News Digest — 7/21/26
Report: Israel Assesses Iran Moved Thousands Of Centrifuges To Pickaxe Mountain
Iran relocated thousands of uranium enrichment centrifuges to a deep underground facility inside Pickaxe Mountain last autumn, according to an Israeli intelligence assessment cited in a Wall Street Journal Report on Monday (20th), citing Israeli and American officials.
The report noted that these findings were shared with the United States and indicated that the transfer took place following the June 2025 war, during which Israeli and US strikes targeted Iran’s three primary nuclear sites.
An Israeli military official familiar with the strike operations expressed concern that the airstrikes during the campaign did not sufficiently target facilities tied to nuclear weapons development, telling the WSJ that there is still work to be done, including at Pickaxe Mountain.
According to the report, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to convince President Donald Trump to resume large-scale strikes in Iran to disrupt Tehran’s nuclear program and reconstruction efforts.
The US has intensified its strikes over the past ten days, with Trump indicating that Washington is prepared to strike Pickaxe Mountain, a facility located about a mile south of Natanz.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not respond to requests for comment. The White House referred to interviews given by the president on the matter last week.
In one particular interview, with host Hugh Hewitt, the President hinted that Pickaxe Mountain is a possible target.
“Piskaxe is a possible target for a nice big fat shot right in the front door. And I think that maybe you’ll see that,” he said.
US Says Lebanese Army Deploying To ‘Pilot Zones,’ Including One IDF Will Withdraw From
The Lebanese army began taking charge of security in three southern villages Monday (20th), the US said, as a deal to eventually secure an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah faced its first test on the ground.
The US State Department announced the commencement of “pilot zone operations,” where Lebanese Armed Forces are slated to deploy in place of withdrawing Israeli troops. Notably, two of the three villages mentioned do not have Israeli forces located in them.
An unnamed senior Israeli official told the Axios outlet that the Israel Defense Forces will make its first withdrawal on Tuesday (21st), but the report did not specify where that would be.
“Today, pilot zone operations began in the villages of Froun, Srifa, Zawtar al-Gharbiya, in accordance with the Trilateral Framework and under the auspices of the Ministry Coordination Group for Lebanon,” the US State Department said in a statement.
Frown and Srifa are located in the first of two pilot zones earmarked for the LAF’deployment, as part of the framework deal Israel and Lebanon reached last month. That pilot zone is located outside of the IDF’s buffer zone in southern Lebanon.
The second pilot zone straddles both sides of the IDF buffer zone. Zawtar Al-Gharbiya is inside Israel’s buffer zone. Israeli forces currently stationed there will be required to withdraw under the agreement.
The LAF in a statement, said that “coordination is underway” with the US-led trilateral Military Coordination Group for Lebanon for the deployment of its forces in Zawtar al-Gharbiya, “following the withdrawal of the Israeli occupation from it.”
It also warned Lebanese civilians not to head to the town “and to comply with the instructions of the deployed military units to ensure their safety.”
The Lebanese army also said it was continuing to carry out patrol missions in Froun and Srifa.
The State Department did not specify what it meant by pilot zone operations beginning, but apparently referring to the deployment of LAF forces in those three villages.
“This milestone is a direct outcome of last week’s discussions between Israel and Lebanon in Rome. The United States will continue working closely with both parties to implement the framework to a successful conclusion,” the State Department said.
The framework, signed by Lebanon, Israel and the United States on June 26, after several rounds of direct negotiations, envisions phased Israeli pullback from positions in south Lebanon.
In exchange, the Lebanese Armed Forces are to assume sole security control of vacated areas and certify that they have been cleared of Hezbollah weapons and infrastructure.
The pilot zones are intended to try out the approach in a handful of villages straddling the Litani River before it is extended to other areas.
Hezbollah’s forces long held sway in southern Lebanon before the area was taken by the IDF. The Iran-backed terror group has rejected the framework, insisting any agreement in Lebanon be linked to wider negotiations between Washington and Tehran. It has not said whether it will resist implementation of the pilot zones in the designated areas.
The agreement does not set a timetable for Israel’s withdrawal. While Israel agreed to withdraw troops from the second pilot zone as part of the framework deal, it has yet to do so, with military officials previously saying they have not received a directive from elected leaders to pull out of the area.
Israeli officials have vowed that their forces will remain in a “security zone” 6 miles deep along the frontier for as long as Hezbollah remains armed.
Hamas Names al-Hayya As Sinwar’s Successor
Hamas officially announced Monday (20th) that Khalil al-Hayya has been selected as the new head of its political bureau, ending nearly months of leadership uncertainty following the elimination of Yahya Snwar by Israeli security forces in October 2024.
The appointment concludes a highly selective internal voting process that began early January and stretched across the Hamas cells in Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and the diaspora.
Intelligence sources had indicated the vote was conducted under extreme operational security, with participants shielded by total anonymity due to fears of Israeli surveillance and targeted strikes that have decimated the organization’s senior command structure over the past year.
Al-Hayya, a hardline deputy to Sinwar and current head of Hamas’ Gaza political bureau, emerged victorious over his primary rival, Khaled Mashaal, the group’s former political chief now living in exile.
Regional Intelligence networks had predicted al-Hayya’s victory, citing his widespread support among Gaza-based terrorists and backing from leader Zaher Jabarin.
His commitment to continued armed confrontation with Israel stood in sharp contrast to Mashaal’s more pragmatic approach, which some Hamas factions viewed as insufficiently militant in the wake of the October 7 attack.
Hamas has been operating under a temporary five-member leadership council since Sinwar’s death, a makeshift arrangement that reflected the chaos wrought by precision strikes on its political and military echelons.
The leadership contest had exposed deep internal divisions within Hamas, with the Mashall-al-Hayya rivalry splitting terrorist factions between Iranian backing and Gulf independence.
Al-Hayya’s selection suggests Tehran’s continued influence over the organization’s strategic direction, despite efforts by some Hamas elements to cultivate relationships with Gulf states.
Hamas media adviser Taher al-Nunu previously told Al Jazeera that Israeli assassinations had forced the group to restructure and that vacant positions would be filled through what he termed a “consultative mechanism and silent elections.”
The protracted nature of the voting process, initially expected to conclude within two weeks, reflected the operational difficulties of conducting internal governance while under sustained military pressure.
Al-Hayya now assumes leadership of an organization that has suffered catastrophic losses in personnel, infrastructure, and territorial control since October 7.
His ability to maintain operational coherence while evading Israeli targeting will determine whether Hamas can sustain its war strategy or faces further strategic collapse.
Turkey’s Grand Plan To Rebuild The Ottoman Empire, Including Jerusalem
MG (res.) Gershon Hacohen warns of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions to renew dominance in the Middle East, including control of Jerusalem.
In an in-depth strategic analysis with the Tov Hebrew Media Network, Hacohen warned of broad regional trends that threaten Israel.
Turkey aspires to revive the days of the Ottoman Empire, an aspiration that includes renewed dominance in the Syrian and maritime spheres and even control of Jerusalem.
Hacohen emphasized that the Turks are working to establish a “Blue Homeland” in the Mediterranean Sea, claiming vast waters with huge economic resources as their own and using the Turkish Navy to demonstrate their presence.
Modern Turkey’s pursuit of a “Neo-Ottoman” empire marks a significant departure from the isolationist framework established during the founding of the modern republic.
By leveraging cross-border military actions, sweeping maritime doctrines, and highly symbolic cultural reversals, the state systematically projects power well beyond its borders.
As Turkish President Erdogan himself has said, “Turkey is larger than Turkey,” and “The borders of our hearts are elsewhere,” referencing former Ottoman lands such as Mosul and Kirkuk.
Turkey projects heavy military power directly into former Ottoman domains, establishing operational bases in Syria, Libya, and Somalia, as outlined in Arab News.
The government also explicitly invoked the legacy of Ottoman Sultan Mehned II when reverting the historic Hagia Sophia from a secular museum back to a functioning mosque.
Erdogan also systematically uses highly charged historical and religious rhetoric to claim a Turkish right of ownership over the Jewish city of Jerusalem.
He frequently leverages the 400-year legacy of the Ottoman Empire (1516-1917) to challenge Israeli sovereignty and rally regional support.
Erdogan directly challenged the geopolitical status of the Israeli capital by telling the Turkish Parliament that “Jerusalem is our city, a city from us,” referencing the Ottoman retreat during World War I “in tears” and pointing to standing Ottoman architecture, including the Old City Walls.
In a direct public spat with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding ancient relics, Erdogan claimed that “Turkey will not give back even a single pebble belonging to Jerusalem to Israel,” defining the city as a sacred trust for all humanity.
Following the 2017 United States decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Erdogan organized an extraordinary summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, declaring the American move against ethics, history, and consciousness and was completely null and void.”
Israel Needs A New Security Doctrine – Shimon Refaeli
26 years ago, on July 11, 2000, at Camp David under the auspices of US President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak net with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat in an attempt to reach a permanent -status agreement and bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an end. At that time, Israel was prepared to transfer more than 90% of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians and discuss the division of Jerusalem. But despite all the sweeping concessions that were offered, the Palestinians said no.
Arafat’s rejection exposed the truth: the Palestinians never intended, and still do not intend today, to establish a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. The true and unchanging objective of the Palestinian national movement is the establishment of a state over the entire Land of Israel, on the ruins of the State of Israel. The result of those concessions was the outbreak of the Second Intifada, a planned wave of terrorism that claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Israelis.
The Camp David Summit definitively shattered the assumption that territorial concessions would bring reconciliation. It proved that the root of the conflict is not Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, but the very existence of a sovereign Jewish state in the Land of Israel. Even at the point of Israel’s maximum willingness to compromise, it became clear that a historic compromise was not the objective of the other side.
From this we understand that lasting arrangements are not achieved through territorial gestures, but are built upon strength, deterrence, and security. Only when the other side becomes convinced that it cannot defeat Israel or alter reality through terrorism, international pressure, rejectionism, and that the continued illusion that the Jewish presence in the region is temporary bears no fruit, will the foundation for a stable and realistic arrangement truly be laid.
The writer, a Senior Fellow at the David Institute for National Security Policy, served as a policy assistant to former Strategy Affairs Minister Ron Dermer.
