Mourners carry the body of one of the journalists killed in the Israeli strike in south Lebanon during their funeral. Photograph: Ibrahim Amro/AFP/Getty Images
Lebanese government calls the killings a ‘blatant war crime’ while Israel says primary target was a Hezbollah ‘terrorist’
A funeral has taken place in Lebanon for three journalists killed by an Israeli strike on Saturday, after the Lebanese government called the killings a “blatant war crime”.
Ali Shoeib, of the Hezbollah-owned al-Manar television station, and Fatima Ftouni and her brother and cameraman Mohammed Ftouni, of the pro-Hezbollah outlet al-Mayadeen, were killed in the strike targeting their car.
Israel claimed the attack shortly afterwards, saying the target was Shoeib, whom it accused of being a Hezbollah “terrorist” in an intelligence unit who had reported on the locations of Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. The Israeli military provided no further evidence to support the claim and made no comment on the deaths of the other journalists.
Hundreds of people attended the funeral, where the bodies of Shoeib and Fatima Ftouni were draped in their channels’ logos and with bouquets of flowers.
…
Shoeib was a well-known war correspondent in Lebanon, where he reported for al-Manar for nearly three decades. His death was met with a wave of condolences from audiences and journalists in Lebanon, many of whom said he was considered a mentor figure in Lebanese journalism.
Fatima Ftouni had also been reporting from the frontlines of the Israel-Hezbollah war in recent days, filming in front of battles in the town of Taybeh, south Lebanon. Her own family had been killed in Israeli strikes weeks earlier.
Eighteen months earlier, she and her colleagues were struck by an Israeli bomb while they were sleeping in a hotel in south Lebanon. Ftouni survived but two of her colleagues did not. Commenting on the deaths of her colleagues at the time, Ftouni said: “It is the silence of the international community that let this happen.”
Donald Trump calls for help from NATO allies in securing the Straight of Hormuz despite saying on 7 March 2026 that they don’t need people to join wars after they’ve already won. He’s challenged with the claim that he lies as much as the IDF.Keir Starmer explains that UK is actively supporting Israel’s genocidal expansion and repeats his previous quotation that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/
Huge “No Kings” protests throughout the United States and a huge anti-Fascist protest in London yesterday.
Climate science denier Donald Trump confirms that he knows nothing about democracy and that more liquid gold is being secured according to his policy of global privateering.Keir Starmer explains that UK is participating defensively in Trump and Israel’s criminal war for Israel’s genocidal expansion in Iran and states that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/
A view of the US aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford at a US Navy base in Souda Bay, Crete, where it is set to undergo repairs on March 23, 2026. [Stefanos Rapanis – Anadolu Agency]
Americans have heard this script before. A president says he wants a deal, insists he does not want a wider war, and then quietly builds the military architecture for one anyway. That is where the United States now stands in its war with Iran. Even as Donald Trump talks about a possible settlement and claims there are “major points of agreement,” the Pentagon is preparing to send thousands more troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, adding to a military buildup that already looks less like leverage and more like preparation for a deeper phase of the war. A government serious about winding down a conflict does not keep expanding the force package behind it.
The gap between Washington’s words and Washington’s actions is no longer small enough to dismiss as ordinary diplomatic theater. Trump says contacts with Iran are promising. Tehran has publicly denied direct talks, and Reuters has reported that Iran’s negotiating position has hardened during the war, with demands for guarantees against future attacks and refusal to place new limits on its missile program. That does not look like a near-term diplomatic breakthrough. It looks like an administration using the language of negotiation to buy time while keeping military options open. The question is no longer whether Washington prefers a deal in the abstract. The question is whether “talks” are becoming political cover for continued escalation.
That matters because coalition reluctance does not usually restrain Washington. More often, it leaves Washington compensating with more American assets, more American risk, and eventually more American ownership of a war that was sold as limited.
There is another sign that this war is moving in a more dangerous direction: America is having trouble persuading others to own it. When Trump asked allies to help keep the Strait of Hormuz open, several of them declined to send ships. Japan and Australia publicly said they had no immediate plans to participate, and Reutersreported similar hesitation from other partners. That matters because coalition reluctance does not usually restrain Washington. More often, it leaves Washington compensating with more American assets, more American risk, and eventually more American ownership of a war that was sold as limited. A conflict that begins as a joint project can become an overwhelmingly American burden simply because nobody else wants to get pulled in deeper.
This is how mission creep actually happens. It rarely arrives with a formal declaration that the United States is entering a ground war. It comes in pieces: reinforcements to protect bases, troops to secure shipping lanes, special operations contingencies for sensitive sites, and a standing insistence that “all options remain on the table.” Reutersreported last week that U.S. officials were weighing reinforcements that could support operations connected to Hormuz and other possible next steps, while experts warned that securing Iran’s uranium stockpiles would be highly complex and risky even for special operations forces. That is not the language of a conflict staying neatly contained. It is the language of a war searching for its next rationale.
The American public, importantly, is not asking for this. A Reuters/Ipsos poll published last week found that 65 percent of Americans believe Trump will order troops into a large-scale ground war in Iran, but only 7 percent support such an idea. An AP-NORC poll published found that most Americans believe recent U.S. military action against Iran has gone too far, and about six in ten oppose deploying U.S. ground troops to fight there. Those numbers matter because they expose the fiction that a deeper war would rest on any real democratic consensus. Washington is not moving toward a broader conflict because the public has embraced one. It is moving there in spite of the public’s clear warning.
That should disturb Americans even if they have no sympathy at all for the Iranian government. One does not have to romanticise Tehran to see the danger of what Washington is doing. The United States and Israel may share the current war effort, but any ground phase would be paid for primarily by Americans, fought primarily by Americans, and politically owned in Washington long after today’s rhetoric about quick outcomes has faded. That is the part of “supporting an ally” that the White House prefers to leave vague. Air campaigns can be sold as controlled and temporary. Ground commitments are different. They create their own logic, their own momentum, and their own excuses for staying longer than promised.
Even now, after weeks of US-Israeli strikes, the Strait of Hormuz remains a live strategic problem, negotiations remain uncertain, and military planners are still talking in terms of options rather than outcomes.
Nor is there any reason to think a ground phase would solve the political problem that air power has failed to solve. Iran is not a target that can simply be bullied into strategic surrender by adding more American bodies to the region. Even now, after weeks of US-Israeli strikes, the Strait of Hormuz remains a live strategic problem, negotiations remain uncertain, and military planners are still talking in terms of options rather than outcomes. That is usually a sign that the advertised strategy has stalled. When that happens, Washington has a long habit of treating escalation not as proof of failure but as the remedy for failure. That is how bad wars become bigger wars.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is that the administration still wants the political benefits of sounding restrained while preparing for the military benefits of going further. It wants to say “deal” and move troops at the same time. It wants to claim this is not another open-ended American war while creating precisely the conditions from which open-ended American wars emerge. For Middle East Monitor readers, this should be understood clearly: Washington is not standing outside this conflict trying to calm it. It is deep inside it, helping shape the next phase while pretending the next phase may never come. If the White House truly wanted to prevent a ground war, it would stop building one. Until then, Americans should call this what it is—not prudence, not deterrence, but a familiar and dangerous drift toward a war the country has not chosen and does not want.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
Donald Trump calls for help from NATO allies in securing the Straight of Hormuz despite saying on 7 March 2026 that they don’t need people to join wars after they’ve already won.Keir Starmer explains that UK is participating defensively in Trump and Israel’s criminal war for Israel’s genocidal expansion in Iran and states that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Burned press equipment and belongings are seen at the site of an Israeli airstrike in the Jezzine district of southern Lebanon, where three journalists, including Ali Shuaib of Al Manar TV, Fatima Fetuni of Al Mayadeen and photojournalist Mohammed Fetuni, were killed after their vehicle was targeted, on March 28, 2026. [Ahmed Kaddoura – Anadolu Agency]
Three journalists were killed on Saturday when an Israeli airstrike targeted a vehicle they were traveling in near the city of Jezzine in southern Lebanon, according to an Anadolu correspondent, Anadolu reports.
The deceased include Al-Manar TV correspondent Ali Shuaib, Al-Mayadeen correspondent Fatima Fatouni, and a cameraman.
In a statement, the Israeli army admitted the killing of Ali Shuaib, but did not comment on the death of the other two journalists.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the attack constitutes a “blatant crime that violates all norms” and called on international bodies to take action.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam also condemned the attack, urging respect for international law, according to the National News Agency.
Separately, the Syndicate of Workers in Visual and Audio Media in Lebanon said: “Targeting journalists in the field is a blatant attack on press freedom and a transparent attempt to silence free voices and obscure the serious human rights violations taking place.”
“This crime not only targets specific individuals but also the entire media community and all those who strive to reveal the truth to the public,” it added in a statement.
In a news conference, Information Minister Paul Morcos said that Lebanon is preparing to file a complaint with the UN Security Council over the attack.
Earlier, the National News Agency reported that an Israeli airstrike targeted a car on the Al-Barad road in Jezzine, without providing further details.
Since dawn on Saturday, Israel launched airstrikes and artillery attacks on 42 towns, cities, and areas in Lebanon, most of them in the south, according to the news agency.
The Israeli offensive against Lebanon, which began on March 2, has resulted in 1,142 deaths and 3,315 injuries, according to the latest figures from the Lebanese Health Ministry.
Donald Trump calls for help from NATO allies in securing the Straight of Hormuz despite saying on 7 March 2026 that they don’t need people to join wars after they’ve already won.Keir Starmer explains that UK is participating defensively in Trump and Israel’s criminal war for Israel’s genocidal expansion in Iran and states that he supports Zionism “without qualification”. Keir Starmer said “I said it loud and clear – and meant it – that I support Zionism without qualification.” here: https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/keir-starmer-interview-i-will-work-to-eradicate-antisemitism-from-day-one/Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an obviously insane, xenophobic Fascist.
A woman looks on as residents and emergency workers sift through rubble of a residential building that was hit in an airstrike in the early hours of March 27, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)
“The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament… Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp.”
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations’ best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran “exit plan” would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran’s side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing “its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons,” re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment “to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan.”
The US, meanwhile, would “grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction” and “would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices.”
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
“The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament,” they wrote. “Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation.”
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace’s Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump’s war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump’s handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
“Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes,” Yerkes explained. “One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump.”
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that “each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure.”
Donald Trump calls for help from NATO allies in securing the Straight of Hormuz despite saying on 7 March 2026 that they don’t need people to join wars after they’ve already won.
