spouse convicted of public corruption.