Under a pale sun and in a rubble-strewn square in front of the gates of the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing, white ambulances line up like last bridges of hope, trying to connect Gaza's pain with opportunities for healing abroad. The dust in the air does not obscure the details of the surrounding destruction, where shell-pierced buildings stand as silent witnesses to a forced escape from continuous suffering.

Behind the iron fence of the Palestinian Red Crescent hospital, children who have not yet reached their dreams watch the convoys of departing wounded with astonishment, considering these buses 'lifeboats' carrying their loved ones into the unknown. For these little ones, the crossing represents a harsh geographical and psychological divide, as they bid farewell to patients who may not be able to return home soon due to circumstances.

Inside one of the ambulances, young Mahmoud Al-Abd lay on a narrow bed, surrounded by oxygen tubes like fragile threads of life, while a paramedic wiped the sweat of pain from his forehead. Every movement in this place is precisely calculated, and every glance from the relatives of the wounded carries a silent question about the chances of survival and return amidst complex health conditions.

Hajja Khadija, Mahmoud's mother, summarized two years of suffering, explaining that her son sustained severe damage to the bone mass of his leg after a missile strike on his workplace in the Al-Bureij area. The mother recounts bitterly how other shrapnel lodged in his chest and stomach, making his treatment inside the Strip impossible, according to specialized doctors.

The mother adds, with tears filling her eyes, that separation is difficult for the soul, but the desire to see her son walk again overcame the pain of farewell. Mahmoud underwent numerous operations in Gaza hospitals, but the need for advanced reconstructive surgeries made traveling abroad the only remaining option to save his leg from amputation.

The Rafah crossing had seen a partial opening for humanitarian cases before being re-closed on February 2nd for security reasons imposed by the occupation authorities. This mechanism allowed about 60 patients to pass daily, but the sudden closure returned thousands of names to long and harsh waiting lists, exacerbating the deterioration of critical cases.

Mahmoud Al-Abd was one of the few who were lucky enough to cross days before the last closure, where he confirmed to journalistic sources his insistence on remaining composed in front of his mother despite his severe pain. He recalled the moment he was hit by a missile while installing solar energy systems, describing feeling a burning heat in his body before losing all sensation in his limbs.

Behind Mahmoud's story, the tragedy of thousands of other wounded, like Mohammed Ayyad, who was injured in the Shuja'iyya neighborhood and suffers from a fractured femur, emerges. Mohammed is still waiting for his name on travel lists for months, indicating that the pain increases daily as he sees the dream of treatment close behind the borders but cannot reach it.

In the Nuseirat camp, young Abdul Rahman Abu Awda faces the risk of losing the ability to move due to a precise injury to the spinal nerves. Doctors confirmed his need for urgent surgery, the capabilities of which are not available in Gaza, making every day of delay an additional step towards permanent disability.

For his part, Dr. Samer Hamdan from Al-Shifa Hospital explained that Mahmoud Al-Abd's case represents a model of complex injuries that require specialized intervention in international bone reconstruction centers. Hamdan warned that the severe shortage of equipment and staff within Gaza makes it impossible to deal with severe bone damage and associated neurological complications.

Data from the World Health Organization and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) indicate that more than 18,000 patients and wounded in Gaza are in urgent need of medical evacuation. UN estimates confirm that the current pace of evacuation is too slow and disproportionate to the scale of the health catastrophe, putting thousands of lives at immediate risk.

In turn, Amjad Al-Shawa, director of the network of non-governmental organizations, considered that preventing the wounded from traveling represents a blatant violation of international humanitarian law, which guarantees the right to treatment. Al-Shawa stressed that the restrictions imposed on the movement of individuals and medical equipment have led to a near-complete collapse of the health system, necessitating the immediate opening of safe and sustainable medical corridors.

The reality of the 'medical exodus' in Gaza turns borders into a harsh test of patience and hope, where healing becomes a dream suspended between the rubble of war and the bars of waiting. Every ambulance that leaves leaves behind hundreds of families raising their hands in prayer, awaiting the moment when the gates will open again to save what can be saved from bodies exhausted by war.

As Mahmoud's car moves away towards the other side, Hajja Khadija stands in her place, watching the dusty trail of the vehicle with tearful eyes. She is one of thousands of mothers who face the daily fate of waiting, amidst a bitter health reality that makes traveling for treatment a journey fraught with risks and tears.

I know my mother is in more pain than I am, but I have to travel; I just want to return standing on my feet again.

Washington – Said Arikat - 7/3/2026

News Analysis

US President Donald Trump's statement about launching a "very strong strike" against Iran has sparked a wide wave of political and media controversy, not only because of its potential military content, but also because of the sharp tone of the discourse, which was characterized by escalation and direct threat. In a post on his "Truth Social" platform, Trump said that Iran would be subjected to a strong strike "this Saturday," adding that his administration was considering expanding the list of targeted areas and groups as a result of what he described as Tehran's "bad behavior." Although the statement did not include operational or military details, it reflects a rhetorical trend that tends towards verbal escalation and the use of the language of force in dealing with adversaries.

The statements come in the context of chronic tension in relations between the United States and Iran, a tension that dates back decades but has escalated significantly since Washington withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2018. Since then, the relationship between the two countries has been characterized by a series of economic sanctions, military threats, and mutual statements. However, Trump's rhetoric has often been characterized by a higher degree of intensity compared to the rhetoric of previous US administrations, as he tends to use direct and politically and media-shocking phrases, which is clearly evident in his talk of a "very strong strike."

Trump also indicated in his post that Iran had apologized to its neighbors after strikes targeting them, considering this an "surrender." This description also reflects a rhetorical style based on portraying the adversary as weak, a style Trump has repeatedly used in the context of foreign policy. However, this type of rhetoric raises questions about whether it represents an actual policy under implementation, or whether it falls within the framework of political and psychological pressure as part of a deterrence strategy.

Strategically, escalatory rhetoric often aims to send multiple messages simultaneously. It may be directed at the external adversary to deter them, and it may also be directed at regional allies to reassure them that the United States is prepared to use force. At the same time, it can serve internal goals, as it enhances the image of decisive leadership among a segment of the president's political base.

However, the danger of this type of statement lies in the fact that it may raise the level of regional tension even in the absence of an actual intention for direct military escalation. Waving new strikes or expanding the list of targets can push other parties to take precautionary measures or reactions that may increase the chances of unintended confrontation. In a sensitive region like the Middle East, where interests and military alliances are intertwined, any verbal escalation can quickly turn into a security crisis.

Trump's rhetoric towards Iran reflects a political pattern based on "shock diplomacy," where extremely sharp language is used to create a rapid political and media impact. This approach differs from traditional diplomatic discourse, which tends towards calculated ambiguity. Stating a "very strong" strike without providing details may be part of a psychological pressure strategy, but at the same time, it opens the door to multiple interpretations that may increase regional tension, especially when it comes from a president of a country with enormous military capabilities and global political influence.

From an international relations perspective, Trump's statements can be understood within the framework of deterrence policy, which is based on convincing the adversary that the cost of escalation will be extremely high. However, the effectiveness of deterrence usually depends on a combination of clarity and credibility. If threats are repeated and not accompanied by concrete actions, they may lose some of their impact over time. Therefore, the question remains whether these statements represent a prelude to actual military action or merely a political message aimed at reshaping the balance of deterrence in the region.

Also noteworthy in Trump's rhetoric is the use of vocabulary with a personal or moral character, such as describing Iran's behavior as "bad," a description that deviates from the technical language often used in official statements. This approach reflects Trump's way of addressing the public directly through social media, often bypassing traditional diplomatic channels. Although this approach gives him the ability to have a rapid media impact, it can also create a state of ambiguity about whether the statement represents an institutional position or a personal political opinion.

The pace of the comprehensive Israeli-American war against Iran is escalating, entering its seventh day amidst widespread regional and international anticipation for the outcomes of this direct confrontation. In this context, the eyes of the Israeli occupation are turned towards the Gaza Strip, to monitor the effects of this confrontation on the Palestinian factions that have been suffering from an ongoing war of annihilation for more than two years, which opens the door to questions about the fate of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Tzachi Hanegbi, the former head of the Israeli National Security Council, affirmed that the future of Palestinian organizations in Gaza is organically linked to the results of the war in Tehran. Hanegbi explained that the Iranian regime is now fighting for its survival after the martyrdom of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Commander Mohammad Pakpour, indicating that the fall of this regime will inevitably mean drying up the sources of strategic and financial support that Hamas has absolutely relied on since 2007.

Israeli analysts believe that the first scenario is the 'unconditional surrender' of the Iranian regime, similar to what happened at the end of World War II. In this case, Iran will be subject to an international or local administration loyal to Washington, which will lead to a complete cessation of military and financial support for Palestinian factions, and the beginning of a coercive disarmament process in the Gaza Strip under the name 'New Gaza'.

The second scenario revolves around an 'internal coup' led by the Iranian masses with the support of the opposition abroad and the United States. With the Revolutionary Guard losing its leaders and headquarters as a result of intensive air raids, state institutions may collapse and a transitional authority may be formed that completely severs its ties with resistance movements in the region, leaving Hamas and Islamic Jihad in complete political and field isolation.

The third scenario emerges as a 'unilateral victory' option, where US President Donald Trump declares the end of operations after destroying Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure without completely overthrowing the regime. Despite the authority remaining in Tehran, the collapse of the economy and the loss of air defenses will render it unable to continue funding its regional proxies, which weakens Hamas's ability to military resilience in Gaza.

In contrast, the fourth scenario speaks of a 'comprehensive diplomatic agreement' in which the new Iranian leadership is forced to make painful concessions to ensure its survival, including dismantling the nuclear and missile program. This agreement includes an Iranian commitment to cut all contacts with Palestinian factions, which will force Hamas to accept disarmament demands in exchange for engaging in international reconstruction plans promoted by Trump.

The fifth and final scenario assumes 'war failure' to achieve its strategic objectives, which gives Iran and its allies an incentive to continue the confrontation. In this case, Hamas may succeed in maintaining its status as an armed resistance movement with renewed Iranian support, which will necessarily lead to renewed direct military confrontations with the Israeli army inside the Gaza Strip to overthrow the movement's authority.

On the ground, reports indicate that the war has cost the Israeli economy about 9.4 billion shekels weekly, while Washington is incurring a billion dollars daily. While countries like Spain and Portugal refuse to allow their bases to be used for attacks, naval units from France, Germany, and the Netherlands are participating in operations in the Eastern Mediterranean, reflecting the complexity of the military and political scene surrounding the region.

In conclusion, Trump's repeated condition of disarming Gaza remains the biggest obstacle to any future settlement for the Strip, as the war on Iran places Hamas leaders at a historic crossroads. Either accept the new regional transformations and engage in the path of disarmament, or bet on the resilience of the Iranian axis despite the severe blows it has received in recent days.

Gaza's eyes are turned towards Tehran, and the war against Iran will have a decisive impact on the future of Palestinian organizations; the survival or fall of the Iranian regime will determine the fate of Hamas.

Groups of settlers committed a new massacre today, Sunday, in the village of Abu Falah, located northeast of Ramallah city in the occupied West Bank, resulting in the martyrdom of three Palestinian citizens. Medical sources reported that the attack took place under the direct protection of occupation forces, who provided cover for the settlers as they targeted the homes of unarmed citizens.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health clarified that martyrs Thaer Farouk Hamayel, 24, and Farea Jawdat Hamayel, 57, died from live settler bullets. They were directly targeted while attempting to confront the attack aimed at terrorizing families inside their homes in the village.

In a related context, citizen Mohammed Hussein Marra, 55, was martyred due to inhaling large quantities of toxic gas fired heavily by occupation forces towards residents. Sources confirmed that the gas caused Marra's heart muscle to stop before medical teams could save him or before he reached the hospital.

This crime comes less than 24 hours after a similar incident in the southern West Bank, where a young man was martyred and his brother injured by settler bullets in the Wadi Al-Rakheem area. The two brothers were trying to move settlers' livestock away from their home before the settlers surprised them by opening fire from close range.

Regarding field raids, Israeli occupation forces launched a widespread arrest campaign targeting the cities of Bethlehem and Nablus and their camps. In Bethlehem, three young men were arrested from the town of Tuqu', the Ta'amra area, and Saf Street after their homes were raided, searched provocatively, and their contents tampered with.

In Nablus city, arrests targeted six citizens from the city's neighborhoods and Al-Ain camp, where local sources reported that the invading forces deliberately damaged private property during the search operations. These arrests fall within the systematic escalation policy pursued by the occupation against Palestinian cadres and youth in all governorates.

In a dangerous field development, occupation forces converted a residential house in Qasra village, south of Nablus, into a military barracks and a field interrogation center. Military vehicles stormed the village at dawn, detaining a number of citizens inside the house and interrogating them for long hours without revealing their fate until now.

Qasra village and its neighboring villages witness repeated attacks by settlers and the occupation army, aiming to restrict residents and displace them from their lands. These measures coincide with the closure of village entrances, turning them into closed military zones that hinder citizens' movement and their access to their work.

Official data issued by the Palestinian Authority indicates that the pace of violence in the West Bank has reached unprecedented levels since October 7, 2023. Human rights organizations have recorded the martyrdom of more than 1042 individuals in various West Bank governorates by both the army and settlers.

Observers believe that giving settlers free rein in the West Bank reflects a political direction by the occupation government to impose a new reality on the ground. These attacks continue amidst international silence, threatening a wider explosion of the situation in the absence of any international protection for Palestinian civilians under occupation.

Settlers attacked citizens' homes and fired live bullets at residents under the direct protection of occupation soldiers.

Informed sources revealed a trend within the US administration to study specific military options directly targeting the Iranian nuclear program. These options include sending special operations units to carry out missions aimed at seizing and securing the enriched uranium stockpile.

Reports citing US officials stated that discussions within the White House focused on two main paths for dealing with nuclear materials. The first path involves removing the entire stockpile from Iranian territory, while the second proposes sending experts to reduce the enrichment level at the sites themselves.

The force tasked with this mission is likely to include elite elements from US Special Forces, along with specialized nuclear scientists. Experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency may also be called upon to ensure proper technical handling of radioactive and sensitive materials.

These plans face complex field and logistical challenges, most notably identifying the precise locations where enriched uranium is stored. The difficulty lies in accessing these materials within fortified underground facilities and effectively controlling them in a hostile environment.

Beyond the nuclear file, proposals circulated within the US administration to control the strategic Kharg Island in the Arabian Gulf. This island holds paramount importance as it is responsible for exporting approximately 90% of Iran's total oil exports abroad.

Observers believe that talk of US ground intervention has begun to escalate with the continuation of military operations without achieving a clear decisive outcome against the Iranian regime. However, these steps remain fraught with the risks of sliding into a wide-scale regional war that Trump does not desire.

In a related context, media sources indicated that President Donald Trump has not ruled out the option of limited ground intervention, describing it as possible if there are strong motives. Iran's possession of 60% enriched uranium is one of the most prominent of these motives that concern Washington.

Previous negotiations held in Oman saw Washington raise the issue of transferring or reducing the stockpile as a prerequisite for de-escalation. It appears that the failure of diplomatic paths has pushed the US administration to search for more decisive operational alternatives on the ground.

Military indicators supporting the hypothesis of preparation for a special operation have emerged, including the cancellation of planned maneuvers for the 82nd Airborne Division. This division is known for its high capability for rapid deployment and intervention in complex operational theaters behind enemy lines.

It is worth noting that the 82nd Division has a distinguished record in specific operations in the Middle East, most notably its participation in the elimination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani. Analysts link the cancellation of its current training with the possibility of its recall to carry out urgent missions deep inside Iran.

These movements coincide with reports about the possibility of sending a third US aircraft carrier to the Middle East to reinforce the military presence. These preparations reflect Washington's desire to possess field pressure cards capable of paralyzing Tehran's nuclear and oil capabilities.

Despite these preparations, Trump's stated position remains cautious about getting involved in long-term wars that drain American soldiers. The primary stated goal remains to dismantle the Iranian leadership structure and prevent Tehran from reaching the nuclear threshold at any cost.

The main challenge is to accurately locate the uranium within the fortified facilities and effectively control it before deciding to move it.

The least that can be said is that the rogue state's issuance of warnings under the threat of bombing and raids, which has caused the displacement of villages, towns, and cities in Lebanon, and what the Gaza Strip has been subjected to, and still is, of extermination and displacement, is nothing but a re-enactment of the atrocities committed by the "Stern," "Irgun," "Lehi," and "Haganah" gangs in '48, more of which have been revealed through the testimonies of their perpetrators, as published by Israeli newspapers days ago.The re-enactment of crimes stems from an ideology that shapes the thought and behavior of the leaders of the political and military establishments in Israel, an ideology based on ethnic cleansing, emptying cities, taking revenge on geography and demography, and striking the incubators and infrastructure within them to make them uninhabitable.In the face of this state of lawlessness, and Washington's subservience to Netanyahu's desires and dreams of forming a new Middle East, in which Tel Aviv is expected to play the role of the "cat's paw" in the region, and have full sovereignty, hegemony, and freedom to expand, the next phase portends dangers that affect the core of Arab, regional, and international national security.What if Israel issued warnings to evacuate towns and villages in Arab capitals under the threat of raids, taking advantage of the excessive fluidity in a world where savagery prevails and is governed by "Epstein's rules," amid a complete absence of international norms and laws?Evacuation warnings, if they continue, could make the "tent" the symbol of a phase that portends grave dangers.

On the eighth of March, International Women's Day, the world celebrates the achievements of women and their long struggle for justice, dignity, and equality. However, the Palestinian woman has a different story; a story that cannot be summarized by a fleeting occasion or encompassed by a few words, because she is an integral part of the history of a people who are still writing their daily lives between pain and hope.The Palestinian woman has never been merely a witness to history, but rather a partner in its making. From the first moments when the Palestinian tragedy began to unfold, the woman was present at the heart of the story: protecting the home, preserving memory, and rearranging life whenever storms tried to scatter it.The Palestinian woman realized early on that protecting the homeland is not limited to direct confrontation, but extends to protecting the meaning itself. Therefore, she bore the responsibility of memory, becoming the primary preserver of the names of villages, homes, fields, and springs. She would tell her children stories of the place as if she were replanting the land with words, so that the country would not be lost in the dust of oblivion.In old Palestinian homes, mothers would tell their children stories of the land and olive trees, teaching them that belonging is not just a word, but a deep relationship between a person and their soil. This is how entire generations grew up realizing that memory is a form of resistance, and that preserving the story is preserving existence.In the field, the woman was a partner of the land, working in silence similar to the silence of the soil itself. She would plant wheat and olive trees and care for the land as she cared for her children, because the relationship between the Palestinian woman and her land was never just a working relationship, but a relationship of belonging and extension.As for school and university, the woman carried the message of knowledge with a deep belief that education is the most solid path to the future. She was the teacher who enlightened minds, the student who persevered despite challenges, the researcher who contributed to building knowledge, and the writer who documented the Palestinian human experience in the language of thought and creativity.The Palestinian woman has proven her presence in various fields of life: in education, medicine, social work, art, literature, and scientific research. This presence was not merely symbolic participation, but a real contribution to building society and shaping its cultural and human consciousness.The Palestinian woman is not just a symbol of patience, but a model of quiet strength that knows how to build life despite cruelty. She is the mother who raises her children with dignity, the wife who protects the home in the absence of her partner, the nurse who bandages wounds, and the writer who guards memory with words.In a time when challenges are complex and transformations are intertwined, the presence of the Palestinian woman becomes increasingly important as a human and cultural force capable of contributing to building a more conscious and just society. Empowering women is not a theoretical slogan, but a civilizational necessity that means expanding the space for intellect, work, and creativity within society.Despite all the pain and loss she has endured, the Palestinian woman has been able to preserve her humanity. She has not lost her ability to love, to dream, or to plant joy in the hearts of her children. This deep ability to protect the humanity of the soul is, at its core, one of the greatest forms of steadfastness.On the eighth of March, we do not stand before the image of one woman, but before a broad canvas of Palestinian women: the mother, the teacher, the doctor, the nurse, the writer, the artist, the researcher, and the worker. Each of them has her own story, but they all converge in one meaning: faith in life despite all the difficulties surrounding it.The Palestinian woman is not just half of society, as the common saying goes, but she is often its soul that gives it the ability to continue. She is the one who maintains the balance between memory and the future, between pain and hope, and between harsh reality and an unextinguished dream.Therefore, celebrating the Palestinian woman on her international day is not just a symbolic tribute, but a deep acknowledgment of her historical and human role in protecting society from collapse. She was not just a witness to history, but she was – and still is – one of its most important makers.Thus, the Palestinian woman remains, at the core of her presence, the guardian of memory... and the maker of life.

Today, the Middle East is not just witnessing a military escalation between Israel and Iran with American support, but is living a pivotal moment that could redraw the features of the region for decades to come. What is happening far exceeds the title of "Iran's nuclear program" which is presented as the core of the crisis. In essence, we are facing a struggle over who has the ability to shape the new regional order, and to define the rules of security and politics that will organize the balances of the Middle East in the next phase.The joint American-Israeli strikes against Iran in 2026 are not a fleeting military event, but an indicator of the conflict's transition from proxy wars to direct confrontation, and from conflict management to an attempt to reshape it. In this context, Israel is no longer merely a regional actor moving within existing balances, but has become part of a military-strategic alliance led by the United States to re-engineer the regional order.Understanding this transformation requires looking at the American interior as well. The failure of the Senate resolution to restrict President Donald Trump's powers in using military force against Iran reflects the continued granting by the American political establishment to the president a wide margin for military action in the Middle East, despite the escalating internal debate about the cost of wars. Here the paradox of the "America First" (MAGA) current emerges. This current raises the slogan of reducing foreign wars and protecting the American economy from the burdens of long conflicts, but at the same time supports strong deterrence policies in the Middle East, especially towards Iran, under the title of protecting allies and enhancing national security. This contradiction reflects a struggle within the conservative current between an isolationist tendency that rejects costly wars, and a security tendency that sees military force as a tool to protect American interests even beyond borders.In this context, the concept of the "New Middle East" is changing. It is no longer an economic or diplomatic project as previously proposed, but has become a security project par excellence. The reordering of borders is no longer merely geographical, but political and functional, based on the redistribution of influence and the creation of security systems led by Israel with American support. The Israeli ambition goes beyond normalization towards strategically subjugating the regional environment, so that any party rejecting this system becomes outside the equation of regional legitimacy.This transformation is linked to the development of the Zionist project itself. From a colonial settlement project in "Judea and Samaria," to a geopolitical influence project across borders. The idea of "Greater Israel" no longer means direct geographical annexation only, but security and economic hegemony that makes Israel the center of regional decision-making without the need to officially change maps. Control here is functional: permanent military superiority, control over security paths, and regional integration conditioned on accepting this superiority. Within this equation, the doctrine of "permanent war" emerges. Constant tension justifies the militarization of Israeli society, settlement expansion, and the obstruction of any political solution to the Palestinian issue. True peace may end the justifications for military superiority, while the continuation of the threat reproduces the legitimacy of force. Here interests converge: Israel needs a turbulent regional environment to justify its superiority, and some decision-making circles in Washington see this as a means to enhance deterrence without being drawn into long occupations as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.The Palestinian issue is not a marginal detail in the process of reshaping the Middle East, but represents the central obstacle to establishing the new regional order. Therefore, Palestinian geography is being dismantled, institutions weakened, and the conflict transformed from a national liberation issue into a humanitarian-relief file, in an attempt to strip it of its political and legal dimension and turn it into merely a matter of managing populations, not a matter of right and sovereignty. What we are witnessing today is not just a war on Iran, but a moment of comprehensive reformulation of the region where the strategy of Israeli superiority intersects with the "America First" debate within Washington. The Middle East is being redrawn by force, and religious narratives are being invoked to justify policies of hegemony and entrench Israel's long-term superiority.The Middle East is being redrawn by force and theology that employs politics to achieve Israel's greater goals.Trump may come out and declare victory at any moment, just as he declared peace in Gaza regardless of the reality, but the real question is no longer who will declare victory, but what kind of Middle East will emerge from this historical moment: a Middle East governed by the equation of power and permanent deterrence, or a new regional order that restores consideration to diplomacy, international law, and the principles of justice? The way this phase ends will not only determine the balance of power, but will also determine the form of peace – or the continuation of conflict – in the Middle East.

Sheikh Muhammad Hussein: Al-Aqsa and Ibrahimi Mosques are among the holiest Islamic mosques, and we demand that the occupation authorities open them to worshippers. Hatem Abdel Qader: The closure of Al-Aqsa and Ibrahimi Mosques is a dangerous escalation and a systematic policy to impose new realities on the ground. Aziz Al-Assa: Israeli claims are baseless and false, and what the occupation is doing is part of a plan to control Al-Aqsa and Ibrahimi Mosques. Dr. Muhammad Jadallah: The occupation government seeks to impose its vision on holy places, benefiting from the imbalance of power in its favor. Mazen Al-Jaabari: The real danger lies in Israel's and the Temple groups' move to transform daily security control into long-term realities. Imad Abu Awwad: Israeli planning regarding the Ibrahimi Mosque has moved from the planning stage to the implementation stage in some aspects. Exclusive to Al-Quds - At a time when Palestinians are supposed to flock to Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque during the blessed month of Ramadan, the occupation authorities continue to close them to worshippers, under false and baseless pretexts, which has sparked a state of resentment and anger in religious and popular circles. Religious scholars and specialists in Jerusalem and Hebron affairs warn that the continuation of these measures represents a clear violation of freedom of worship and reflects a continuous Israeli policy aimed at imposing increasing restrictions on access to Islamic holy sites, especially during religious seasons that witness a wide presence of worshippers, in a desperate Israeli attempt to transform daily security control into new realities on the ground. Prominent Religious and Historical Status The Mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories, Sheikh Muhammad Hussein, says: Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque are among the holiest Islamic mosques, and they have a great status in the hearts of Muslims. He adds: We demand that the Israeli authorities open these mosques to worshippers, especially during the blessed month of Ramadan, despite the difficult conditions in the region, due to the spiritual and devotional specificity of this month. The Mufti of Jerusalem stresses the need for Al-Aqsa, the Ibrahimi Mosque, and the houses of God to remain open to Muslim worshippers, especially in this holy month in which Muslims are keen to perform acts of worship and prayers, including Taraweeh and Friday prayers, in special spiritual atmospheres. Sheikh Hussein believes that the closure of these mosques deprives worshippers of special spiritual atmospheres with which they are associated, and they feel a deficiency in their devotional experience during the blessed month of Ramadan. These two mosques have permanent visitors who are keen to travel to them, especially in Ramadan, due to their great religious and historical status. A Blatant Violation of Freedom of Worship The Secretary-General of the Islamic-Christian Commission for the Support of Jerusalem and Holy Sites, Hatem Abdel Qader, considers the closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque a dangerous step and a blatant violation of freedom of worship and an assault on the right of Muslims to access their holy places, especially during the blessed month of Ramadan, during which hundreds of thousands of worshippers flock to Al-Aqsa Mosque to perform prayers and revive religious rituals. Abdel Qader adds that the closure of Al-Aqsa and the Ibrahimi Mosque comes within a systematic policy aimed at restricting worship and imposing new realities on the ground, rejecting Israeli pretexts that claim the closure was for security reasons. Abdel Qader considered these arguments a repeated justification for violations against both Islamic and Christian holy sites. Abdel Qader affirms that the decision to close Al-Aqsa Mosque constitutes a blatant interference in the powers of the Islamic Endowments, which has administrative and legal authority, and an attempt to undermine the historical and legal Hashemite guardianship over the Holy Sanctuary, which constitutes a serious violation of the status quo in Islamic and Christian holy sites. Abdel Qader calls on the international community and UN institutions to work to stop these violations targeting holy sites and freedom of worship, warning that the continuation of these arbitrary measures may lead to an escalation of tension in the Holy City. A Racist View of Jerusalemites and Palestinians Inside The writer and researcher interested in Jerusalem affairs, Aziz Al-Assa, says: There is no doubt that what happened at dawn on Saturday, February 28 of this year (2026), an attack on the Iranian state, is a pivotal event at the level of the Middle East in particular, and at the global level in general. Al-Assa confirms that the occupation state, which has become vulnerable to Iranian missiles, has taken many measures related to its residents, for whom it provides all means of protection and care, and shelters equipped with all the requirements for comfortable living, enjoying leisure time, and dedicating mechanisms for immediate intervention and rescue for any harm that befalls them, individually and collectively. He adds: The Palestinians inside and the Jerusalemites, who live within the state's borders, have no one to mourn them, and they have no escape from the security and precautionary measures taken by the various occupation agencies. The right-wing government, through the statements of its ministers, views them as hostile human blocs spread within the state, considering them not Israeli in terms of belonging, feelings, or emotions. Al-Assa believes that the decision of the Israeli Home Front to close Al-Aqsa Mosque to Muslim worshippers during these days of the blessed month of Ramadan, under security pretexts, can only be classified under the title of "a word of truth intended for falsehood," because there are many daily service institutions that are not subject to closure in such a case, such as places of worship, bakeries, hospitals and clinics, pharmacies, and many other institutions related to people's daily lives, and the state does not usually close them. Al-Assa considers the security claims for closing Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron to be baseless and false, not out of concern for the safety and security of Muslims, but rather as part of a plan being prepared in the dark of night to control them. Maximum Speed in Implementing the Decision Al-Assa says that what indicates this is the maximum speed in implementing the decision to forcibly and coercively remove hundreds of worshippers from Jerusalemites and those who arrived from the Palestinian interior. In addition, the employees of the Endowments who belong to the Jordanian state were removed, and the matter ended with the complete closure of the mosque's doors. The arbitrary measures of the occupation expanded to include the closure of commercial shops surrounding Al-Aqsa Mosque. Al-Assa pointed to the abuse and aggression by the occupation agencies, and the infringement on the rights of the mosque's administration and the right to worship in it, and the blatant assault on those rights, which cannot be justified by the alleged security situation, but rather its goal is to control the place and remove it from the control of the Endowments and the Jordanian state, which imposes a new "status quo" that grants the occupation authorities the right to close Al-Aqsa Mosque whenever they want, however they want, and under any pretext they invent at any time, with the aim of tampering with its identity and Judaizing it - partially or completely. Al-Assa adds: Perhaps the peak of the danger is that the occupation forces that carry out these actions are directed by "Ben Gvir," the Minister of Security in the occupation government, who is the engineer and patron of the incursions into Al-Aqsa Mosque, which are carried out under his personal leadership and programmed by the occupation police. Call for Jordan to Intervene Al-Assa called on the sisterly Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which has the internationally guaranteed right of "Hashemite guardianship" over the holy sites in Jerusalem - Islamic and Christian - to intervene at the international level to lift the siege on Al-Aqsa Mosque and allow Muslims to perform religious rituals in it, who are not deterred by war or missiles, due to their belief in God's decree and destiny, and that there is no repeller of God's decree, in whose hand are the keys to the unseen, as Almighty God says: "And no soul perceives what it will earn tomorrow, and no soul perceives in what land it will die. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted." (Surah Luqman, verse: 34). Aggressive Plans Towards Holy Sites Political analyst Dr. Muhammad Jadallah believes that Israel has continuous plans towards holy sites, whether in Jerusalem, Hebron, or any part of historical Palestine. Jadallah explains that in light of the current situation and the expanding, extended, and multiple wars, a state of negligence emerges in the Arab and Islamic realities, which Israel benefits from to achieve its goals. He points out that Israel seeks, as it always declares, to impose its vision on these holy places at the expense of Islamic landmarks, benefiting from the imbalance of power in its favor, which may push it to take harsh measures, whether by imposing more control or even harming some of these holy sites. Political analyst Jadallah adds that while the world is preoccupied with major issues, such measures may pass without effective Arab or Islamic reactions. In contrast, he affirms that Palestinians have proven throughout their history that they defend Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque and cling to them, and are willing to sacrifice for them. The Current Stage Represents a Crossroads Jadallah believes that the current stage represents a crossroads that may bring losses related to holy sites, but the presence of the Palestinian people and their high readiness to defend them may surprise the world and prevent any attempts to impose new realities or harm these holy places. Jadallah concludes his speech by explaining that this closure leaves a profound impact on the souls of worshippers, as many of them feel a deficiency in their worship and devotional activity when they are deprived of access to Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Ibrahimi Mosque, due to the special religious status of these two mosques, and their close connection with their permanent visitors, especially during the blessed month of Ramadan. Leaving the Endowments Administration Facing a Forced Reality The writer and researcher in Israeli affairs, Mazen Al-Jaabari, says that the occupation authorities are trying to present the closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque as a "preventive measure" related to the war and the instructions of the "Home Front" and preventing gatherings, and present it as a security matter only: removing worshippers, closing doors, and then leaving the Endowments administration facing a forced reality until further notice. Al-Jaabari confirms that this justification, as it appears in Israeli narratives, aims to show the closure as a neutral technical step, while events show that it is used to entrench the idea that opening and closing the two mosques is a sovereign Israeli decision that has nothing to do with Islamic parties. Al-Jaabari points out that in recent years, the model of closure or "forced evacuation" of Al-Aqsa has been repeated at important junctures: the Bab Al-Asbat uprising in 2017 when the occupation tried to impose new security arrangements at the gates, then the Corona closure in March 2020 by decision of the Endowments due to the pandemic, leading to the closure during the June 2025 war, and then the current closure with the outbreak of the war on February 28, 2026. In other words, closure is no longer an exceptional rare event, but an Israeli tool used in every crisis to redefine the sovereign power within Al-Aqsa Mosque. However, Al-Jaabari warns that the real danger is not only in the pretext of war, but in the cumulative context that preceded and accompanied Ramadan, where Israel and the Temple groups are moving towards a clear goal, which is to transform daily security control into long-term political and religious realities. He says that before Ramadan 2026, Al-Aqsa witnessed a wave of widespread expulsion decisions affecting hundreds of Jerusalemites, in addition to the expulsion of imams and preachers, and tightening restrictions on the entry of Ramadan needs, including Iftar meals and Endowments preparations. In the field, the morning incursion period for settlers increased by an additional hour during Ramadan, in a step considered a deepening of temporal division and an expansion of the Jewish area and period within the Sanctuary. Al-Jaabari adds that at the legislative level, legal paths are advancing to expand the concept of "holy places," which opens the door to subjecting Al-Aqsa to an Israeli rabbinical religious authority. He points out that this series does not seem to be separate measures; it is an integrated pressure group: expulsion, arrests, reduction of Endowments powers, and expansion of the presence of Temple groups in the courtyards. Al-Jaabari believes that the continuation of the current situation, where the Israeli police hold the keys to entry and exit, and the courtyards are transformed into a public space managed securely according to estimates and justifications, will lead to the gradual normalization of the idea of Israeli sovereignty over Al-Aqsa administratively and securely, and then gradually transfer that to the level of an Islamic and Jewish religious site. Here specifically, the model of the Ibrahimi Mosque after 1994 appears, for after the Ibrahimi Mosque massacre, a spatial and temporal division was imposed, Muslim access was reduced, and the mosque was closed to them on Jewish holidays, and security control became a permanent system until today. Al-Jaabari affirms that this similarity is a behavior of religious and security colonialism that tests the limits of what is possible in Al-Aqsa: reducing the powers of the Islamic Endowments Department, establishing security control, and then forcibly normalizing that the place has become shared by Jews and Muslims. Therefore, if the current cumulative situation continues, Israel will religiously, securely, and administratively control Al-Aqsa Mosque and abolish its pure Islamic religious identity. Israel Imposes Actual Control Over the Ibrahimi Mosque The analyst specializing in Israeli affairs, Imad Abu Awwad, believes that Israeli planning regarding the Ibrahimi Mosque has moved from the planning stage to the implementation stage in some aspects. Abu Awwad believes that Israel is imposing actual control over the Ibrahimi Mosque and increasingly linking it to a Jewish religious administration, which raises concerns about expanding the scope of control or reducing the prayer space available to Palestinians. Abu Awwad points out that Israeli policies towards Al-Aqsa Mosque have gradually evolved through different stages, starting from imposing restrictions on Palestinian access, through increasing the number of intruders, and reaching allowing prayers inside its courtyards at certain times. Abu Awwad also refers to discussions about the possibility of building a Jewish synagogue inside the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, benefiting from the world's preoccupation with multiple international and regional issues. The analyst Abu Awwad concludes his speech by saying that this global preoccupation may create a space that Israel may exploit to strengthen its actual control over Al-Aqsa Mosque, including discussions about possibilities related to changing some of its features or imposing new realities, while warning against any measures that may lead to changing the status quo in it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a televised address on Saturday evening, emphasized that Israel is proceeding with its military campaign against Iran with full force. He clarified that joint air operations with the United States have led to almost complete control over the airspace of the capital, Tehran, a week after the intensive strikes began.

Netanyahu revealed the existence of a strategic and systematic plan aimed at undermining the current Iranian regime and achieving a set of security and political objectives in the region. He indicated that these moves come in response to the demands of the Israeli public and soldiers in the field for the necessity of continuing the fight until what he described as 'decisive victory' is achieved.

In the context of reviewing military capabilities, military sources reported that the Israeli Air Force has carried out approximately 3,400 airstrikes since the outbreak of the confrontation on February 28. About 7,500 various munitions were used in these attacks, which targeted strategic and vital sites deep within Iran.

These statements come at a sensitive time, as field reports confirmed the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Commander Mohammad Pakpour in previous strikes. Netanyahu considered that these developments directly contributed to changing the balance of power and reshaping the face of the Middle East anew according to the Israeli vision.

For its part, Hebrew media sources stated that the Ministerial Committee for National Security (the Security Cabinet) will hold an emergency meeting to assess the rapidly developing field situation. The meeting will be attended by Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and leaders of the security establishment to discuss available options for dealing with the ongoing escalation on the Iranian and Hezbollah fronts.

On the Iranian side, Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, accused both Washington and Tel Aviv of systematically seeking to dismantle the Iranian state from its roots. He affirmed in televised statements that the continuous attacks aim to destroy the Iranian national entity, stressing that Tehran continues to respond with missile barrages and drones.

Regarding regional repercussions, the United Arab Emirates has been subjected to more than a thousand missile and drone attacks since the start of the conflict. Iranian responses also targeted American military bases in the Gulf region, including Al Udeid Air Base, which was targeted by drones and ballistic missiles, increasing the pace of regional tension.

Economically, the war has caused severe shocks to global markets, with oil and gas prices jumping by up to 25%. Israel faces internal economic pressures, with its weekly losses reaching 9.4 billion shekels, while the United States incurs about a billion dollars daily to finance its military operations.

At the international level, clear divisions emerged in European positions, with Spain and Portugal refusing to allow the use of their military bases for attacks against Iran. In contrast, Britain expressed its preference for the negotiation path, despite the participation of naval vessels from France, Germany, and the Netherlands in reinforcing the military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In Washington, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tried to reassure public opinion that this war would not be an endless conflict like the Iraq War. He affirmed that the objectives are specific and operations are proceeding according to a studied timetable, despite the high cost and field complexities imposed by the direct confrontation with Tehran.

Finally, Netanyahu sent a direct message to the Iranian people, claiming that Israel seeks to liberate them from what he described as 'the yoke of tyranny.' He considered that 'the moment of truth' has come to change the political reality in Iran, at a time when scholars of the nation continue to issue statements rejecting the targeting of Iran and considering it a service to expansionist projects in the region.

We have a systematic plan to eliminate the Iranian regime and achieve many other goals, and we will continue the war with all our might.

Representative André Carson, a member of the US House Intelligence Committee, dropped a bombshell by linking the recent military escalation against Iran to attempts by the US administration to cover up thorny legal cases. Carson asserted that the decision to go to war was not based on real or imminent security threats, as the White House promoted, but rather was a calculated political maneuver.

The Democratic representative explained in press statements that a review of available intelligence data does not provide any logical justification for launching an attack of this magnitude. He pointed out that the timing, coinciding with the emergence of new details in the Jeffrey Epstein case, raises deep suspicions about the true motives behind igniting the conflict in the Middle East.

In a related context, international press reports revealed secret FBI documents recently released under intense political pressure. These documents include shocking testimonies from an anonymous woman, who claims to have been physically and sexually assaulted by Donald Trump when she was a teenager during the 1980s.

The leaked testimonies indicate that the alleged victim was taken by the late billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to one of Trump's properties in New York. According to official transcripts, the incident involved physical violence after the girl refused to comply with immoral requests, which led to her being beaten and punched by the current president.

Documents that were classified as 'missing' from the Epstein investigation files showed that the victim received anonymous phone threats for many years to force her into silence. The woman claims that Epstein used compromising photos of her mother to blackmail her family, which led the mother to commit financial crimes to pay off the blackmail amounts before she was later imprisoned.

For its part, the White House quickly denied these allegations outright, describing them as slanders lacking reliable material evidence. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that these accounts came from a person with a criminal record, considering that the Department of Justice's previous inaction proves the president's innocence.

On the ground, joint US and Israeli airstrikes led to the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader, plunging the region into a comprehensive regional war. Gulf states became embroiled in the conflict amid fears of widespread security collapse that could extend to vital international interests in waterways.

Representative Carson warned that the repercussions of this attack might not be limited to the Iranian arena, but could lead to a wave of civil wars within Iran. He also expressed his deep concern about the possibility of retaliatory operations within US territory carried out by cells linked to organizations that consider the attack an illegal aggression.

Democrats in Congress are currently leading an extensive investigation to find out the reasons that led to the withholding of these sensitive documents from the public for a long time. Lawmakers accuse the Department of Justice of trying to protect influential figures by concealing materials that include serious sexual assault allegations against the head of the political hierarchy in Washington.

Despite Trump's repeated denials of any involvement in Epstein's illegal activities, the appearance of these documents at the height of the war puts the administration's credibility to the test. Observers believe that the disclosure of these 'disgusting' details aims to exert public and legal pressure that may change the course of internal political developments.

Intelligence sources cited by Carson indicate that the changing messages from the White House regarding the war's objectives reinforce the 'distraction' hypothesis. While 'self-defense' is being discussed, judicial documents appear as shadows haunting the decision-maker in the Oval Office and revealing deep moral crises.

FBI memos include precise details about how the victim met Epstein and Trump through old photos. The victim described meeting Trump in a 'very tall building,' where he asked those present to leave before he began to engage in aggressive behavior towards her because of her appearance.

Reports indicate that the publication of these files outside the usual timeframe for publication raises legal questions about the independence of the American judiciary in light of major conflicts. Lawyers fear that the Epstein files will be further politicized to be used as tools in settling political scores during periods of war.

The scene remains open to all possibilities, as the sounds of cannons in the Middle East intertwine with the echoes of legal scandals in Washington. While the war continues to claim lives, the 'Epstein files' remain a mystery that threatens to undermine the pillars of the American administration and expose what is hidden in the relationships of the political elite.

I have not seen any intelligence that could justify such an attack; this was clearly an attempt to distract from the Epstein files.

March 8, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C—Wars have a way of clarifying political ideas that once seemed comfortably vague. For nearly a decade, Donald Trump’s rise in American politics rested on a simple claim: the United States had squandered its strength in misguided foreign wars and needed to refocus on national interests. The promise of “America First” was never only about trade or immigration. It also signaled a rejection of the interventionist mindset that shaped Washington after the Cold War.

A war with Iran now places that promise under its harshest test.

By any historical measure, a major American military confrontation with Tehran represents a turning point for the political project that carried Trump to power. He emerged not only as a Republican outsider, but as the first modern presidential contender willing to condemn the Iraq War and question decades of American military activism in the Middle East.

That critique became central to his political identity. During the 2016 campaign and throughout his presidency, he argued that Washington’s foreign policy elite had wasted lives, money, and strategic focus on wars that delivered little benefit to ordinary Americans. Again and again he called the Iraq invasion a historic blunder and vowed the United States would avoid new open-ended Middle Eastern conflicts.

That commitment now faces profound doubt.

A sustained American campaign against Iran marks the clearest break yet from the principles that animated Trump’s movement. Whatever strategic justification the administration presents—deterrence, regime pressure, or alliance solidarity—the reality is unmistakable: Washington has again entered the kind of Middle Eastern war Trump once condemned as reckless.

The contradiction is not merely rhetorical; it reaches the core of what Trumpism claimed to represent.

From the start, the “America First” coalition joined groups with different visions of American power. One faction included populist nationalists, libertarian-leaning conservatives, and voters weary of decades of war. Their priority was restraint: fewer interventions, fewer permanent commitments, and greater focus on domestic renewal and border security.

Another faction, however, remained committed to traditional Republican national security doctrine. For them, American strength required readiness to project military force decisively against adversaries. Iran, in particular, has long been viewed by many Republican hawks as the region’s central destabilizing power, backing militant groups and challenging U.S. partners.

For years, Trump managed to hold these factions together through instinct and strategic ambiguity. His rhetoric favored restraint, yet policy often swung between withdrawal and confrontation. He criticized endless wars while ordering targeted strikes and tightening pressure on Tehran.

The Iran war removes that ambiguity. It forces a choice between visions that were always uneasy partners.

For the anti-interventionist wing, the moment feels like betrayal. Trumpism promised to break the cycle of Middle Eastern wars that drained American resources and credibility. Instead, the United States risks repeating a familiar pattern: military escalation without a clear political endgame.

Even supporters favoring a harder line toward Tehran concede the path ahead is uncertain. History offers few cases where outside military pressure alone produced lasting political change inside entrenched authoritarian systems.

The geopolitical consequences are already visible. Tension in the Persian Gulf has unsettled energy markets, raising fears of higher fuel prices and renewed inflation. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains vulnerable to disruption, and prolonged instability could ripple across the global economy.

Strategically, the implications extend further. As Washington focuses military attention on the Middle East, rival powers gain room to maneuver. Russia, heavily dependent on energy exports, could benefit from rising oil prices. China, meanwhile, may watch as the United States diverts resources and diplomacy from the Indo-Pacific, the arena many strategists consider central to twenty-first-century competition.

None of this guarantees immediate political collapse for Trump or his movement. Charismatic leaders often survive contradictions that might destroy conventional politicians. Trump’s strength has long rested less on ideological coherence than on channeling voter anger at established elites.

Yet movements built around one personality rarely escape the consequences of strategic decisions once that leader eventually leaves the stage.

At some point, future leaders of the American right will inherit a question Trump long postponed: what does “America First” actually mean in practice?

Does it represent restraint that rejects the interventionist instincts of Washington’s foreign policy establishment? Or is it simply a nationalist rebranding of the same willingness to use American military power abroad?

The Iran war pushes that dilemma into the open.

History suggests such tensions rarely remain unresolved. Political movements forged in disruption often fracture once competing visions become impossible to ignore. The Iraq War reshaped the Republican Party for years, deepening divisions between traditional hawks and voters skeptical of intervention.

A conflict with Iran could trigger a similar reckoning.

If that occurs, the most lasting legacy may not appear on the battlefield or in diplomacy. It may lie in the transformation—and possible fragmentation—of the movement that once promised to end America’s wars, only to find itself launching another.

That paradox could ultimately define how historians judge Trump’s foreign policy revolution and its unfinished political consequences for America itself.

The online casino market continues to offer high potential for affiliate marketing and digital projects. 1xCasino partners receive rewards for the activity of attracted players and their deposits on the platform. The program is aimed at both experienced webmasters and novice specialists who are just testing traffic sources. Registration is free and requires no investment, which lowers the entry threshold and allows you to focus on promotion.

The work is based on a transparent system of statistics and financial indicators. Within the platform, partners have access to tools for tracking clicks, registrations, deposits, and net income in real time. Partners independently choose a monetization model and tailor their strategy to their audience. Flexible conditions allow you to scale advertising campaigns without restrictions on geography or promotion channels. 

How to become an agent and what the program offers

To connect, you need to create an account and confirm your contact details. After activating the 1xCasino affiliate program, all partners get access to their personal account with affiliate links, analytics, and ready-made marketing materials. Commissions are calculated automatically when the conditions for attracting players are met. The system supports several payment models, allowing you to build a convenient financial strategy.

Before actively launching advertising campaigns, it is important to consider the additional features of the program that enhance its effectiveness: 

- individual agreement on increased interest rates for large traffic volumes.

-extended statistics with details by country, device, and traffic source .

- a hybrid payment model combining a fixed fee and a percentage of revenue.

-a referral program with a percentage of the profit of invited partners. 

These tools help you flexibly manage profitability and adjust your strategy based on analytical data. Partners have the opportunity to test different advertising formats and optimize conversion. With stable performance, the terms of cooperation can be revised to increase commissions, which encourages long-term work.

Growth opportunities and features

The program is focused on the international market and supports a wide geography of player acquisition. The casino offers a diverse selection of gaming products and bonus offers, which has a positive effect on audience engagement. Partners have access to ready-made banners, landing pages, and promotional materials adapted for mobile and desktop devices. This speeds up the launch of campaigns and reduces the cost of developing creative content. 

The Saudi Ministry of Defense announced that air defense forces successfully intercepted and destroyed a 'cruise' missile in the eastern region of Al-Kharj Governorate, part of the Riyadh region. Official sources clarified that the operation was successful with no casualties, at a time when the region is witnessing escalating security tensions due to mutual missile barrages.

In Manama, sirens blared across Bahrain, prompting the Ministry of Interior to issue urgent instructions to citizens and residents to remain calm and immediately proceed to the nearest shelters or safe places. Bahraini authorities emphasized the importance of obtaining information from official sources and avoiding rumors amidst the current circumstances.

Concurrently, the Kuwaiti Ministry of Defense confirmed that air defense systems effectively dealt with hostile targets that penetrated national airspace. Sources indicated that the attacks included missiles and drones attempting to target vital sites, affirming full readiness to protect the state's sovereignty and security.

For its part, the State of Qatar directed sharp criticism at Tehran during an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation group in New York, where Permanent Representative Alia Ahmed bin Saif Al Thani described the attacks as a blatant violation of international laws. She affirmed that Doha would keep the UN Security Council constantly informed of all facts and aggressions affecting its national security.

The Qatari representative revealed details of the damage incurred within Qatar, noting that air defenses intercepted a series of attacks targeting sensitive civilian facilities. The targets included a main water tank and natural gas production stations, in addition to shrapnel falling in the vicinity of Hamad International Airport, resulting in human casualties and material damage.

In a related context, Tehran vowed to escalate its military operations, declaring its readiness for a long-term confrontation in response to Israeli-American movements in the region. Iranian attacks target what it describes as American interests in the Gulf states, Iraq, and Jordan, which has led to damage to civilian assets and casualties in several Arab countries.

Qatar called on the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to take a unified and firm stance to condemn these attacks, which it described as illegal and unjustified. It clarified that the continuation of Iranian military operations comes despite all diplomatic efforts made by the Gulf Cooperation Council countries to de-escalate and avoid sliding into a comprehensive confrontation in the region.

Iranian attacks represent a blatant violation and a direct threat to the security and stability of the region, and have targeted vital civilian facilities in Qatar.

The central government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government, today, Friday, emphasized their firm official stance rejecting the transformation of Iraqi territory into an arena for carrying out attacks against neighboring countries. This came during a phone call between Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' al-Sudani and the President of the Region, Nechirvan Barzani, where the two sides discussed recent security developments and threats to national sovereignty.

In separate statements, both sides affirmed the necessity of protecting border security and preventing any armed groups from using Iraqi depth as a launchpad for external military operations. The officials also expressed their categorical rejection of the repeated attacks targeting Iraqi cities and areas within the Kurdistan Region, considering this a blatant violation of international norms and regional stability.

This diplomatic move coincided with a series of military strikes targeting the headquarters of Iranian Kurdish opposition parties in northern Iraq. Field sources reported that the shelling targeted rear positions of these groups, amid accusations from Tehran that they were preparing for cross-border infiltration operations and implementing agendas serving hostile international powers.

In a parallel security development, the southern province of Basra witnessed the downing of four drones that targeted vital facilities, including Basra Airport and two oil fields. These incidents raise the level of concern among Iraqi authorities about the country sliding back into a spiral of regional proxy conflicts, after a period of relative stability witnessed on the local scene.

For its part, Tehran escalated its warning tone towards the Kurdistan Regional authorities, threatening to target all vital facilities in the region if it allowed the passage of opposition fighters towards its territory. The spokesman for Iran's 'Khatam al-Anbiya' headquarters, Ibrahim Dhul-Fiqari, stated that any cooperation for the stationing of hostile forces on the borders would be met with a firm and direct response from Iranian forces.

Reports indicate that the Kurdistan Region, which enjoys self-rule, is facing increasing pressure as a result of missile and drone attacks targeting various objectives. Iran accuses Kurdish groups stationed in the region of working for Western and Israeli interests, which has led to repeated strikes over the past years targeting camps and rear bases.

In a related context, media outlets circulated reports about American efforts to arm opposing Kurdish factions in the region to use them as a pressure tool against Tehran. These data further complicate Iraq's security landscape, as it strives to distance itself from the ongoing war between major powers and their allies in the region, and to maintain a policy of balance in its foreign relations.

Iraqi territory will not be a launchpad for attacking neighboring countries, and we reject attacks targeting Iraqi cities, including the Kurdistan Region.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/7/2026

News Analysis

Global energy markets are experiencing a highly turbulent phase amidst the increasing overlap between geopolitical conflicts and major economic decisions. In this context, Washington announced that recent measures related to Russian oil are not aimed at easing restrictions on Moscow, but are limited to dealing with shipments still en route to Russia, in an attempt to contain market disruption without a fundamental adjustment to the sanctions regime.

This announcement coincided with statements by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday, in which he indicated that the US administration is considering the possibility of lifting sanctions on additional quantities of Russian oil. This direction comes just one day after Washington temporarily allowed India to purchase Russian oil shipments stranded at sea, a move that reflects a clear attempt to increase oil supply in global markets experiencing sharp price increases.

These developments coincide with escalating tensions in the Middle East, where the US-Israeli war on Iran and retaliatory attacks launched by Tehran in the Gulf region have led to widespread disruption in the international energy and transport sectors. These disruptions culminated in a near halt to movement in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important maritime passages for oil transport in the world, raising significant concerns about the stability of global supplies.

These developments were quickly reflected in prices, as crude oil prices rose by 8.5% on Friday, marking an increase of nearly 30% in one week. This rise came after US President Donald Trump's statement that "unconditional surrender of Iran" is the only way to end the Middle East war, a statement that heightened global market fears about the potential for the conflict to expand.

In an interview with "Fox Business," Bessent explained that there are hundreds of millions of barrels of sanctioned crude oil at sea, noting that lifting restrictions on some of them could provide additional supplies to markets. However, Washington stressed that these steps do not reflect a change in its policy towards Moscow or its stance on the war in Ukraine, but rather fall within temporary measures to alleviate pressure on global and domestic markets.

Bessent added that the Treasury Department will continue to take measures aimed at easing tension in the energy market during the conflict, indicating the growing concern within the US administration about the repercussions of rising oil prices on the global economy and on American consumers at home.

In contrast, Kirill Dmitriev, economic advisor to the Kremlin, indicated that he is discussing this issue with the United States, asserting via the "X" platform that Western sanctions have harmed the global economy as much as they targeted Russia.

On Thursday, the US government announced a temporary easing of some sanctions to allow the sale of Russian oil stranded at sea to India. It clarified that these transactions, including those conducted via vessels listed on sanctions lists in various sanctions regimes, are permitted until the end of April 3, 2026.

This step reflects a delicate balance that Washington is trying to maintain between continuing political and economic pressure on Moscow on the one hand, and preventing a sharp shock in global energy markets on the other, at a time when geopolitical risks are increasing and the calculations of supply and demand in the international oil market are becoming more complex.

These developments reveal a paradox in US policy towards Russia, as Washington tries to maintain the sanctions regime as a tool of political pressure, while at the same time being forced to practically ease some restrictions to avoid a global energy crisis. A sharp rise in prices could negatively impact the US economy itself, especially given the sensitivity of domestic markets to fuel prices. Therefore, these measures appear to be more of a tactical management of the crisis, allowing for a temporary increase in supplies without officially acknowledging the easing of sanctions.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis once again confirms the fragility of the global energy system in the face of military conflicts in the Middle East. The mere disruption of navigation in this vital passage can push oil prices to record levels within a few days. This shows that markets react not only to the actual volume of supplies, but also to anticipated risks. Therefore, any additional military escalation in the region could push major consumer countries to search more quickly for long-term strategic alternatives.

On the other hand, this crisis gives Russia an opportunity to highlight its narrative that Western sanctions harm the global economy as much as they target Moscow. Allowing the sale of Russian oil stranded at sea, even if temporary, reflects a practical acknowledgment that excluding large quantities of Russian crude from the global market is not easy. Furthermore, continued demand for it from countries like India demonstrates that energy considerations often outweigh political calculations in the international economic system.

The first hours of the widespread Israeli-American aggression on Iranian territory witnessed an event that shook the foundations of the region: the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ali Khamenei, along with a number of senior military and political leaders. This targeting appeared to be an attempt to break the backbone of the Iranian regime by striking the head of the pyramid directly, at a time when columns of smoke rose over Tehran, announcing a new phase of open conflict.

In Washington, US President Donald Trump did not hide his enthusiasm for this development, describing the moment as a 'moment of freedom' for the Iranian people, and even went further by expressing his desire to directly intervene in the selection of Khamenei's successor. However, the old dilemma arises about the extent to which the absence of a pivotal figure can undermine a regime deeply rooted in complex military and ideological institutions, whose survival does not depend on a single individual.

On the ground, the Iranian response to the assassination was not delayed, as sources reported that vital sites in Gulf countries and oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman were targeted, threatening to disrupt global energy supplies. This escalation did not stop at the Iranian borders but extended to ignite the Lebanese front, which slid into a comprehensive confrontation, accompanied by unprecedented Israeli evacuation orders for large areas in the southern suburbs, the south, and the Beqaa.

On the internal political front, Tehran quickly activated constitutional continuity protocols, with a temporary leadership council assuming the powers of the Supreme Leader, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, the head of the judiciary, and prominent religious figures. This council is expected to manage the country's affairs until the Assembly of Experts chooses a permanent successor within a legal period not exceeding three months, amidst anticipation of the Revolutionary Guard's role in resolving this issue.

Observers believe that the Iranian regime is not a 'one-man system' in the traditional sense, but rather an institutional system that includes the Revolutionary Guard, the Guardian Council, and the Expediency Discernment Council. These structures possess a high capacity to absorb major security shocks and may seek to turn the assassination incident into an opportunity to strengthen internal cohesion and rally around 'the banner' instead of the collapse that Washington hopes for.

In contrast, Trump's strategy is characterized by ambiguity, with his statements oscillating between calling for the overthrow of the regime and the possibility of negotiating with a new, more moderate leadership, which is known as the 'behavior change' model. Trump cited the Venezuelan model, where he previously expressed willingness to work with Vice President Delcy Rodriguez after Maduro's detention, suggesting that he might accept a settlement with factions within the Iranian regime.

Historically, the record of American failures in 'system engineering' haunts the 'moment of freedom' promises made by the White House, starting from Roosevelt's promises in North Africa in 1942 to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In the Iraqi case, George H.W. Bush's calls for an uprising in 1991 led to a great betrayal of the demonstrators, while George W. Bush's invasion ended with years of chaos, the rise of extremist groups, and exorbitant material costs.

Middle East experts warn that air power alone, no matter how precise and painful, rarely succeeds in changing political regimes without ground intervention or widespread military defections. As of now, there are no indications that the Iranian armed forces or the Revolutionary Guard are willing to abandon their loyalty to the regime, making the bet on a rapid fall of power a risky one.

Khamenei's absence, who ruled the country for 36 years, undoubtedly represents a major symbolic and practical loss, as he was the ultimate authority that balanced the conflicting currents within the state. But the religious establishment in Qom and the security networks that have accumulated over decades possess the experience that may enable them to overcome the vacuum, especially in the presence of a direct external threat that unites the internal front behind the interim leadership.

At the regional fronts, it appears that the Supreme Leader's assassination has accelerated the pace of war expansion, as Iran's allies in the region believe that targeting 'the head of the axis' requires a strategic response that goes beyond traditional rules of engagement. This explains Hezbollah's intense firepower in Lebanon and the waves of displaced people, putting the entire region on the brink of a volcano that could erupt at any moment.

Intelligence reports indicate that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been closely tracking Khamenei's movements before carrying out the strike on Saturday morning, reflecting an American desire to create a political 'shock and awe'. However, the scenes coming from Tehran, showing thousands of angry mourners, suggest that the shock may turn into fuel for the engine of revenge, complicating Washington's calculations in containing the conflict.

The American dilemma lies in the fact that Trump's political rhetoric always precedes the building of realistic plans for what happens after the fall of leaders, which has been repeated in previous experiences that led to counterproductive results. While Trump talks about destroying the nuclear program, the question remains about who will sign any future agreement if Iran enters a state of political chaos or a long civil war.

In this complex scene, the 'behavior change' hypothesis remains the most realistic in American decision-making circles, despite the revolutionary rhetoric surrounding the current administration's statements. The United States realizes that the human and material cost of overthrowing a regime the size of Iran would be many times what it paid in Iraq, which contradicts the 'America First' slogan raised by Trump.

In conclusion, 'post-Khamenei' Iran remains an open arena for all possibilities, between the resilience of ideological institutions and the slide into an internal power struggle fueled by external military pressure. But the only constant is that the region has entered a dark tunnel, where the assassination of leaders no longer guarantees the end of wars, but may merely be a spark to ignite wider, uncontrollable fires.

The distance between overthrowing a leader and creating an alternative is still wide, and American behavior oscillates between regime change and behavior change.

Investigative journalist Warren Gitler confirmed that US President Donald Trump has succeeded in overcoming initial opposition within Congress regarding his intensified military campaign against Iran. Despite the Senate's move to vote on a resolution forcing the administration to end airstrikes, expectations indicate that this move will not be able to bring about real change in the course of operations.

Gitler believes that Trump relies on a cohesive Republican majority in Congress, which provides him with the necessary political cover to bypass the War Powers Act. This law, enacted during the Vietnam War era, now appears to be merely a simple procedural obstacle to the current administration's ambitions to reshape the balance of power in the Middle East.

Reports indicate that the United States has effectively entered what can be called the 'Third Gulf War,' a comprehensive confrontation aimed at overthrowing the Iranian regime and dismantling its nuclear and missile capabilities. Trump clearly defined these objectives by the end of the first week of military operations, in which Israel is directly participating.

On the ground, American-Israeli strikes have succeeded in targeting Iranian central command, missile launch platforms, and naval vessels. However, the extent of damage to American bases in the region due to the Iranian response with ballistic missiles and drones remains significant and alarmingly continuous.

This confrontation differs from the First Gulf War in the nature of the weapons used, as it now relies on highly accurate and widely destructive guided missiles. Despite relatively low American casualties so far, concerns are growing about an increase in civilian casualties in the region's countries and within Iran.

The global economy has begun to be directly affected by the conflict, especially with escalating disputes in the Strait of Hormuz, which is a lifeline for 20% of global oil supplies. This tension has led to sharp jumps in energy prices, putting additional pressure on major capitals to find a way out of the crisis.

Strategic questions arise about the effectiveness of air bombardment alone in changing regimes, as history has proven that defeating an entrenched enemy requires more than just missiles. Washington and Tel Aviv are currently testing the hypothesis that military pressure will incite the Iranian people to revolt, which has not happened tangibly so far.

There are fears that widespread attacks could backfire by fueling anti-foreign nationalist sentiment among Iranians. This feeling could strengthen the internal front behind the regime instead of weakening it, a danger analysts have warned about since the beginning of planning the military campaign.

Domestically in Washington, there is concern about the depletion of advanced air defense systems such as 'Patriot,' 'Aegis,' and 'THAAD.' Sources indicate that the continuation of the war at the current pace could lead to the depletion of these interceptor missiles within a few weeks, leaving American forces and their allies exposed.

Senior military leaders have repeatedly warned Trump that the United States does not have sufficient stockpiles for a sustained air campaign aimed at regime change in a country the size of Iran. The administration is currently considering difficult options, including transferring defensive systems from vital American bases in South Korea to fill the deficit in the Middle East.

Iran, with a population of 92 million, possesses rugged mountainous terrain and the strongest missile arsenal in the region thanks to billions of dollars in investment. Its experience in developing drones, which have been effectively used in other international conflicts, gives it the ability to deliver painful strikes despite concentrated bombardment.

President Trump is hesitant to make a decision to send ground troops, fearing entanglement in a human quagmire that could affect his chances in the upcoming midterm elections. But experts question the possibility of achieving 'regime change' without boots on the ground, recalling the need for 400,000 troops in previous experiences.

Attention is now turning to the possibility of Washington resorting to Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq to form a ground spearhead within Iranian territory. However, the question remains about the extent of the Kurds' response to this call, especially after previous experiences where they felt abandoned by the United States at critical moments.

Amid this ambiguity, international capitals such as London, Paris, and Berlin are demanding clear answers about an exit strategy from this war. As 2026 enters a major missile conflict phase, the most important question remains: what will success look like in Washington's eyes, and what will be the ultimate price the world pays?

The idea that American and Israeli strikes will be sufficient to urge the Iranian people to reclaim their destiny is being severely tested today in the absence of a tangible revolutionary uprising.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian announced today, Saturday, a shift in his country's military policy towards the region, offering a formal apology to neighboring Arab countries, foremost among them the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Iraq. This apology came in the wake of a series of missile and drone attacks that targeted vital facilities in those countries over the past few days.

Pezeshkian affirmed in a video statement that the interim leadership council, which currently holds the reins in Tehran, approved a decision not to carry out any future attacks against neighboring countries. The Iranian president stipulated for adherence to this pledge that no hostile attacks against Iranian territory should originate from within the borders of those countries, emphasizing his country's desire to end the state of tension.

The Iranian president stressed in his speech the absence of any premeditated intention for hostility with the countries of the region, stating that Tehran does not seek to attack any neighboring party. These statements come under exceptional circumstances experienced by Iran following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on February 28, which led to the formation of an interim leadership council to manage the crisis.

On the Arab diplomatic front, the Assistant Secretary-General of the Arab League, Hossam Zaki, revealed arrangements for an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers tomorrow, Sunday. The meeting, which will be held via video conference, will focus on discussing the repercussions of recent Iranian aggressions on the sovereignty of Arab territories in light of the ongoing military escalation.

Zaki explained that this Arab move came at the official request of several countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, and Jordan. The meeting aims to formulate a unified Arab position towards repeated Iranian violations that coincided with direct confrontations between Tehran on one hand and the United States and Israel on the other.

For his part, Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit strongly condemned the Iranian attacks, describing them as a blatant violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. Aboul Gheit warned that these actions create an unprecedented state of hostility and cause a deep rift in good neighborly relations, which will negatively affect the future of the region.

Aboul Gheit considered Tehran's attempts to drag Arab countries into a conflict that is not their war to be a grave strategic mistake that must be rectified immediately. He demanded a halt to all Iranian military operations targeting Arab facilities, stressing that there is no acceptable justification for targeting neighbors under any political or military pretext.

On the ground, the Saudi Ministry of Defense announced the success of its forces in intercepting and destroying 21 drones that were targeting the 'Shaybah' oil field located southeast of the Kingdom. This operation is considered one of the largest targeting attempts against Saudi oil facilities during the recent wave of escalation in the region.

In a related context, Saudi military sources confirmed the destruction of a ballistic missile that was heading towards Prince Sultan Air Base, which houses units of US forces. Air defenses also managed to intercept another drone in the skies of the capital Riyadh, in addition to thwarting previous attacks that targeted the strategic Ras Tanura refinery.

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman sent a firm message to Tehran, calling on it to prioritize reason and avoid miscalculations. Prince Khalid, after meeting with the Pakistani army chief, indicated that the Kingdom is exploring ways to stop these aggressions within the framework of joint strategic defense agreements to ensure the security and stability of the region.

These rapid developments come at a time when the Iranian capital, Tehran, was subjected to a widespread attack by about 80 Israeli fighter jets, in response to Iranian missile barrages. The region is in a state of high alert, awaiting the outcome of Arab and international diplomatic moves to contain the situation and prevent it from escalating into a comprehensive regional war.

Observers believe that Pezeshkian's apology may represent an attempt to calm the Arab front in light of the enormous military pressures Iran faces internally and externally. However, the gamble remains on the extent of Iranian military factions' commitment to the decisions of the interim leadership council, and the ability of Arab countries to extract real guarantees that prevent the recurrence of these aggressions in the future.

There is no animosity between Iran and the countries of the region, and we have no intention of attacking any neighboring country.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as one of the few European leaders who have chosen a public and firm confrontation with US President Donald Trump. This came in a ten-minute televised speech, described by observers as extremely bold, in which Sanchez responded to Washington's threats to cut trade relations with Madrid. The American threat followed the Spanish government's refusal to allow the use of two military bases in Andalusia for air strikes against Iranian targets.

Sanchez clarified in his speech that the core of the disagreement lies in Spain's view of the risks of a new war breaking out in the Middle East, emphasizing that such a conflict would lead to immense human losses and destabilize the global economy. The Spanish Prime Minister considered that the primary duty of governments is to protect the lives of their citizens, not to manipulate international conflicts for narrow political or economic gains. He stressed that using 'the veil of war' to cover up internal failures is absolutely unacceptable in international norms.

Sanchez's speech included harsh criticism of those he described as leaders who enrich the pockets of a select few through arms trade and missile building instead of hospitals. He affirmed that democracy and mutual respect among nations cannot arise from ruins, rejecting the idea of 'blind obedience' as a form of leadership. He indicated that Spain would not conspire in any act that contradicts its values and national interests, even if the price was facing retaliation from major powers.

Domestically, Sanchez's words resonated widely with the Spanish public, with opinion polls indicating that less than 16% of citizens view the current US President positively. This stance recalls the popular anger that swept Spain in 2003 due to the then-conservative government's support for the invasion of Iraq. However, Sanchez faced sharp criticism from the right-wing opposition, who accused him of jeopardizing strategic relations with the United States for partisan gains.

Alberto Núñez Feijóo, leader of the conservative Popular Party, accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a 'reckless' policy that could harm Spain's economic and security interests. For his part, Santiago Abascal, leader of the far-right Vox party, went further, hinting that the government's decisions are influenced by external parties. These divisions reflect the intensity of political polarization in Madrid regarding how to deal with the new US administration and its volatile negotiating style.

Sanchez's latest stance is not surprising to those who follow his foreign policy, as he is considered one of the strongest European critics of Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip. Sanchez had previously accused the occupation of committing 'genocide' and starving children, a position that put him in repeated clashes with Washington's allies. He also opposed US military interventions in Venezuela, adhering to the necessity of diplomatic solutions and respecting national sovereignty.

In contrast, Sanchez's voice seems isolated on the European continent, which suffers from internal divisions and challenges that prevent its leaders from taking similar stances. While French President Emmanuel Macron expressed solidarity with Spain in the face of trade threats, he adopts a more pragmatic approach. Macron tries to walk a tightrope, criticizing violations of international law on the one hand, and holding the Iranian leadership responsible for the escalation on the other.

France moved the aircraft carrier 'Charles de Gaulle' to the Eastern Mediterranean, a move Macron described as 'purely defensive' to support regional allies. However, French diplomatic sources confirm that Paris's top priority is to find a political solution to the crisis and avoid sliding into an all-out war. This French position reflects a desire to maintain a mediating role without entering into a direct and public confrontation with the Trump administration.

In Berlin, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz chose a remarkably conciliatory approach with Washington, clearly distancing himself from Madrid's position. Merz stated that now is not the time to blame allies, emphasizing the need for cooperation to achieve common goals despite reservations. It seems that German concerns about American tariffs and the stance on Ukraine are pushing Berlin to avoid any clash with Trump for now.

The German Chancellor went further when he endorsed Trump's criticisms of Spain regarding defense spending, which observers considered a stab in the back of European solidarity. Merz, who faces electoral challenges from the far-right and pressure to revive the economy, sees pragmatism as a means to secure room for maneuver with Washington. This German stance gave Trump a diplomatic victory in his efforts to sow discord among European allies and divide their positions.

In Italy, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni follows a policy of 'deliberate ambiguity' to maintain a delicate balance between her loyalty to Trump and her European commitments. Meloni affirmed that her country is not at war and does not intend to enter one, but she avoided directly condemning American actions. This balance reflects Rome's desire not to cut ties with the White House, while maintaining sufficient distance to ensure it is not dragged into ill-considered military adventures.

Despite Meloni's caution, her Minister of Defense, Guido Crosetto, made more frank statements before Parliament, considering that the strikes on Iran were carried out outside the rules of international law. Crosetto indicated that the world found itself forced to manage the consequences of a war that broke out without the knowledge of allies, reflecting a hidden dissatisfaction within the Italian military establishment. Nevertheless, Rome remains ready to consider any American requests for the use of military bases if they are officially received.

The diplomatic confrontation moved to the realm of press statements, where the White House spokeswoman claimed that Madrid had changed its position and was ready to cooperate. This claim was met with a swift and decisive response from Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares, who denied these reports outright. Albares affirmed that Spain's position rejecting war is clear and unambiguous, emphasizing the independence of Spanish sovereign decision-making away from external dictates.

Spain continues to lead this solitary approach within the European Union, relying on the principles of international law and rejecting the politics of force. As the world watches the developments of the conflict with Iran, Sanchez's stance remains a true test of the ability of European countries to withstand American pressure. This crisis not only redraws transatlantic relations but also reveals the depth of the gap in strategic visions among major European capitals.

It is naive to believe that practicing blind obedience and complete submission is a form of leadership... We will not conspire in something that harms the world merely out of fear of retaliation.

The Israeli occupation army escalated its aggression on Lebanese territories at dawn today, Saturday, as its warplanes launched a series of intense raids targeting various areas in the South and Bekaa. The deadliest attacks were concentrated in the town of Nabi Chit in the eastern part of the country, resulting in a horrific massacre against civilians amidst ongoing Israeli military operations.

The Lebanese Ministry of Health announced in an official statement that the death toll from the Israeli raids on the town of Nabi Chit in the Bekaa has risen to 16 martyrs and 35 injured. The ministry clarified that these figures represent a total, non-final toll, as ambulance and rescue teams are still working in the targeted sites to remove rubble and search for missing persons.

On the ground, Hezbollah revealed details of a direct military confrontation that took place in the Bekaa Governorate, where its fighters confronted an attempted landing by an Israeli infantry force. Hezbollah stated in a communiqué that the infiltration operation began with the monitoring of four Israeli helicopters coming from the Syrian border, which landed soldiers at the triangle of the outskirts of the villages of Yahfoufa, Al-Khraiba, and Maarbon.

The statement indicated that the Israeli force attempted to advance towards the eastern neighborhood of Nabi Chit village, but the fighters ambushed them upon their arrival at the cemetery area and engaged in close-range clashes. This surprise engagement led to the disorientation of the moderate force and exposed its presence to the resistance fighters in the eastern border region.

In an attempt to secure the withdrawal of the besieged force, the occupation air force carried out what is known as 'fire belts,' with planes launching about 40 intense airstrikes targeting the vicinity of the engagement area. Local sources reported that the heavy shelling aimed to cut off the path for the defenders and provide air cover for the helicopters to extract the soldiers from the battlefield.

For its part, the official Lebanese National News Agency confirmed fierce clashes on the heights of the eastern mountain range, specifically in the Nabi Chit - Ham axis. The agency reported that the region's airspace witnessed intense overflights by warplanes and drones, with thermal balloons being heavily launched to mislead defensive missiles during the withdrawal operation.

In southern Lebanon, aerial and artillery shelling did not cease, as field sources reported that the raids targeted numerous villages around the city of Tyre, including the town of Majdal Zoun, from which columns of smoke were seen rising intensely. Aerial shelling also hit the towns of Sultaniyeh and Toulin, causing widespread destruction to property and infrastructure.

Israeli artillery directly targeted the towns of Khiam, Kfarkila, Adaysseh, and Taybeh, in an attempt to impose a fire belt along the border line. Hezbollah responded by targeting a gathering of occupation soldiers at the southern outskirts of Khiam city with a rocket barrage, confirming direct hits among the forces stationed there.

In the Nabatieh region, warplanes launched a morning raid targeting the town of Jibshit, followed by another raid targeting an amusement park on the Zawtar - Nabatieh Al-Fawqa road. The occupation also destroyed a house in the Al-Marja neighborhood of Jbaa town, resulting in injuries among citizens, coinciding with raids on Arabsalim and the Green Valley area.

On the other hand, Israeli media acknowledged the infiltration of drones from Lebanon towards the Galilee, with Channel 12 reporting that air defenses attempted to intercept three drones. These developments come amidst escalating tensions that have involved multiple fronts, especially after the expansion of the regional confrontation in recent days.

The Lebanese arena is witnessing an unprecedented escalation since the limited ground incursion by the occupation army last Tuesday, despite previous ceasefire agreements. Field reports confirm that the occupation is pursuing a scorched-earth policy in border villages to facilitate infiltration and landing operations, which Hezbollah fighters are fiercely confronting.

Humanitarian conditions in the Bekaa and Southern regions remain likely to deteriorate further with the continuation of intense raids that spare no residential areas. Lebanese Civil Defense teams continue their attempts to reach the affected areas, despite the high risks resulting from repeated Israeli shelling of the same targeted sites.

The Israeli force advanced towards the eastern neighborhood of Nabi Chit village, and upon reaching the village cemetery, our mujahideen clashed with it, which prompted the enemy to carry out 40 raids to secure its withdrawal.

The US State Department announced its official approval of a new military deal to sell ammunition and defensive equipment to Israel with a total value of $151.8 million. This step comes amid an atmosphere of escalating military tension in the region, especially with the continued direct confrontation between Tel Aviv and Tehran and the increasing operational needs of the Israeli army.

The deal includes providing the Israeli side with approximately 12,000 bomb bodies, each weighing 470 kilograms, according to an official request submitted by the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the Department. The State Department affirmed that these shipments aim to enhance Israeli readiness to confront current and future regional threats, thereby ensuring the maintenance of its qualitative military superiority.

In addition to heavy ammunition, the agreement includes an integrated package of engineering, logistical, and technical assistance services that the US government will provide to ensure the efficient use of these weapons. These services aim to support Israel's defensive infrastructure and facilitate maintenance operations and the technical integration of the new ammunition into the existing aerial arsenal.

In a notable development, US President Donald Trump revealed via social media platforms an agreement with major defense industry companies in the United States to increase the production of advanced weapons. According to his statements, production will quadruple, one week after the first joint military strikes between Washington and Tel Aviv against targets inside Iran.

Procedurally, Secretary of State Marco Rubio took an exceptional step by issuing a waiver allowing the deal to pass without undergoing the usual review procedures in the US Congress. Rubio based his decision on the Arms Export Control Act, providing detailed justifications for an emergency situation requiring the immediate transfer of defensive materials to protect US national security interests.

This legal circumvention sparked a wave of sharp criticism within the halls of Congress, with a number of lawmakers expressing concern about marginalizing the oversight role of the legislative branch. Opponents considered that the use of emergency powers at this time reflects the administration's desire to accelerate the pace of military escalation without sufficient political discussion about the consequences.

In this context, Democratic Representative Gregory Meeks, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized the administration's stance, describing it as contradictory. Meeks indicated that the Trump administration's quick recourse to emergency powers reveals flaws in its previous claims of full readiness for war, considering this crisis to be 'an emergency of the administration's own making.'

On the ground, informed sources reported a significant decline in the efficiency of early warning systems within Israel in recent hours. Sources observed a significant reduction in the time difference between the issuance of an alert and the activation of sirens, which in some areas reached only two minutes, placing immense pressure on civilians and air defense systems.

Press reports quoted Israeli military sources confirming that this reduction in response time is not due to a simple technical malfunction, but rather a deeper 'operational malfunction.' Experts suggest that this malfunction may be related to some advanced monitoring mechanisms and radars being subjected to direct targeting or complex jamming operations that affected the accuracy of incoming data.

This coincided with US media reports revealing that THAAD missile interception systems were subjected to attacks in multiple locations in the Middle East, including Jordan and the UAE. These systems are a fundamental pillar of the collective defense strategy led by Washington to protect its allies from cross-border ballistic threats.

In additional details, reports stated that the United States is racing against time to replace a THAAD radar in Jordan after it sustained severe damage. The attack is believed to have been carried out by a suicide drone launched by groups loyal to Iran, leading to a temporary disruption of monitoring capabilities in that vital sector.

Israel's air defense network relies heavily on integration with US and foreign radars deployed in the region to detect ballistic missiles immediately upon launch. Damage to any part of this network, such as THAAD radars designed for interception outside the atmosphere, poses a direct threat to Israel's ability to repel large-scale missile attacks.

The proposed sale would enhance Israel's ability to confront current and future threats, and support its defensive capabilities and regional deterrence.

The intensity of the direct military confrontation between Iran on one side, and the United States and Israel on the other, escalated as the aggression entered its second week today, Saturday. A state of ambiguity dominates the field and political scene amid the absence of any horizon for de-escalation, especially with the American administration's insistence on harsh conditions for halting military operations.

The Israeli occupation army announced a wide wave of violent air raids, in which more than eighty warplanes participated, targeting vital military sites and missile launchers in the capital Tehran and central regions of the country. These attacks come as part of an attempt to undermine Iranian defensive and offensive capabilities that targeted Israeli depth in recent hours.

In response, Tehran retaliated by launching intense missile barrages, the second of their kind since dawn today, as sirens blared in Tel Aviv, central regions, and West Bank settlements. Field sources confirmed that Iranian missiles reached wide ranges including Jerusalem, the Dead Sea region, and the southern Negev, leading to a state of full alert.

Media sources reported the interception of an Iranian missile equipped with a fission warhead over the greater Tel Aviv area, while shrapnel and other missiles fell in open areas. This missile bombardment caused partial paralysis within major cities, amid reports of casualties since the start of the military escalation last week.

Iranian retaliation was not limited to ballistic missiles; the Iranian army announced widespread drone attacks targeting strategic sites. These attacks included military bases belonging to US forces in the region, specifically in the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, in response to direct American support for Israeli raids.

The official Iranian news agency clarified that naval forces targeted Al Minhad Air Base in the UAE and another base in Kuwait, in addition to strategic facilities within the occupied territories. This development represents a dangerous expansion of the regional conflict to include countries and military bases outside the direct geographical scope of the confrontation.

On the political front, US President Donald Trump blocked any diplomatic mediation efforts, asserting that he would not accept any agreement with Tehran that does not include unconditional surrender. Trump wrote on his platforms that Washington and its allies would only work to rebuild Iran economically after the selection of a new internationally acceptable leadership.

In Tehran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard showed clear defiance of American movements in the Strait of Hormuz, with its spokesman Ali Mohammad Naeini announcing that Iranian forces were 'waiting' for American warships. Naeini warned Washington against escorting commercial vessels, recalling historical and recent incidents of targeting oil tankers in the region.

Shipping traffic in the strategic Strait of Hormuz is experiencing a state of near-total paralysis due to escalating military tensions and mutual threats. This comes at a time when the US Energy Secretary announced the navy's readiness to escort commercial vessels to ensure the flow of energy supplies, which Tehran views as a direct provocation to its sovereignty.

On the ground, Iranian missile barrages extended to Haifa, the Galilee and Golan regions in the north, as well as Beersheba and settlements adjacent to the Gaza Strip. These coordinated attacks reflect Tehran's ability to target all Israeli-controlled geography simultaneously despite the intensity of air raids.

These successive developments led to severe disruptions in global financial markets, with oil prices recording significant increases due to fears of supply disruptions through vital waterways. Observers warn that the continuation of the war could lead to a global economic crisis extending beyond the Middle East.

Despite Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian's reference to mediation efforts by unnamed countries, tough American statements and rapid field operations suggest that the conflict is heading towards further escalation. The second week of the confrontation remains open to all possibilities in the absence of any signs of retreat from the parties involved in the fighting.

There will be no agreement with Iran except through unconditional surrender!

In recent years, social media platforms have ceased to be mere platforms for communication or entertainment; for many Palestinians, they have transformed into an alternative space for daily life. This transformation cannot be understood solely from the perspective of technology or digital development; rather, it must be read within a highly complex socio-economic and political context. When reality becomes filled with restrictions and violations, societies tend to seek alternative spaces that provide them with a sense of security and control, even if this security is virtual, created by the algorithms of digital platforms.

Data from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics indicates that the percentage of internet users in the Palestinian territories exceeds 86% of the population, while approximately 70-75% of Palestinians use social media platforms daily. These figures reflect the transformation of the digital space into an essential part of social and economic life. But behind this high percentage lies a deeper explanation: digital platforms not only provide a means of communication but also offer an environment where individuals feel a degree of control over their lives that they do not find in reality.

In the West Bank, for example, citizens face a complex network of field restrictions daily. Reports from the United Nations and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) indicate the presence of more than 900 barriers, checkpoints, and closures affecting the movement of Palestinians between cities and villages. These restrictions mean that a simple commute can turn into an unexpected journey filled with waiting and tension. In contrast, the digital world allows for instant movement between multiple spaces with a single click, without barriers or checkpoints.

The economic factor adds another layer of explanation. According to data from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the unemployment rate in Palestine averages about 24%, while the economy suffers from chronic slowdown due to political and geographical restrictions. In this context, digital platforms become an alternative space for production, work, and marketing. Thousands of Palestinians today rely on e-commerce, content creation, and online freelancing. Here, the algorithm is not just an entertainment tool, but a new economic structure that offers opportunities not available in traditional reality.

However, the issue is not just economic; there is an important psychological and social dimension. Social psychology explains that humans always seek environments that give them a sense of stability and predictability. A reality filled with security surprises and military incursions generates a state of chronic stress, a concept referred to by mental health studies in conflict zones. In contrast, digital algorithms provide a predictable environment: content appears based on user interests, friends are known, and discussions can be controlled or easily left. This algorithmic structure creates what can be called cognitive security; that is, a feeling that the world can be understood and interacted with without direct threat.

From an algorithmic science perspective, platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok analyze user behavior through advanced machine learning models. These models suggest content that aligns with user preferences, increasing their time spent on the platform. DataReportal's 2025 reports indicate that the average time an Arab user spends on social media ranges between 3 and 4 hours daily. This figure is not just digital consumption; it is an indicator of a significant portion of social life shifting to the virtual space.

Nevertheless, it is wrong to believe that this space is free of risks. Algorithms themselves can create what researchers call filter bubbles, where users are exposed to only one type of information that reinforces their beliefs. Moreover, digital platforms are subject to the policies of global companies that may restrict or block political content. In other words, digital security here is relative, not a complete substitute for reality.

But the paradox remains clear: when the path to work is fraught with barriers, and when daily life turns into a series of economic and political restrictions, the smartphone seems like a window to a more livable world. In this digital world, individuals can work, talk, express themselves, and learn without being stopped by a barrier or hindered by a road closure.

The result is that the Palestinian's attachment to social media is not merely an attraction to technology, but a socio-psychological response to a complex reality. The algorithm here is not understood only as a mathematical equation that manages content, but as an alternative space for life, providing humans with a temporary sense of control and ability to move in a world where the physical space shrinks day by day.

* Researcher and Consultant in Media and Digital Marketing

The calculations upon which the Israeli entity and its American ally based their recent joint aggression against Iran are facing a real predicament, as signs of failure have begun to emerge despite media coverage attempts. Targeting senior political leaders in a sovereign state not only constitutes a violation of international norms but also reflects a losing bet that the assassination of the leadership pyramid would inevitably lead to the rapid collapse of the state from within.

Political assessments in Washington and Tel Aviv had predicted a complete collapse of the Iranian regime within four days to a maximum of one week, but reality imposed entirely different facts. Today, with the passage of time, the political discourse has shifted from talking about days to weeks and indefinite periods, revealing the extent of the inability to achieve the swift objectives desired from this military adventure.

Voices within the American political elite, including members of the Senate, are rising to condemn what they described as repeated lies about the 'imminent Iranian threat.' These individuals liken the current pretexts to those used by Colin Powell for the invasion of Iraq, pointing out that Trump's slogan 'America First' has practically turned into 'Israel First' at the expense of American national interests.

The violent and unexpected Iranian response came as a shock to decision-making circles, as strikes targeted American bases in the Gulf region and vital targets within the Israeli entity. This escalation, which was not calculated to this extent, proved that the deterrence model that the entity believed it had paralyzed since the events of June 2025, still possesses effectiveness and the ability to turn the tables.

In light of this military failure, hostile intelligence agencies are seeking to stir up sectarian strife to drag regional countries into an 'Abrahamic' alliance directed entirely against Tehran. The attempt to strike at the societal components in the Middle East aims to compensate for the failure to destroy Iranian infrastructure, which represents the last resort for a project seeking to reshape the region according to the Zionist vision.

Iranian steadfastness, despite severe economic losses and infrastructure destruction, remains a stumbling block to the ambitions of the White House and Tel Aviv. The continued functioning of the regime consecrates a political and strategic defeat for the aggressors and places Iran's neighbors before the responsibility to curb this aggression and prevent the region from being drawn into a comprehensive conflict that serves only colonial powers.

The mere continued existence of the Iranian regime after these strikes represents a resounding defeat for the White House and Tel Aviv, regardless of the extent of economic devastation.

Hezbollah in Lebanon announced, at dawn on Saturday, that it had engaged in fierce clashes with an Israeli infantry force that carried out an airborne landing operation in the Bekaa Governorate, eastern the country. In a military statement, the party clarified that its fighters detected the infiltration of four Israeli helicopters coming from the Syrian border, which landed soldiers at the triangle of the villages of Yahfoufa, Al-Khraiba, and Maarbon in the eastern mountain range.

Field sources reported that the infiltrating Israeli force attempted to advance towards the eastern neighborhood of Nabi Chit town, but the fighters ambushed them upon their arrival at the cemetery area. Direct confrontations erupted from close range, prompting the Israeli army to intervene with intensive air support to rescue its soldiers and secure their withdrawal route from the targeted area.

Bekaa's airspace witnessed intensive flights of warplanes and drones, as the occupation carried out what was described as 'fire belts' by launching about 40 airstrikes targeting the vicinity of the clash area. Sources stated that these violent raids were primarily aimed at cutting off roads, preventing the arrival of reinforcements, and providing fire cover for the withdrawal of the special force that fell into the ambush.

In a related context, medical sources confirmed the martyrdom of 10 people and the injury of 17 others as a result of the concentrated aerial bombardment that targeted Nabi Chit town and its surroundings during the night hours. Ambulance teams and paramedics were repeatedly targeted by Israeli aircraft, which hampered rescue operations and the provision of assistance to the injured at the bombing sites.

Hezbollah indicated that its artillery carried out precise and concentrated shelling along the withdrawal routes of the Israeli force, confirming definite casualties among the aggressors. The statement also highlighted the role played by the local residents in providing fire support, as local residents participated in confronting the Israeli force as soon as it was discovered in the town's neighborhoods.

This operation comes amidst speculation suggesting that the repeated Israeli targeting of Nabi Chit town is linked to claims about the presence of the remains of the missing Israeli pilot Ron Arad in that area. Military history recalls that Israel carried out similar landing operations in the Bekaa during the 2006 war, targeting Dar Al-Hikma Hospital and Buday town at that time.

For its part, official Lebanese sources stated that the heights of the eastern mountain range on the Lebanese-Syrian border witnessed unprecedented tension and the flight of Israeli thermal balloons. The sources confirmed that the resistance's air defense systems were activated in the Bekaa sky, forcing enemy warplanes to retreat after carrying out their aggressive missions.

This field escalation comes at a time when the region is witnessing a comprehensive explosion of conditions, following the collapse of the ceasefire agreement reached in November 2024. The scope of confrontations has expanded to include mutual strikes and assassinations targeting senior leaders, which prompted the Israeli army to begin what were described as limited ground incursions in several axes.

Israeli raids continue to target the southern suburbs of Beirut and wide areas in southern and eastern Lebanon, leaving dozens of martyrs and wounded daily. Observers believe that the failed landing operation in Nabi Chit represents an Israeli attempt to reach strategic targets deep inside Lebanese territory, away from the traditional confrontation lines at the southern border.

The clash escalated after the enemy force was exposed, with the Israeli enemy resorting to carrying out fire belts, including about 40 raids, to secure the withdrawal of the force.

US President Donald Trump finds himself today in the midst of a large-scale military confrontation in the Middle East, after misleading Israeli calculations led him into an Iranian quagmire he had repeatedly vowed to avoid during his election campaigns. Field developments reveal the magnitude of the strategic error Washington has fallen into, as the military operation that began on February 28 has turned into an open war of attrition.

The story began with intense pressure exerted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, exploiting his influence in American decision-making circles to convince the Trump administration that the Iranian regime was at its weakest. This pressure succeeded in undermining a diplomatic path led by the Sultanate of Oman, where Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al Busaidi confirmed that negotiations were active before they were suddenly sabotaged in favor of the military option.

In the early hours of what became known as the 'Saltwater Fury' operation, Israel crossed red lines by targeting a leadership meeting in Tehran, resulting in the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior commanders of the Revolutionary Guard. This unprecedented escalation presented the United States with a new fait accompli, transforming its role from a partner in a limited military campaign to a direct party in a major political assassination operation.

Contrary to American and Israeli expectations of a rapid collapse of the Iranian regime, Tehran demonstrated a high capacity to organize its ranks and respond with effective and painful military action. Iranian forces launched intensive missile and drone attacks, not only targeting deep inside Israel but also extending to directly and unprecedentedly strike vital American interests in the Gulf region.

Sources reported that Iranian missiles precisely targeted Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and Al Dhafra Air Base in the UAE, in addition to Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait and the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. This broad response confirmed the failure of the 'decapitation' theory that Tel Aviv had bet on to cripple Iran's defensive and offensive capabilities, confusing military calculations in Washington.

For its part, the Pentagon announced the death of 6 American soldiers and serious injuries to others as a result of these attacks, which represents a severe blow to Trump's promises to protect American soldiers and end foreign wars. This field reality prompted the American administration to try to open back channels of communication with Tehran to request a ceasefire, which has been met with a categorical Iranian refusal so far.

Senior Iranian official Ali Larijani revealed that Tehran rejects any de-escalation at present, considering the assassination of the Supreme Leader to be a crossing of all red lines that cannot be overlooked without a comprehensive response. Larijani affirmed that all American and Israeli assets in the region have become legitimate targets, warning that the confrontation will not be bound by specific time or geographical limits.

Domestically, Trump faces a wave of sharp criticism from various political and media spectrums in the United States, as major television channels have begun to question the utility of this war. Prominent media voices warned that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has a long breath in the confrontation, noting that American voters may feel deceived after 'America First' promises.

Even in conservative circles, strong opposition to the war emerged, with analysts pointing out that the United States is fighting a conflict that primarily serves Israeli interests and achieves no strategic gains for Washington. This division in Trump's electoral base weakens his political position, especially with the increasing human and material losses among forces deployed in the region.

Economically, the war caused violent disruptions in global markets, as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz led to a massive jump in global energy prices. Major shipping companies began rerouting away from the Gulf, signaling a crisis in global supply chains that could lead to an economic recession threatening the financial stability Trump has long boasted about.

Internationally, the United States finds itself increasingly isolated, with China and Russia describing the military operations as a blatant violation of international law. European allies also showed significant reservations, with French President Emmanuel Macron calling for an immediate halt to the escalation, warning that the entire region is sliding into an abyss whose end cannot be predicted.

Amidst this confusion, an American exit plan appears completely absent, with the White House content with general calls for Iranians to change their regime, calls observers deem naive. The reality indicates that the external attack has contributed to unifying the Iranian internal front behind the discourse of resistance, making it difficult to achieve any political change through military force.

Benjamin Netanyahu succeeded in dragging Washington into a direct confrontation with its biggest regional adversary, achieving what his predecessors failed to do through decades of incitement. It seems that Trump, who thought he was managing a winning deal with a preemptive strike, has fallen into a well-designed strategic trap by Tel Aviv to secure its own interests at the expense of regional and international stability.

The question remains in Washington's decision-making circles about the final cost of this adventure, and whether the administration is capable of containing the fire it ignited. The coming days will reveal whether the United States will proceed with an open war without clear objectives, or if it will find a way out that preserves what remains of its prestige and interests in the turbulent region.

The 'decapitation' theory that Israel bet on failed to achieve its primary goal of crippling Iran's ability to respond, and placed Washington in a real strategic predicament.

The preacher of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and head of the Supreme Islamic Council in Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, underwent a lengthy interrogation at the 'Moscovia' detention center belonging to the occupation authorities in occupied Jerusalem. The 87-year-old Sheikh appeared before the interrogators leaning on his cane, a move that reflects the occupation's insistence on pursuing religious figures in the holy city.

Following the two-hour interrogation, the occupation authorities decided to release Sheikh Sabri under restrictive conditions, which included a 15-day ban from Jerusalem's Old City. He was also required to sign a personal guarantee, with an obligation to reappear for interrogation if summoned again by the Israeli security services.

The interrogation session focused on Sheikh Sabri's recent statements, in which he expressed the Islamic legal opinion on the closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the prevention of worshippers from accessing it. The Sheikh confirmed after his release that his pursuit came because he clearly stated that it is not permissible to suspend Friday prayers or close the mosque from a religious perspective.

These developments come amidst the occupation authorities imposing strict restrictions on Al-Aqsa Mosque, exploiting the instructions of the Home Front Command issued concurrently with the recent military escalation. These measures led to the complete closure of the mosque since the first days of the confrontations, preventing worshippers from reaching its premises.

Sheikh Ekrima Sabri described the current situation at Al-Aqsa Mosque as 'very worrying,' especially since the closure coincided with the arrival of the blessed month of Ramadan, which usually witnesses hundreds of thousands of visitors. He indicated in statements to media sources that depriving Muslims of praying in their first Qibla is an arbitrary measure that lacks any legal or moral cover.

Al-Aqsa's preacher stressed that the mosque must remain far from political and military calculations and the emergency situations imposed by the occupation. He clarified that sovereignty over the mosque is an exclusive right of Muslims alone, and it is unacceptable to turn it into a military barracks or subject it to security decisions that prevent the performance of fundamental religious rituals.

In a message addressed to the Islamic nation, Sheikh Sabri called for the necessity of paying attention to the siege of Al-Aqsa Mosque and the absence of Friday and congregational prayers. He affirmed that suspending this ritual, which is a pillar of Islam, is something that cannot be tolerated, demanding the opening of mosques to worshippers without restrictions.

For its part, the legal team following Sheikh Sabri's case condemned this summons, considering it an attempt to silence voices and prevent influential figures from expressing their religious stances. Lawyer Khaled Zabarqa confirmed that what the Sheikh stated is purely a jurisprudential opinion that objects to exploiting regional circumstances to pass plans targeting the identity of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Al-Aqsa Mosque should not be subject to emergency situations or be in the grip of the occupation authorities, and depriving Muslims of their worship is an illegal act.

A report published by the 'Washington Post' stated that the Iranian regime continues to exert full control over the state's joints, despite the heavy losses and devastating blows it has recently suffered. The report clarified that the structure of the ruling regime in Tehran has shown a surprising ability to persist, astonishing Western experts and officials who monitored the course of military operations.

Despite the intense war waged by the United States and Israel, the Iranian leadership has maintained its internal cohesion remarkably. According to European and Arab officials familiar with the situation assessments, these circumstances have not affected the regime's grip on power, although they have hindered some protocol procedures such as choosing a successor to the Supreme Leader.

Assessments indicate that Tehran had prepared itself in advance for this type of existential conflict by building flexible command structures. These structures were specifically designed to withstand direct targeted strikes, allowing the regime to continue directing regional retaliatory strikes within hours of being attacked.

On the ground, sources reported an intense security presence in the streets of major Iranian cities, where paramilitary Basij forces continue to patrol on motorcycles. This security presence aims to prevent any attempts at internal unrest and ensure that the streets remain under the strict control of sovereign agencies.

In contrast, the US administration boasted about the success of its operations in eliminating a number of senior Iranian leaders and destroying command and control centers. The US Secretary of Defense stated that what he described as the 'ruling council' had been scattered between dead and hiding in shelters, considering this a decisive blow to the regime's decision-making capability.

However, European and Arab intelligence assessments still adopt a different view from the official American narrative regarding imminent collapse. A prominent European official confirmed to the newspaper that there are no indications of defections within military ranks or the outbreak of widespread popular uprisings so far.

Experts attribute this resilience to the 'multi-level system' adopted by Tehran in distributing power and military responsibilities. This system ensures the immediate appointment of replacements for any key figure who is assassinated, which indeed happened after the killing of the Minister of Defense in recent airstrikes.

Washington's allies in the region had estimated that the assassination of top leaders would be a turning point that would ignite an internal revolution against the regime. However, the reality on the ground showed unexpected unity within state agencies, confusing the calculations of observers who expected the Iranian internal front to quickly fracture.

Iran is currently facing an almost complete internet blackout, making it extremely difficult to obtain accurate information from within. Nevertheless, visual analyses show severe damage to government buildings and vital military installations as a result of continuous bombardment targeting thousands of sites.

For his part, analyst Gregory Brew believes that Iran has been significantly weakened militarily after the destruction of most of its naval fleet and ballistic missile stockpiles. He pointed out that the bombing destroys the physical infrastructure of the Islamic Republic, but it may not necessarily succeed in dismantling the organizational structure of the security forces that spread rapidly.

Sources indicate that police and Basij forces deliberately evacuate barracks and known buildings to avoid direct aerial targeting. These tactics allow them to reappear and carry out their duties as soon as the raids stop, benefiting from not needing heavy weapons in internal security operations.

Iran's Foreign Minister had previously hinted in statements that military units operate according to 'pre-set general instructions' that grant them autonomy in movement. This approach reduces the impact of communication disruptions with the central command and ensures the continuation of combat and security operations in various regions.

With the escalation of Iranian retaliatory attacks against neighboring countries, Tehran appears to be betting on a 'long-breath' strategy in confronting adversaries. The Iranian leadership believes that its ability to withstand economic and field hardships exceeds the ability of the United States and its allies to continue an open war.

In conclusion, officials warn that the Iranian regime is designed to survive and will not easily relinquish its power, no matter how severe external pressures become. The current Iranian gamble is to inflict as much damage as possible on the region to force Washington to seek a path to de-escalation and exit the cycle of conflict.

There is no indication of anything collapsing in the regime, nothing, zero; control remains complete.

By Said Arikat

March 7, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C. — Night after night, viewers of major American television networks are treated to a familiar ritual. On glowing screens, commentators stand before digital battlefield maps, tracing missile arcs and strike corridors as if narrating a playoff game. On networks such as CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox News, panels filled with retired generals and security analysts walk audiences through the latest American–Israeli attacks on Iran in a tone that often sounds less like journalism than celebration.

The graphics are polished, the language confident, and the commentary heavy with tactical detail. Missiles are described as “precise,” operations as “successful,” and every strike as a calculated move on an ever-evolving chessboard. Arrows sweep across maps while analysts speculate about retaliation scenarios and escalation ladders. What viewers rarely hear, however, is the most basic journalistic question: was this war necessary in the first place?

Instead of interrogating the origins of the conflict, much of the coverage assumes its legitimacy and moves directly to discussing how it is being fought. This subtle framing matters. By treating the war as a given, television news shifts the conversation away from political responsibility and toward military performance. War becomes a technical exercise rather than a political choice made by leaders.

Another striking feature of the coverage is how faithfully many outlets echo official narratives coming from Washington and Tel Aviv. Statements from the White House and the Israeli government are frequently repeated almost verbatim, often with little scrutiny or historical context. Anchors introduce segments with language about “defending allies” or “restoring deterrence”—phrases that quietly assume the righteousness of the campaign before any real debate has begun.

Rarely mentioned in these nightly discussions is the decades-long political campaign by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to push the United States toward a war with Iran. For years, Netanyahu repeatedly warned that Iran represented an existential threat and insisted that diplomacy would never stop Tehran’s ambitions. Confronting Iran, he has said openly, has been one of the central missions of his political life.

Today he has a willing partner in President Donald Trump, whose administration has embraced Israel’s hard-line view of Iran with remarkable enthusiasm. Yet television audiences seldom hear this alignment examined critically. Instead, analysts focus on the mechanics of bombing campaigns, the range of missiles, or the resilience of Iranian air defenses.

The dominance of retired military officers on television panels helps explain this imbalance. Soldiers are trained to think about how to win wars, not whether wars should begin. When generals dominate airtime, conversations naturally revolve around strategy, targets, and escalation scenarios. Missing from the discussion are diplomats, historians, regional specialists, and critics who might ask whether the conflict itself was avoidable.

The result is a kind of televised war theater. Maps glow, graphics pulse, and experts narrate events in real time, but the deeper political story remains blurred. Viewers see where missiles land but rarely hear sustained discussion about why the war began or whose interests it ultimately serves.

This pattern is not new. During earlier conflicts, American television networks often echoed official narratives in the opening stages of war, only revisiting the underlying assumptions months or years later. The urgency of breaking news and the pressures of patriotism can narrow the boundaries of acceptable debate.

But the stakes of a war involving Iran are enormous. Iran is a large regional power with allies, proxies, and strategic reach stretching across the Middle East. A prolonged confrontation risks widening into a conflict that could destabilize energy markets, draw in other states, and reshape the region for years.

Those consequences demand journalism that questions power rather than amplifies it. Instead of simply replaying government talking points, networks could ask harder questions: What evidence justified war? What alternatives were ignored? Who benefits politically from escalation?

Until those questions are asked consistently, television coverage will continue to resemble a running commentary on military operations rather than an investigation into the decisions that produced them. The danger is not merely journalistic failure; it is democratic complacency.

Criticism of this pattern does not require sympathy for Iran’s government. Tehran’s policies, its repression at home, and its regional interventions deserve scrutiny. Yet acknowledging those realities does not relieve journalists of their obligation to question whether bombing campaigns were the only option available. Responsible reporting must be capable of holding two ideas at once: that Iran’s government can be deeply problematic, and that war against it still demands rigorous justification.

For now, however, much of cable news appears more comfortable illustrating airstrikes than interrogating the politics behind them. The maps glow, the generals explain, and the official narrative moves smoothly from podium to studio.

 Meanwhile, the central question remains largely absent from the broadcast: who decided this war was unavoidable, and why were Americans never seriously shown another path?

Television coverage of war shapes how the public understands it—and therefore how democracy responds to it. When networks treat conflict as a tactical spectacle while echoing official narratives, they risk normalizing decisions that deserve far deeper scrutiny. Journalism’s duty is not to choreograph missile strikes on digital maps but to interrogate the power that orders them. Without that critical distance, the media ceases to function as a watchdog and instead becomes, willingly or not, a megaphone for war.