Uncategorized
The Pakistan Gambit: Why Islamabad’s Mediation Should Worry Israel
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif meet in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Sept. 17, 2025. Photo: Saudi Press Agency/Handout via REUTERS
The two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran has been widely celebrated as a triumph of Pakistani diplomacy. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has received effusive international praise, and Islamabad has positioned itself as the indispensable broker of a deal that pulled the region back from the edge of catastrophic escalation.
The congratulations, however, are premature. For Israel and for American policymakers thinking seriously about long-term regional security, the architecture of this ceasefire and the identity of its architect should raise as many questions as the ceasefire itself.
Let’s start with what Pakistan actually is in this equation.
Islamabad is not a neutral party in the conventional sense. It shares a long border, and deep cultural and religious ties with Iran. It represents Iranian diplomatic interests in Washington, where Tehran maintains no embassy. It is home to the world’s second-largest Shia Muslim population. It has simultaneously cultivated a strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia and maintains a close alliance with China, which is Iran’s largest trading partner — and which, according to reporting, helped bring Tehran to the negotiating table.
Pakistan’s Foreign Minister coordinated with counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt before flying to Beijing for further consultations. This is not the profile of a disinterested mediator. It is the profile of a state managing an extraordinarily complex set of overlapping interests, some of which are structurally misaligned with the security requirements of the United States and Israel.
Field Marshal Asim Munir’s personal rapport with Donald Trump is real, and it clearly mattered in the final hours before the deadline. But personal rapport is not a substitute for strategic alignment. The same Pakistani military establishment that built this relationship with the Trump White House has also spent decades maintaining ties with actors whose interests are fundamentally hostile to the American-led regional order.
Pakistan does not formally recognize Israel. It has never been part of the Abraham Accords architecture. It has no stake in ensuring that any final agreement with Iran leaves the Jewish State with an enhanced (or acceptable) security environment. Its interest is in ending a war that was disrupting its oil imports, threatening regional stability on its doorstep, and straining an economy already under severe stress. Those are legitimate national interests, but they are Pakistan’s interests, not Israel’s or America’s.
The contradiction at the heart of this ceasefire emerged almost immediately. Sharif declared publicly that the truce covered the conflict everywhere, explicitly including Lebanon. Netanyahu’s office issued a correction within hours, stating clearly that the ceasefire does not extend to Lebanon, where Israel continues operations against Iranian-backed Hezbollah. That is not a minor discrepancy in diplomatic language. It reflects a fundamental divergence in what the parties believe they agreed to.
Iran and Pakistan have an interest in framing the ceasefire as broadly as possible, foreclosing Israeli military options across every front simultaneously. Israel has an interest in preserving its freedom of action in Lebanon, which remains a live theater of operations with direct implications for its northern security. The fact that the broker of this deal publicly endorsed the Iranian and Pakistani interpretation, rather than the Israeli one, tells you something important about where Islamabad’s equities actually lie.
Then there is the deeper problem of what Iran brought to the table. The framework Tehran submitted includes demands for the lifting of all sanctions, release of frozen assets, American military withdrawal from regional bases, war reparations, and explicit recognition of Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment. This is not the negotiating position of a country that has been strategically defeated. It is a maximalist agenda that, if accepted in whole or in part, would leave Iran in a stronger regional position than it occupied before the war began.
The Iranian leadership has been explicit internally that it views the ceasefire as a validation of its wartime objectives. That self-assessment should be taken seriously. Regimes that believe they have won tend to negotiate accordingly.
The Islamabad talks will be shaped by this opening dynamic. The United States enters those negotiations having accepted Iran’s 10-point proposal as a workable basis for discussion, under time pressure, brokered by a state with deep ties to Tehran and no relationship with Israel. The agenda will be set by the parties who designed the framework. Iran’s nuclear file, its ballistic missile program, and its proxy network across the Levant will all be subject to negotiation in an environment that is structurally tilted toward Iranian preferences.
Israel’s task in the coming two weeks is to ensure that Washington understands the distinction between ending a war and ending a threat. A ceasefire that reopens the Strait of Hormuz while leaving Iran’s centrifuges operational is not a security achievement. It is a commercial arrangement with an existential footnote. A final agreement that includes American military retrenchment from the region under Iranian pressure is not stability. It is the precondition for the next conflict, fought under worse conditions.
Pakistan may have earned its diplomatic moment. But the morning and days after a ceasefire is when the real negotiation begins, and Israel cannot afford to let Islamabad write the terms.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx
Uncategorized
Lebanon’s Internal Splits Over Talks With Israel Trip Up Saudi Mediation Efforts
An Israeli military vehicle drives past destroyed buildings in Lebanon, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Shir Torem
A growing rift between top Lebanese officials has thrown a wrench into Saudi efforts to help Lebanon’s leaders forge a united position over historic negotiations with Israel, Lebanese sources and foreign officials told Reuters on Thursday.
Saudi Arabia, which sponsored the 1990 agreement that ended Lebanon’s 15-year civil war, has deepened its engagement in recent days with Lebanon, where a shaky US-brokered ceasefire has failed to fully halt the nearly two-month war between Israel and Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
Ties between Riyadh and Beirut had been strained for years due to Hezbollah’s power over Lebanese politics and security, but the Sunni kingdom sees an opening after the group was severely weakened by war with Israel in 2024.
The US intended for the April 16 truce between Israel and Lebanon to allow for direct talks on a peace deal, potentially shaking up Lebanon’s internal dynamics and its role in the region. But Lebanese leaders remain at odds over the negotiation format and ultimate goal.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun has defended face-to-face talks with Israel in Washington, and has said the ceasefire should be transformed into “permanent agreements.” Although he has stopped short of explicitly calling for a peace deal, two sources familiar with Aoun’s position told Reuters he had privately expressed his readiness to normalize ties with Israel to stop the war.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, is opposed to direct talks, reflecting the Shi’ite terrorist group‘s position. Berri believes Lebanon should seek a non-aggression pact with Israel but not a full peace deal, two Lebanese sources familiar with his position told Reuters.
PLANS DERAILED
Last week, Saudi envoy to Lebanon Prince Yazid bin Farhan visited Beirut to encourage Aoun, Berri, and Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to set out a single position on the talks and to signal their unity through a tripartite meeting, according to two senior Lebanese political sources who met with bin Farhan and a Western official briefed on the talks.
But plans to hold such a meeting this week were derailed by rising tensions, all three sources said, after Berri publicly accused Aoun of making statements about negotiations that were “inaccurate, to say the least.”
There was no immediate response to requests for comment from Aoun’s office or from the Saudi government media office. Aoun met Salam on Thursday, the presidency said in a statement, without mentioning Berri.
The splits between Aoun and Berri, who hold their positions according to a power-sharing system that divides Lebanon’s top posts by religion, reflect broader divisions within Lebanese society over the negotiations with Israel.
Some Lebanese see direct talks and a swift peace deal as the only way to end a long history of Israeli invasions into Lebanon.
But Hezbollah and much of its broader Shi’ite Muslim constituency, who have borne the brunt of Israel‘s attacks, are firmly opposed to face-to-face talks and to normalizing ties. Some people protesting against talks earlier this month called for the government to be toppled.
Saudi Arabia’s intervention with Lebanese leaders was driven by the risk of such instability – as well as its concern that Lebanon was moving towards peace with Israel too swiftly, according to a Gulf source with knowledge of the matter, the two senior Lebanese political sources and the Western official.
Bin Farhan sought and received reassurances that Hezbollah would not seek to topple the Lebanese government, and cautioned Lebanese leaders last week that Beirut’s progress towards peace with Israel should not outpace Saudi Arabia’s, the four sources said.
Riyadh’s longstanding position has been that it will only sign up to the Abraham Accords normalizing ties with Israel if there is agreement on a roadmap to Palestinian statehood.
SAUDI KEEN FOR ‘DETENTE’ BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL
US President Donald Trump, keen to expand the accords, said this month he would invite Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks.
Bin Farhan advised Lebanese authorities against Aoun meeting Netanyahu soon, the two senior Lebanese political sources said.
However, Saudi Arabia does want Lebanon to work towards a “detente” with Israel that would halt instability, the Gulf source and one of the Lebanese sources said.
Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,500 people in Lebanon and displaced more than 1.2 million since the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah began on March 2, according to Lebanese authorities. Israel says the vast majority of those killed have been Hezbollah terrorists, who started the conflict by firing drones and rockets at the Jewish state.
The April 16 truce, which facilitated separate negotiations over the Iran war, stopped strikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs but not on other parts of Lebanon.
Uncategorized
Initial Australian Inquiry Into Bondi Beach Shooting Calls for Counterterrorism Reforms
People stand near flowers laid as a tribute at Bondi Beach to honor the victims of a mass shooting that targeted a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on Sunday, in Sydney, Australia, Dec. 16, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Flavio Brancaleone
An interim report into last year’s Bondi Beach mass shooting on Thursday advised increased security around Jewish public events and further gun reforms among 14 initial recommendations, but found Australia’s legal and regulatory frameworks did not hinder security agencies in preventing or responding to the attack.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his government would adopt all the initial recommendations made by the Royal Commission, the nation’s most powerful inquiry, into the Dec. 14 shooting at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, which left 15 dead.
While the report did not propose urgent changes, it outlined recommendations to strengthen Australia’s counter–terrorism capabilities, Albanese told reporters.
“This is as the government envisaged – that the first task of the Royal Commission, the priority, was to look at the security elements of these issues,” he said.
Five of the recommendations remain classified due to sensitive national security concerns, Albanese added.
The attack at Bondi Beach stunned Australia, a country known for its strict gun laws, and prompted widespread calls for enhanced measures against antisemitism and tighter firearm controls. Authorities have said the alleged perpetrators, a father and son duo, were inspired by the Islamic State terrorist group. It was the deadliest mass gun attack in the country in three decades.
The Royal Commission was established in January following mounting pressure from Jewish advocacy groups and victims’ families, who criticized Albanese’s initial hesitation in launching the inquiry.
The 154-page interim report recommends a comprehensive review of the country’s joint counter–terrorism teams, with findings to be submitted to police commissioners and the director-general of security within three months.
It also calls for expanded security protocols during Jewish High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, to include other high-profile Jewish festivals and events.
Additional measures include updating the counter–terrorism handbook promptly and involving senior government officials in counter–terrorism exercises, and accelerating efforts to implement a proposed national gun buyback plan.
“The review has revealed aspects in which counter–terrorism capability at federal and state levels could be improved,” the report noted.
Public hearings by the commission are scheduled to start next week, with a final report due by the end of the year.
Uncategorized
Vessel Carrying Grain Ukraine Says Stolen by Russia Will Not Unload in Israel, Kyiv Says
A farmer operates a combine during the start of the wheat harvesting campaign in a field near the town of Starobilsk (Starobelsk) in the Luhansk Region, a Russian-controlled area of Ukraine, July 9, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Alexander Ermochenko
A vessel carrying grain that Ukraine says was stolen from areas occupied by Russia will not unload in Israel, Ukraine said on Thursday, after Kyiv requested Israel to seize the cargo.
Ukraine‘s prosecutor general, Ruslan Kravchenko, said on the Telegram app that the vessel, Panormitis, left Israel‘s territorial waters and departed into neutral waters following “a range of procedural measures taken by Ukraine.”
“On the basis of the materials provided by the Ukrainian side within the framework of international legal cooperation, the competent Israeli authorities have begun to process the request,” he said.
Israel‘s foreign ministry said, however, that Ukraine‘s request for legal assistance, submitted late on Tuesday, “contained significant factual gaps and did not include any supporting evidence.”
In the meantime, the ministry said, it was informed that the vessel that was supposed to enter the port next week decided to depart from Israel‘s territorial waters.
The Panama-flagged vessel‘s manager was not immediately available for comment.
SIGNAL TO OTHER VESSELS
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, writing on X earlier on Thursday, said the vessel would not be unloading in Israel, describing it as a “welcome development” which “demonstrates that Ukraine‘s legal and diplomatic actions have been effective.”
Sybiha added that Ukraine will continue to track the vessel and warn against any operations with it.
“This is also a clear signal to all other vessels, captains, operators, insurers, and governments: do not buy stolen Ukrainian grain. Do not become part of this crime,” Sybiha said.
The Jerusalem Post and other outlets earlier on Thursday cited a statement from Israel‘s Grain Importers Association saying that the company importing the grain had been forced to turn away the vessel.
Zenziper, the company named in the reports as the importer, did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.
Kyiv considers all grain produced in the four regions that Russia claimed as its own since invading Ukraine in 2022 as well as Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014, to be stolen and has protested over its export by Russia to other countries.
Moscow has not commented on the legal status of grain harvested in regions that remain internationally recognized as Ukrainian.
Ukraine and Israel traded diplomatic barbs this week as Kyiv condemned what it said were purchases of grain produced in Ukrainian territory currently occupied by Russia, while Israel said Kyiv had not produced evidence for its allegations.