Lebanon’s foreign ministry said it had declared Iranian envoy Mohammad Reza Sheibani persona non grata and instructed him to depart Lebanese territory within days.

The decision was conveyed after the ministry summoned Iran’s chargé d’affaires in Beirut.In a statement, the ministry said the move followed what it described as Tehran’s breach of established diplomatic practices, without providing further operational details.

Lebanon also summoned its own ambassador to Iran for consultations, signalling a sharp deterioration in bilateral relations.The move comes after Beirut accused Iran’s Revolutionary Guards of directing Hezbollah’s military operations in its ongoing conflict with Israel, an allegation that has heightened political and security tensions within Lebanon.

The expulsion unfolds against the backdrop of escalating hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, now in their fourth week, which have drawn in broader regional actors.

The conflict has triggered widespread destruction in parts of Lebanon and intensified scrutiny of Iran’s role in supporting Hezbollah, a powerful armed group and political actor in the country.

The diplomatic rupture underscores mounting pressure on Lebanon’s government as it navigates internal divisions and external influences during a rapidly widening Middle East conflict.

The Israeli Defense Forces said the attacks targeted “infrastructure of the Iranian regime” in the capital, without providing operational details. The strikes came a day after Trump publicly cautioned Israel against repeating attacks on Iranian natural gas facilities, highlighting emerging divergences within the U.S.-Israeli alignment.

Iran’s retaliation in recent days has expanded the conflict’s geographic scope, with Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates reporting missile activity early on Friday. The widening theatre of operations underscores the vulnerability of Gulf states as the confrontation increasingly targets strategic economic assets.

Iranian strikes earlier hit Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, a key hub processing roughly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas supply. Damage to the facility is expected to take years to repair, according to initial assessments, amplifying concerns over long-term supply disruptions in global energy markets.

Saudi Arabia’s main Red Sea port was also attacked on Thursday, despite efforts to reroute exports away from the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint that Iran has sought to pressure by threatening or disrupting transit.

Energy prices surged on Thursday following the strike on Qatar’s gas infrastructure, reflecting market anxiety over supply shocks. However, oil prices retreated on Friday after European countries and Japan signaled readiness to support maritime security operations to ensure continued passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

The United States also outlined measures to increase oil output, helping to offset immediate supply fears and stabilize market sentiment. The Strait remains a conduit for roughly one-fifth of global oil flows, making any disruption a significant risk to international energy stability.

The attacks on high-value energy infrastructure across the Gulf have highlighted both Iran’s retaliatory reach and the limitations of existing air defense systems in protecting dispersed, high-capacity facilities.

The conflict, which escalated after U.S. and Israeli strikes on February 28 following failed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, has since resulted in thousands of casualties and triggered cascading economic and security repercussions across the region.

Washington said it had not been informed in advance of Israel’s earlier strike on Iranian gas infrastructure, a development that adds complexity to coordination between the allies as the conflict evolves.

“This is purely my own analysis,” Dean tweeted late Monday, “but I really believe that the initial Iranian strike on Qatar tonight was just a deception. I have a strong feeling the next wave may be aimed at US interests in Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia.”

Dean, who co-hosts the acclaimed Conflicted podcast and is the author of the bestselling memoir Nine Lives, says the tactic reflects Tehran’s attempt to mirror Western psychological warfare. He points to the pattern of mixed signals used historically by both the United States and Israel — “we might attack, we might not,” “diplomacy is still on the table” — as a playbook Iran may now be mimicking.

“I suspect Iran is now playing that same game of misdirection,” he said. “The attack on Qatar was just the opening decoy for something larger still to come.”

The remarks come after The New York Times confirmed that Iran had given advance notice to Qatari officials before the strike — a move aimed at minimizing casualties while making a show of force. That, Dean argues, proves the action was deliberately restrained, especially considering the scale of the provocation — the destruction of Iran’s $1 trillion, two-decade-long nuclear program.

“It was too small a retaliation,” Dean argued. “I believe the IRGC might soon deploy Soumar and Quds-1 cruise missiles against GCC bases, Israel, and U.S. Naval assets.”

The Soumar, derived from Russian technology, and the Quds-1, widely used by Houthi militants in Yemen, are capable of striking deep inside U.S. military installations in the region and even commercial infrastructure, should escalation occur.

Dean clarifies that his warning is not based on classified intelligence, but on strategic pattern recognition and years of experience watching Iran’s asymmetric warfare doctrine evolve.

“To be clear, this isn’t based on any specific intelligence — it’s just my personal speculation,” he noted.

Still, his analysis is consistent with growing concerns among Gulf and Western intelligence services that Tehran’s retaliation may be staggered, aiming to test U.S. red lines without provoking immediate war — all while maintaining plausible deniability and a psychological upper hand.

With 10,000 American troops stationed in Qatar, and major U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, any Iranian miscalculation could ignite a regional conflict with catastrophic consequences.

Dean’s comments have since gained wide traction across diplomatic and intelligence circles, many now bracing for a second wave of Iranian action — one that could determine whether the region steps back from the brink, or plunges into full-scale conflict

According to three senior Iranian officials familiar with the planning, the strike was meant to send a symbolic message rather than inflict damage or provoke a direct U.S. retaliation.

Iran launched ballistic missiles at U.S. military bases in Qatar on Monday night, triggering explosions near the capital city, Doha. The attack prompted the United States to issue a shelter-in-place order for its personnel, while Qatar shut down its airspace, suspending all civilian flights amid fears of further escalation.

Up to 10,000 U.S. troops are stationed at Al Udeid Air Base, the largest American military facility in the Middle East and the primary target of Iran’s missile barrage.

The officials compared the move to Iran’s 2020 retaliatory missile strike in Iraq, following the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani, in which Tehran gave advance notice to Baghdad — allowing U.S. troops to take shelter before the strike.

Adding to the intrigue, renowned AI researcher and geopolitical commentator Dr. Eli David accurately predicted the nature of Iran’s move hours before the attack.

He posted: “Iran will fire missiles on an empty U.S. base in Qatar, after pre-approving the exact time and location of the attack with the U.S., to prevent any American injury. It will then declare victory for its ‘strong response’.”

His forecast underscores a growing view among analysts that Iran’s retaliatory posturing is highly choreographed, designed more for domestic consumption and regional signaling than actual battlefield effect.

The missile strikes — reportedly hitting unoccupied sections of Al Udeid — caused no confirmed injuries, though the Pentagon has yet to release a full casualty assessment. Qatar, which hosts the base and maintains a balancing act between the U.S. and Iran, has not publicly commented on the advance warning or the aftermath of the strike.

Diplomatic channels are reportedly active behind the scenes, with both Washington and Tehran expected to weigh next steps cautiously. As regional tensions boil over, Gulf states are growing increasingly anxious about being pulled into a broader confrontation they did not initiate.

With the airspace still closed and emergency protocols in effect across U.S. facilities, the world watches to see whether Washington will treat this as provocation or performance.

Pakistan’s pattern of dependence—on U.S. security guarantees, Chinese investment, Iranian goodwill—makes it a client state, not a sovereign actor on the world stage.

Amid the fiery conflict between Israel and Iran, Pakistan’s military finds itself walking a geopolitical tightrope: publicly aligning with Iran, even hinting at nuclear retaliation against Israel, while simultaneously clinging to U.S. military favor in its campaign against Iranian nuclear assets.

This schizophrenic stance underscores a decades‑long pattern: Pakistan’s “deep state” and its military‑intel establishment have repeatedly sold the nation’s sovereignty to whichever patron offers the greatest leverage. The result? An arrested development and chronic underachievement.

Last week, Iran’s IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaei claimed on state television that “Pakistan has told us that if Israel uses nuclear missiles, we will also attack it with nuclear weapons”. Pakistan neither publicly confirmed nor denied the claim. Yet within days, its foreign ministry condemned U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan—calling them “gravely concerning” and flagging possible regional escalation.

This denunciation came just after Pakistan endorsed President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize over his de‑escalation efforts with India. In barely a 48‑hour span, Islamabad praised Trump for stabilizing South Asia and then rebuked his bombs.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir was in Washington for a lavish White House lunch—where Trump publicly lauded Pakistani restraint after the India‑Pakistan missile flare‑up in May. This whitewashing of Islamabad’s contradictions—welcoming Pakistani nuclear diplomacy while supporting the strikes—reveals much about the transactional nature of this partnership.

Deep State by Design

Pakistan’s military establishment, colloquially “the deep state,” has never seen itself as servant, but rather as master. Since 1947, it has orchestrated coups, mediated foreign policy, and directed economic as well as strategic priorities. Civilian governance remains a veneer. Power accrues through Pakistan’s full‑spectrum nuclear deterrence doctrine—designed less for defense than for bargaining over India, the U.S., and other regional powers.

The economic cost of this grandstanding is steep. Decades of diverting scarce resources into military programs—sometimes backed by Chinese or U.S. aid, sometimes clandestinely through nuclear proliferation networks like A.Q. Khan’s—have starved Pakistan of investment in education, health, infrastructure, and industry. Its economy limps under chronic debt; urban centers are choked; public services are threadbare.

Selling the Nation to the Highest Bidder

This Faustian bargain continues. Pakistan courts the U.S. when it needs military hardware, diplomatic cover, and economic relief. As soon as Washington turns, Islamabad pivots to Iran—or China, or Russia. Recent Indian‑express analysis notes Islamabad’s “delicate balancing act” shaped by anxieties over India and a need for U.S. patronage. But the result is strategic incoherence and international mistrust.

The core of the problem is corruption at the top. The deep state uses its clout to capture resources. Elite groups extract rents from development budgets, shield militant proxies, and arrogate foreign policy. Civil society and democracy exist in name only; real power resides with generals who see the nation as a chessboard. As a result, growth stalls, inequality deepens, and Pakistan’s potential remains unrealized.

The Nuclear Catch‑22

Pakistan’s flirtation with nuclear brinkmanship—hinting at retaliation for Israel, pointing B‑2 bombers at Iran—exposes the inherent contradiction: nukes are for deterrence, not diplomacy. Instead of a mature nuclear strategy aimed at securing peace and economic stability, the military uses nuclear ambiguity for maximum geopolitical returns. That has brought fleeting headlines and foreign funds, but no sustainable development.

Pakistan must ask itself: is it raising its geopolitical profile, or holding itself back through strategic schizophrenia? Its pattern of dependence—on U.S. security guarantees, Chinese investment, Iranian goodwill—makes it a client state, not a sovereign actor on the world stage.

A Way Forward: Decouple the Deep State

For Pakistan to unlock its potential, it must dismantle the deep‑state’s monopoly. Demilitarize foreign policy, entrust civilian leadership with economic and diplomatic agendas. Cut off free rides to jihadi proxies that generate short‑term geopolitical cachet but long‑term global isolation. Redirect resources from nuclear brinkmanship into clean energy, literacy, and healthcare.

Otherwise, Pakistan’s “balancing act” is nothing but a balancing of bids: play the U.S. for aid, Iran for regional rapprochement, China for infrastructure—until the next pivot. But each shift deepens instability and stifles growth. The people, not the generals, suffer.

In the end, only a break from this militarized cycle—an embrace of genuine democracy and domestic investment—can free Pakistan from being the world’s perpetual geopolitical rentier. Anything less is selling its soul, again.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.