The Middle East region is witnessing an unprecedented escalation in military tension, driven by a series of American and Israeli strikes that targeted Iranian territory in recent days. This dramatic shift clearly reflects the transition of active powers from traditional deterrence strategies and crisis containment to a phase of actual and direct engagement in field military operations.

The biggest challenge in this escalation lies in the possibility of military operations expanding to include the Arab Gulf states, which could transform the entire region into an open regional war zone. The nature of the reciprocal targets indicates that the confrontation is no longer confined to specific geographical points but now threatens regional stability as a whole.

Today, the Gulf states find themselves in a highly sensitive and complex position within the current conflict equation, given that they host American military bases and vital strategic facilities. These facilities represent an essential part of the military infrastructure of the Western presence, making them potential targets in any scenario of expanding the scope of Iranian retaliation.

In addition to the military dimension, the geographical location of the Gulf states plays a crucial role in increasing the level of risks, as these countries are located on the direct line of contact with Iran. This proximity makes Gulf territories vulnerable to the direct security repercussions of any large-scale military explosion, whether through missiles or drones.

These facts place Gulf capitals under immense political and security pressure to choose between engaging in the confrontation or taking more severe stances towards Tehran. However, any slide towards military participation could lead to the transformation of Gulf cities and facilities into a direct theater of combat operations, a heavy price these countries seek to avoid.

The risks of dragging the Gulf into war are not limited to military aspects but extend to include existential threats to global economic security. The region is the main artery for energy production and export, and any widespread security disruption will inevitably lead to a paralysis in the flows of oil and gas to international markets.

The Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the most critical points in this conflict, representing the most important waterway for global trade and energy. Any threat to the security of navigation in this strait would mean the global economy entering a dark tunnel of successive crises and a crazy rise in fuel prices.

Ambitious economic visions of the Gulf states fundamentally depend on sustainable regional stability to attract foreign investments and stimulate trade. Therefore, the outbreak of armed confrontation will erode confidence in the region's investment environment, threatening major development projects that have been planned for years.

By reading Tehran's behavior in recent responses, it is clear that it is still trying to keep the confrontation within calculated and limited rules of engagement. This Iranian strategy aims to send strong deterrence messages to the United States and Israel without fully sliding into an all-out war whose end cannot be predicted.

Under these circumstances, a collective Gulf stance becomes a crucial factor in curbing escalation and preventing the situation from exploding. Adopting policies based on extreme caution and self-restraint in dealing with mutual provocations represents the only safety valve to prevent limited strikes from turning into a major regional war.

Wisely managing the crisis requires the region's countries to strike a delicate balance between their security commitments with international allies and the necessity of preserving their national security. Mutual escalation could open doors to confrontations that are difficult to contain later, making preventive diplomacy an urgent necessity at present.

Wars in this geographical part of the world do not remain confined to military borders but quickly turn into humanitarian and economic crises that cross continents. Therefore, the stability of the Gulf is not just a local matter but a fundamental pillar of international peace and security in light of global economic interdependence.

Analysts confirm that the real danger at the current stage goes beyond mere mutual military strikes between the three main parties. The danger lies in the 'rolling dynamic' that may force other parties to enter the conflict in defense of their interests or territories, thus expanding the circle of fire.

In conclusion, avoiding being drawn into direct confrontation remains the most prominent challenge for leaders in the region to prevent the Middle East from turning into an international conflict arena. The cost of war in the Gulf will be very high at all levels, making de-escalation the only rational path to overcome this critical stage.

The real danger is not only in mutual strikes but in the possibility of the confrontation turning into a comprehensive regional conflict in which the Gulf states find themselves at its heart.

The military confrontation led by the United States and Israel against Iran has entered its second week, amidst field and political indicators suggesting the possibility of operations ceasing within less than two weeks. Despite official statements indicating the parties' readiness for a long-term war of attrition, the data on the ground imposes a different reality that may push for an early end to the fighting.

This round of conflict began on February 28, 2026, and from its very first hours witnessed an unprecedented escalation, including the assassination of senior Iranian leaders, most notably Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. However, Tehran demonstrated a rapid ability to restore its leadership structure and respond militarily by targeting American bases in the region, which disrupted calculations that had banked on a rapid collapse of the regime.

The political factor associated with US President Donald Trump stands out as one of the most important drivers of potential de-escalation, as Trump tends to declare quick victory to avoid getting bogged down in wars of attrition. The White House has already begun to pave the way for this scenario by claiming that airstrikes have destroyed Iran's missile and nuclear capabilities in a way that will take a decade to rebuild.

On the military front, Israel and its allies in the region face a serious challenge in the severe shortage of air defense system stockpiles, especially 'THAAD' and 'Arrow' systems. Sources reported that the rate of interceptor missile consumption far exceeds the ability of American factories to compensate, leaving the skies vulnerable to penetration if intense Iranian barrages continue.

US Secretary of Defense Beth Hegseth admitted in closed sessions before Congress that Iranian drones, particularly the 'Shahed' model, pose a technical and operational challenge that is difficult to fully contain. This admission coincides with warnings issued by former officials, such as Anthony Blinken, about the risk of depleting the US strategic military arsenal if the confrontation is prolonged.

Economically, the war has caused a severe shock to global markets, with energy prices jumping by 25% due to direct threats to shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Major international powers such as China, India, and Japan are pressuring Washington to halt military operations, given their complete reliance on Gulf oil, which is now within Iranian firing range.

Domestically, Israel is incurring enormous economic losses estimated at 9.4 billion shekels per week, which places immense pressure on the general budget and the home front. In contrast, the cost of US military operations is approximately one billion dollars per day, a figure that is causing increasing resentment within American public opinion, which rejects foreign military interventions.

Intelligence reports indicate that betting on the collapse of the Iranian regime from within seems remote at present, despite the presence of active opposition. The deep roots of revolutionary supporters and the regime's ability to absorb the initial shocks of assassinations have proven that scenarios of regime change through direct military force face enormous field and social complexities.

Western division is clearly evident in the European stance, with Spain leading a front opposing the war and demanding an immediate halt to military escalation. Even traditional allies like Britain show clear hesitation in direct involvement in combat operations, content with providing logistical and intelligence support, fearing the repercussions of the war on the security of the old continent.

The most terrifying scenario for decision-makers in Washington remains Tehran's resort to the 'Samson Option' if it feels a real existential threat. This scenario involves destroying energy facilities in neighboring countries and burning oil fields, which could lead to an unprecedented global economic crisis whose catastrophic effects would surpass all financial crises witnessed in the current century.

Iran manufactures far more ballistic missiles and drones than the United States can manufacture interceptor missiles.

The military arena witnessed a remarkable escalation at the end of the first week of confrontations, as Tehran announced the integration of more advanced missile systems into its offensive arsenal. This step comes as part of Iran's continuous response to attacks targeting its interests, indicating a shift in the nature of weapons used and their destructive intensity.

A statement issued by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, concerning the twenty-first missile wave, confirmed that the city of Tel Aviv was a direct target for 'Khaibar Shekan' missiles. This announcement came just hours after the disclosure of the entry of 'Khorramshahr-4' missiles into active service in ongoing field operations, raising the level of missile threat to the region.

Technical data indicates that the 'Khaibar Shekan' missile, first used last June, has a range of up to 1500 kilometers. This model carries a warhead weighing half a ton, while its speed, exceeding 5,000 kilometers per hour, gives it a high ability to penetrate the atmosphere and reach its targets with extreme accuracy and speed.

As for the 'Khorramshahr-4' missile, it is considered one of the heaviest missiles in the Iranian system, carrying an explosive warhead weighing up to 1500 kilograms. The danger of this missile lies in its ability to reach its targets within only 12 minutes from the moment of launch, which poses serious challenges to enemy detection and air defense systems.

In a related context, Western intelligence reports show that Tehran has succeeded in developing about 14 different types of diverse ballistic missiles. The ranges of these missiles vary between 200 and 2500 kilometers, and among the most prominent are the 'Sejil', 'Shahab', 'Emad', and 'Ghadr' models, which form the backbone of Iran's deterrent force.

Western and Israeli military sources estimate that Iran's missile inventory is no less than 3000 missiles ready for launch at any moment. These figures reflect the scale of logistical and military preparations Iran possesses in facing any comprehensive escalation scenarios in the region in the coming period.

For its part, military sources reported that missile forces have launched approximately 500 various missiles since the beginning of the current round of fighting. These barrages included cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles, in an attempt to bypass the advanced interception systems deployed by American and Israeli forces.

The Khorramshahr-4 missile is characterized by a short flight time not exceeding 12 minutes, which reduces the ability of missile defense systems to detect and deal with it.

US President Donald Trump's administration faces significant challenges in presenting a coherent and convincing political narrative to the public regarding the ongoing military confrontation with Iran. Press sources reported that conflicting statements within the White House about the reasons and timing of the attacks caused confusion among international allies and within the US alike.

A report prepared by media sources in Washington clarified that Trump needed additional time to market the war option to his 'MAGA' political base, which voted for him based on promises to end foreign military interventions. The prevailing belief in the White House was that convincing this base would require weeks of systematic messaging that might extend until next April.

However, the course of events took a dramatic and sudden turn after a phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump on February 23. Netanyahu conveyed intelligence information indicating a rare meeting bringing together Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei with senior Revolutionary Guard commanders in one building in the capital, Tehran.

Netanyahu, in his conversation with the American president, considered targeting this meeting a 'fleeting opportunity' to eliminate the top leadership of the Iranian regime in one fell swoop. This intelligence offer put the American administration before an urgent military imperative that transcended the political and media plans that had been previously set to justify any potential escalation.

Before this shift, the American administration was sending contradictory signals; while the military fleet was moving towards the region, official statements emphasized the desire for a diplomatic solution. This delicate balance ended as soon as Trump approved the proposal to target the Iranian leadership, making subsequent justifications seem disjointed.

In a speech delivered from Mar-a-Lago, Trump announced the launch of 'Operation Epic Rage,' portraying it as a preemptive defensive step to protect Americans. Trump appeared wearing a white baseball cap, describing the Iranian regime as an 'evil group' posing an imminent threat to US national security.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statements further intensified the ambiguity when he indicated that Washington engaged in the war knowing in advance that Israel was prepared to attack unilaterally. Rubio clarified that the initiative to attack was necessary to avoid greater losses among US forces if Iran responded to the Israeli move.

These statements caused a shock in political circles in Washington, as they suggested that Israel had led the United States into war. This later prompted Trump to deny this interpretation, claiming that he might have forced the Israeli side to take certain positions in this conflict.

For his part, House Speaker Mike Johnson defended the military action, asserting that Israel was determined to act in self-defense with or without American support. Johnson indicated that the existential threat faced by Israel left no option but preemptive military action to prevent a widespread Iranian missile attack.

Reports indicate that military preparations were initially incomplete, as the Pentagon suffered in mid-January from a shortage of aircraft carriers and air defense systems in the region. Netanyahu repeatedly requested to postpone military operations until Israeli and American defensive preparations were complete to ensure the repulsion of any Iranian reaction.

By mid-February, the Pentagon had completed equipping a force capable of managing a military campaign lasting several continuous weeks. Meanwhile, Trump's envoys were conducting indirect nuclear talks in Geneva, aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The US Central Intelligence Agency confirmed the accuracy of the information provided by the Mossad regarding the meeting of the Iranian leadership, which accelerated the decision-making process in the White House. Despite Trump's desire to wait for the State of the Union address, the pressure of field events imposed itself on the political timeline.

Hours before the confrontation erupted, Tehran presented a proposal for a nuclear agreement that Washington considered insufficient and full of security and technical loopholes. The American negotiating team left Geneva without reaching results, amid intelligence fears of Iran's ability to raise uranium enrichment to military levels within a few weeks.

Observers concluded that Trump found himself facing the most decisive decision of his second term, as the speed of developments confused the official discourse. Instead of gradually building political justifications, the White House was forced to defend a major military strike approved under the pressure of sudden intelligence opportunities.

Our goal is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.

Major wars in the Middle East are not merely fleeting military confrontations, but pivotal moments where the balance of power is reordered and maps of influence are redrawn. The war on Iran – if it expands or prolongs – could turn into a tool for politically and security-wise reshaping the region, placing Israel at the heart of this formation. However, any serious strategic reading cannot ignore the fundamental question: what about the Palestinian people and their cause, the cornerstone of the region's stability or instability?

From an Israeli perspective, the confrontation with Iran represents an opportunity to reshape its surrounding security environment.

Weakening Tehran means reducing its regional influence, re-establishing new deterrence equations, and opening the door for a broader system of alliances that consecrates Israel as a pivotal security partner in the region.

Amidst shared fears of cross-border threats, military and technical cooperation networks could be strengthened, giving Israel an advanced position in any emerging Middle Eastern structure.

But reshaping the region in the wake of war is not just about Iran and Israel.

There is a deeper political dimension represented by the position of the Palestinian issue within this transformation.

The history of the conflict shows that attempts to bypass or jump over this issue have not produced lasting stability, but rather have generated recurring cycles of explosion. Hence, building a new Middle East that ignores ending the occupation and establishing an independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, will only be a reproduction of the same sources of tension in a new form.

Any regional system intended to be stable needs political and moral legitimacy, and this legitimacy cannot be derived from purely security arrangements or fleeting military alliances.

True stability is based on addressing the roots of the conflict, foremost among them the national rights of the Palestinian people according to international legitimacy resolutions and the principle of self-determination.

Otherwise, the state of tension will remain latent beneath the surface, capable of igniting at the first test.

The war on Iran could be used to reorder regional priorities, so that security issues and confronting regional influence take precedence over political solutions.

However, this arrangement, if it marginalizes the Palestinian issue, will carry within it the seeds of instability.

Peoples do not look at alliance maps as much as they look at justice and national dignity, and any regional system that does not take this into account will remain fragile no matter how cohesive it appears on the surface.

Furthermore, Israel itself, despite its efforts to consecrate its military superiority and regional integration, realizes that the unresolved Palestinian conflict keeps it in a state of permanent attrition, security-wise, politically, and morally.

Normalization and alliances cannot substitute for a historical settlement that ends the occupation and establishes a normal relationship between two states living on one land, each with internationally recognized rights.

Hence, the question of the fate of the Palestinian people becomes not an appendix to the analysis, but its center.

If the goal of reshaping the Middle East is to produce a more stable system less prone to wars, then ignoring the Palestinian issue will make this goal elusive.

However, if it is integrated into the core of any new arrangements, as a priority and not a burden, that could constitute a real entry point for a different phase.

Ultimately, Israel may seek to be “first” in the post-war engineering on Iran, but the Middle East will not know lasting stability unless the Palestinian people are an integral part of the solution equation, not a margin within it.

It is either a Middle East based on balanced justice, ending the occupation, and establishing an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, or a Middle East that remains ablaze with successive explosions, bringing everyone back to square one no matter how maps and alliances change.

The conflict between the United States and Israel on one hand, and Iran on the other, forms a fundamental axis for understanding the political dynamics in the Middle East. The region is experiencing a state of security and political entanglement that makes it difficult to isolate any development in a pivotal state from its regional surroundings. From this perspective, the Gaza Strip emerges as an important indicator for measuring the impact of regional conflicts on the Palestinian reality, whether at the level of political factions or the economic and social structure of the Strip.

The continuation of the war on Iran, the overthrow of its political regime, or its exposure to significant military and economic attrition will not be a purely internal event. Rather, it will have direct and indirect repercussions on a number of issues, foremost among them the Palestinian issue, and the Gaza Strip in particular. Over the past decades, Tehran has been linked to political, financial, and military support relations with a number of Palestinian factions, especially those that adopt the option of armed struggle. Consequently, any decline in Iran's capabilities or its preoccupation with its internal crises will inevitably lead to a reordering of its external priorities.

In this context, the weakening of Iran may reflect on the nature of the support provided to Gaza, whether in terms of funding or logistical and political backing. This, in turn, may exacerbate the economic crises already experienced by the Strip and place the factions before unprecedented challenges, especially with regard to governance, securing resources, and maintaining the cohesion of their organizational and military structure.

Moreover, the issue of factional weaponry will become more sensitive if regional power balances change. The absence or decline of supportive regional cover may open the door to increasing international and regional pressures to re-raise the issue of disarmament or its reorganization within new political arrangements. Conversely, some parties may seek to strengthen their presence in the Palestinian arena to fill any potential vacuum, adding a new element of complexity to the scene.

Over the past decades, Iran has been linked to multi-dimensional support relations with Palestinian factions, especially those that adopt the option of armed struggle, whether in terms of funding, logistical support, or political and diplomatic backing. Therefore, any weakness in Iran's ability to play its regional role, as a result of internal crises or external conflict, will directly reflect on these factions and their ability to manage the Gaza file internally. A decline in Iranian support may lead to a reduction in the financial and political resources available to the factions, exacerbating economic crises in Gaza, and increasing pressure on the factions to maintain organizational and military cohesion.

The changing balance of power as a result of regional conflicts redraws the maps of influence in the Middle East. In the event of a weakening of Iranian influence, international and regional pressures on Gaza may increase to reorganize the arms file, while other regional parties seek to strengthen their presence in the Palestinian arena and fill any potential vacuum. Since October 7, the region has witnessed a deep reshaping phase that has reshuffled alliances and redefined alignments, placing Palestinian and Islamic movements before a historical test of their ability to adapt to rapid transformations.

Ultimately, Gaza cannot be viewed in isolation from its regional surroundings. Any radical transformation in Iran - whether military or political - will find its echo in the Strip, to varying degrees. The question is no longer whether the results will reflect on Gaza, but how these reflections will manifest, and who will be most capable of adapting to the next phase.

The region today is not experiencing a fleeting tension, but stands on the brink of major transformations. The open – or semi-open – confrontation between Iran on one side, and the United States and Israel on the other, is no longer just a matter of mutual deterrence messages, but has become part of reshaping the balance of power in the region.

At the heart of this storm stands Palestine, not a direct party to the conflict of axes, but the first to pay its price. The more the regional engagement expands, the more the space for the Palestinian cause shrinks in international media and politics, transforming it from a central issue to a postponed item on an agenda crowded with wars.

The danger here lies not only in marginalization… but in what can happen under the cover of this marginalization.

When the world is preoccupied… silent projects move forward

Historical experience shows that the occupation excels at exploiting turbulent international moments. Every major crisis in the region has always been an opportunity to rearrange facts on the ground away from the spotlight.

Today, with major capitals preoccupied with calculations of deterrence and military messages, the possibility arises that Gaza could become an arena for settling deferred scores, under the banners of “security” and “fighting terrorism.” In such an atmosphere, the international community’s sensitivity to the scale of human losses diminishes, and political pressure becomes less effective.

As for the West Bank, the scene is more complex and less noisy. There, explosions do not reverberate with the same intensity, but creeping annexation policies steadily advance: settlement expansion, land confiscation, redefinition of administrative powers, and a gradual erosion of any political horizon for an independent state. All of this happens while the world watches missile maps, not the maps of geography being silently redrawn.

The most dangerous aspect of the storm: brainwashing in a time of frustration

Major wars do not only consume geography, but also drain morale. When Palestinians feel that their cause is receding in the international order of priorities, frustration can seep into the collective consciousness. And here, this atmosphere is exploited to push society towards one of two exhausting choices: either uncontrolled anger, or slow surrender to a reality presented as an unchangeable fate.

Regional war affects not only the land, but also the collective psyche.

When Palestinians feel that their cause is receding in the world's priorities, and that their destiny has become hostage to conflicts they do not control, a state of frustration creeps in. And it is precisely here that the most dangerous gamble begins: the gamble of exhausting the will.

“Brainwashing” policies do not require noisy propaganda campaigns; the accumulation of crises, the narrow political horizon, and the pressure of economic reality are enough for the demand for liberation to turn into a demand for “stability at any cost.”

In this sense, international marginalization is not just a diplomatic loss, but a strategic danger to the national spirit itself.

Between the axes… the danger of internal disintegration

Major wars reshape alliances. And the region today is no exception. In moments of sharp polarization, local forces are drawn into positioning themselves within conflicting axes. Here lies the test of Palestinian political maturity: Will the Palestinian arena become an extension of others’ conflicts? Or will it maintain the independence of its national decision?

The disintegration of the internal front, or the deepening of division, is the most precious gift that can be offered to the occupation at such a moment. The national project cannot be managed with the mentality of conflicting regional axes, but with a comprehensive national vision that transcends narrow calculations.

The response should not be emotional, but conscious and gradual:

First: Unity is not a moral slogan, but a necessity for Palestinian national security.

At a moment of regional reshaping, there is no place for division that weakens the Palestinian position or confuses its priorities.

Second: Diplomacy must act as an independent voice, not as an echo of an axis.

Breaking the state of marginalization requires a legal and political discourse that re-emphasizes that Palestine is not a side issue, but a cause of liberation and self-determination according to international law.

Third: Strengthening steadfastness is not a matter of services, but a strategy for survival.

In Gaza as in the West Bank, keeping people on their land, supporting the local economy, protecting education and culture, are all quiet but deeply effective tools of resistance.

Fourth: Protecting the national narrative is a top priority. In a time of misinformation and polarization, preserving a coherent Palestinian narrative becomes a sovereign act par excellence.

We must not be swallowed up in a conflict that is not ours; Palestine is not a margin in a regional equation, but it could become a collateral victim if the moment is not handled well.

The storm may be prolonged, and the axes of conflict may change, but the only constant is that the Palestinian national project cannot be suspended awaiting regional calm.

The question is not: Will the regional war swallow up the dreams of statehood?

The real question is: Do we have enough awareness and unity to prevent its engulfment?

In times of storms, ships do not survive by noise… but by the clarity of their compass.

Recently, fundamental questions have been escalating regarding the nature of the mysterious attacks that targeted sensitive sites in several countries in the region, amidst indications pointing to the potential involvement of the Israeli occupation in these operations. Through these moves, the occupation seeks to fuel regional conflicts and exploit the existing state of tension between Iran and the United States to achieve long-term strategic gains.

In recent hours, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Cyprus were subjected to sudden shelling by drones and missiles, which initially caused confusion in identifying the perpetrator. Despite speculations that pointed towards Tehran, the Iranian army and the Revolutionary Guard quickly denied any connection to these attacks, reinforcing the hypothesis of a third party seeking to complicate matters.

In a related context, the British Ministry of Defense announced that the drone that targeted one of its bases in Cyprus did not originate from Iranian territory. This announcement places Israel directly under accusation given its geographical proximity and its possession of the necessary technical capabilities to carry out such complex operations away from the spotlight.

The scene was repeated in the Arabian Gulf region, where activists circulated field testimonies about shelling that targeted a seaport in the city of Dubai, confirming that the source of the fire was from within the city and not an external attack. These accounts align with reports indicating attempts at security breaches aimed at destabilizing major economic centers in the region.

For its part, the Iranian Foreign Ministry categorically denied targeting the 'Ras Tanura' field belonging to Saudi Aramco, an attack that military sources described as a classic example of 'false flag' operations. These operations aim to pin the blame on Israel's adversaries to push regional and international powers towards a direct military confrontation with Tehran.

American journalist Tucker Carlson dropped a bombshell when he revealed that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had thwarted sabotage operations planned by agents affiliated with the Mossad. Carlson explained that the purpose of these bombings was to divert the international community's attention from the crimes committed by the occupation within Palestinian territories and deep inside Iran.

Intelligence data indicates that the Port of Fujairah in the UAE may be the next target in a series of potential Israeli sabotage operations. These warnings come at a time when Tel Aviv is seeking to expand the circle of fire to include vital energy facilities in the Gulf, threatening navigation security and global oil supplies.

Israeli history is full of secret operations that were only revealed decades later, such as the attacks that targeted a Jewish synagogue in Baghdad in the early 1950s. Historian Avi Shlaim revealed conclusive evidence proving Zionist involvement in those terrorist bombings, which at the time aimed to push Iraqi Jews towards forced migration to occupied Palestine.

In modern times, new accusations have emerged concerning the crash of the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi's helicopter, where navigation systems detected an American military cargo plane in Azerbaijani airspace. Experts suggest that this plane used advanced jamming techniques in coordination with the occupation to cause the Iranian helicopter to crash in a rugged mountainous area.

Israeli operations did not stop at political assassinations but extended to striking nuclear reactors in the Arab and Islamic region to ensure absolute military superiority. Among the most prominent of these operations were the destruction of the Iraqi 'Osirak' reactor in 1981 and the bombing of the Syrian 'Al-Kibar' facility in Deir ez-Zor in 2007 under flimsy security pretexts.

In recent years, Israel has also intensified its cyber and field attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities, including the theft of the nuclear archive and the assassination of scientists. These moves are part of Tel Aviv's 'war between wars' strategy to weaken its adversaries' capabilities without sliding into a comprehensive and declared war.

Targeting oil tankers at sea represents another chapter in Israeli involvement, with 2019 witnessing a series of mysterious attacks with naval mines. Despite initial accusations against Iran, subsequent Western reports revealed an Israeli intelligence and logistical role in orchestrating some of these incidents to justify tightening sanctions on Tehran.

The occupation's recourse to 'dirty operations' reflects a state of strategic anxiety regarding geopolitical shifts in the region and the failure of traditional military options. These mysterious attacks remain an effective tool in the hands of the Mossad to achieve political and military objectives at the lowest possible cost, while ensuring continuous denial of responsibility.

In conclusion, the question remains about the ability of the region's countries to uncover and counter these schemes before it is too late. History proves that Israel does not hesitate to sacrifice the security and stability of its allies or neighbors if it serves its expansionist agenda and ensures its survival as the sole dominant power in the Middle East.

Israel wanted this war to harm the Gulf states, and they succeeded through secret operations aimed at diverting attention from their crimes.

In every war it wages, Israel tries to control both the weapon and the image, because control over the field is no longer enough without control over the narrative. From this perspective, the decision to prevent international journalists from entering Gaza cannot be understood as a security measure, but rather as a conscious political choice aimed at concealing the truth and preventing the world from seeing what Israel does not want to be seen.

The ready-made Israeli pretext is security concerns, a phrase that has been overused to the point of losing its meaning. How can a state that claims to possess one of the strongest armies in the world and the latest surveillance and intelligence systems fear an image or a pen that reveals the truth? The fear is not of a security threat, but of a moral and political threat represented by the exposure of the scale of crimes committed against Palestinian civilians, foremost among them comprehensive destruction and open genocide, which has become a declared policy, not merely collateral damage of war.

Preventing the international press from entering Gaza reflects a profound shift in Israel's image and standing in the world. The entity that built its narrative for decades on the idea of self-defense and being the only democracy in the Middle East now realizes that this narrative is no longer marketable in the face of images of murdered children, starving people, destroyed hospitals, and camps that have turned into mass graves, because the image is stronger than any military statement and truer than any official narrative.

Israel has realized that the presence of journalists in Gaza means the battle will move to the arena of global consciousness, where propaganda is useless and convoluted legal language is ineffective. The camera will convey the destruction as it is, and the lens will capture the details of the daily genocide that cannot be justified under any security or military pretext. This explains the insistence on isolation, blackout, and monopolizing the narrative through official spokespersons and biased media platforms.

Israeli fear of the press is a fear of testimony, because a journalist is not just a news conveyor but a historical witness who documents the moment and prevents its obliteration. Hence, preventing journalists becomes part of the crime itself because it is an attempt to kill the truth in parallel with killing people. When the witness is prevented, the door is wide open for committing more atrocities away from the eyes of the world.

What is happening in Gaza today is no longer just a war in the traditional sense, but a real test for the global conscience, for media freedom, and for the ability of truth to stand firm in the face of brute force. Preventing journalists from entering is not proof of Israel's strength, but of the fragility of its narrative and its deep fear after the mask has finally fallen and its true image as an occupying power practicing genocide and fearing that the world will see it for what it truly is has emerged.

Therefore, the battle for journalists to enter Gaza is not just a professional issue, but a political and moral battle related to the right of peoples to have their story told, and the right of victims to have their voices heard, because the most dangerous thing Israel can face today is not only the weapon of resistance but the truth when it is conveyed unfiltered, uncensored, and without fear.

Ultimately, preventing journalists cannot be separated from the broader context of attempting to control history or convey the truth as it is before it is written. When doors are closed to the truth, the goal is not only to protect criminals, but to protect the narrative from collapse, because what is happening on the ground in Gaza is too great to be contained in military statements or justified by security language. Therefore, Israel chooses darkness as a final weapon in the face of light, but darkness does not last long. Truth, even if besieged, always finds its way to the world, and what is prevented from documentation today will tomorrow turn into a fully-fledged condemnation, and into a historical testimony to a period in which the executioner tried to break the mirror, thinking he would hide his face, but he only delayed the moment of exposure.

US officials revealed initial assessments by military investigators indicating the potential responsibility of US forces for the deadly attack that targeted a girls' school in the city of Minab, southern Iran. The officials clarified that the investigations are still in their early stages and have not reached definitive conclusions regarding the type of ammunition used or the motives behind targeting a civilian educational facility.

The tragic attack occurred last Saturday, coinciding with the launch of joint US and Israeli military operations against Iranian territory. According to statements by Iran's ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, the bombing resulted in the martyrdom of 150 female students, sparking a widespread international outcry over the level of civilian casualties on the first day of the aggression.

For his part, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth acknowledged the opening of an official investigation into the incident, confirming during a press conference that the US military is reviewing all details related to the strike. Hegseth stressed that his country's military policy does not include civilians among its targets, but a review of the field facts has become an urgent necessity after reports from southern Iran.

In a related context, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the United States cannot deliberately target a school, noting that the Department of Defense will be responsible for the full investigation. Rubio added that the investigation's results will determine the next steps if US forces are proven to be involved in carrying out this air strike, described as the deadliest.

The US Department of Defense (Pentagon) referred all inquiries related to the incident to the Central Command of the Army, which preferred to remain temporarily silent. The command's spokesman, Timothy Hawkins, said that commenting on the details of the attack would be inappropriate at this time to ensure the integrity and progress of the ongoing military investigations.

At the White House, spokeswoman Caroline Leavitt avoided direct comment on the initial investigation results, merely accusing the Iranian regime of targeting its own people. Leavitt said in a press statement that the Department of Defense is following the matter, but considered that the moral responsibility lies with Tehran to protect civilians during armed conflicts.

Informed sources indicated that the current assessment linking US forces to the attack may change with the emergence of new technical evidence from the bombing site. The sources explained that there are existing possibilities for data to emerge that could exonerate Washington or point to other parties involved in the intense air operations witnessed in the southern region on Saturday.

Regarding military coordination, a senior Israeli official revealed that US and Israeli forces are operating according to a precise geographical target distribution plan within Iran. According to this coordination, Israel is responsible for striking missile platforms in the western sector, while US attacks are concentrated on naval and missile targets in the southern regions, where the targeted school is located.

Internationally, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights intervened in the crisis, demanding a transparent and independent investigation into the massacre. The Commissioner's spokeswoman, Ravina Shamdasani, said that the responsibility for investigation and accountability legally rests with the forces that carried out the attack, without naming a specific party pending clarification of the facts.

Iranian state television broadcast emotional scenes of the students' funerals, where hundreds of small coffins draped in the national flag appeared amidst massive crowds of citizens. A state of overwhelming popular anger prevailed in Minab and other Iranian cities, with calls for accountability for those responsible for targeting educational facilities.

Legal experts warn that if Washington's involvement in this attack is proven, it could constitute a war crime under international humanitarian law, which prohibits targeting schools and hospitals. If the responsibility of US forces is confirmed, this incident will be classified as one of the deadliest military operations against civilians in the history of US interventions in the Middle East.

We have opened an investigation into this matter; we never target civilian objectives, but we are reviewing what happened and conducting an investigation into it.

The Qatari Ministry of Defense announced, early Friday morning, that its air defense systems successfully intercepted an attack carried out by drones targeting Al Udeid Air Base. These developments come amidst unprecedented security tensions in the region, with armed forces in several Gulf states raising their alert levels to maximum to confront the increasing aerial threats.

In Kuwait, the Ministry of Defense confirmed that air defense units effectively dealt with airspace violations carried out by what it described as hostile missiles and drones. Field sources reported fires breaking out in parts of Ali Al Salem Air Base, which hosts American forces, as a result of the attacks targeting the vital military facility.

Reports indicate that eight Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan, and Iraq, have been subjected to a series of Iranian attacks since early last Saturday. This escalation follows the commencement of widespread military operations launched by Israel and the United States against targets within Iranian territory in recent days.

For its part, Tehran justified these military operations as targeting what it described as 'American interests' in the region, in response to attacks that targeted its leaders and facilities. Some of these strikes resulted in casualties, including dead and wounded, in addition to causing severe damage to civilian assets and commercial ports in several Arab capitals.

In a related context, Tehran continues to launch missile barrages and drones towards Israeli territory, leading to deaths and injuries among settlers. Iran considers these actions a direct response to attacks that led to the deaths of hundreds, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in previous airstrikes.

On the Saudi front, the Ministry of Defense announced the interception and destruction of three ballistic missiles and two drones in the Kingdom's airspace early today. The ministry clarified that the missiles were directly aimed at Prince Sultan Air Base, before defense systems were able to neutralize the threat and destroy the targets in the air.

Saudi sources also indicated the destruction of a drone in the eastern regions of the Kingdom, in addition to the interception of another aircraft east of Al Kharj Governorate, part of the Riyadh region. These operations confirm the continued military pressure on vital facilities and military bases in various regions of the Kingdom as a result of the current regional escalation.

In Bahrain, the Ministry of Interior reported that airstrikes targeted a hotel and two residential buildings in the capital Manama during Thursday and Friday nights. Bahraini authorities confirmed that the attack caused significant material damage to the targeted sites, but no loss of life among civilians has been recorded so far.

Bahraini civil defense teams managed to control a fire that broke out in one of the residential apartments as a result of the aerial bombardment that hit the buildings. Manama had previously announced that its main oil refinery was subjected to a missile attack that caused a large fire before firefighting teams were able to contain it and prevent its spread.

These successive developments paint a complex picture in the Middle East, where direct confrontations between Iran and Israel intertwine with the targeting of American bases in the Gulf. International fears are growing that the region could slide into a full-scale war that would affect global energy supplies and the regional security of Arab countries participating in countering these attacks.

Air defenses deal with hostile missile and drone attacks that have penetrated regional airspace.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stressed that military plans aimed at achieving a swift victory over the Islamic Republic have completely failed. Araghchi explained in media statements that what he described as "Plan A," on which the adversaries relied, did not succeed in achieving its goals, emphasizing that any alternative plans would face a worse fate than their predecessors in light of current Iranian steadfastness.

Regarding strategic shipping lanes, the head of Iranian diplomacy indicated that Tehran currently does not intend to close the Strait of Hormuz, but it is closely monitoring developments. He affirmed that the Iranian armed forces are at the highest levels of combat readiness and are fully prepared to confront any attempt at a ground invasion that American forces might undertake on Iranian territory.

Araghchi strongly criticized the behavior of the American administration, stating that Tehran engaged in negotiations with Washington twice, and in both cases, Iran was subjected to military attacks during the talks. The Iranian minister held the United States fully responsible for the bloodshed and destruction resulting from the ongoing military escalation, describing American and Israeli objectives as illegitimate.

On the ground, sources reported that the Iranian armed forces are operating according to a strategy aimed at turning Iranian territory into a quagmire for any force that chooses to engage in ground warfare. The sources added that the military leadership in Tehran has prepared long-term defensive arrangements to confront the aggression that began last Saturday and targeted prominent facilities and leading figures.

In the context of diplomatic moves, Araghchi revealed that he held a series of intensive contacts with foreign ministers of regional countries, especially in the Arabian Gulf region. These discussions focused on the repercussions of military escalation and the necessity of maintaining regional stability under the current circumstances the region is experiencing due to ongoing attacks.

The Iranian contacts also included coordination with the Republic of Azerbaijan and the presidency of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, where the activation of joint security agreements was emphasized. The Iranian side stressed the importance of securing borders and preventing any exploitation of neighboring territories in military operations, with a particular focus on border control from the Kurdistan Region.

These statements come at a time when Iran is witnessing a widespread military aggression launched by Israel and the United States, which has resulted in hundreds of casualties. According to field reports, the attacks targeted high-level leadership, while Tehran continues to respond by launching barrages of missiles and drones towards military targets and bases in the region.

For his part, the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, issued a strong warning to the current US administration led by Donald Trump. Larijani's warning came in response to reports about Washington's intention to deploy thousands of soldiers to participate in ground operations deep inside Iran, describing this step as suicidal.

Larijani vowed that American forces would face fierce resistance from Iranian fighters, emphasizing that they are awaiting any ground movement to inflict heavy losses on the aggressors. He said that history would record thousands of dead and prisoners if Washington committed the folly of entering Iranian territory, stressing that his country would not be an easy place for invaders.

Iranian officials concluded their statements by emphasizing that true victory lies in the ability to resist and thwart the political and military objectives of aggression. They explained that the continuation of attacks on civilian targets and vital facilities would only increase the Iranian people's determination to defend their national sovereignty by all available means.

Plan (A) for a quick and clean military victory has failed, and your alternative plan, Mr. President, will suffer an even greater failure.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich issued strong threats against Lebanon, vowing that Beirut's southern suburb (Dahiyeh) would suffer a fate similar to the destruction inflicted upon the city of Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip. These statements came during a field tour conducted by the minister to settlements near the northern border, where he affirmed that the army's strategy has fundamentally changed recently.

Smotrich indicated in his speech that the Israeli army has moved from the phase of evacuating Israeli settlements, which began two years ago, to issuing evacuation orders for Lebanese residents in Dahiyeh and southern Lebanon. He considered that the evacuation notices, which included the areas of Burj al-Barajneh, Haret Hreik, and Chiyah, are a prelude to turning those areas into rubble, in a clear reference to a policy of comprehensive destruction.

In an escalating context, the Israeli minister claimed that Hezbollah had made a strategic mistake that would cost it dearly, emphasizing that military operations target what he described as the 'head of the octopus' in Iran while simultaneously cutting off its arms in the region. He added in a video clip published on his official accounts, addressing the Lebanese: 'You wanted to bring hell to us, so you brought it upon yourselves.'

On the ground, these threats coincided with the occupation army issuing immediate evacuation orders for residents of Dahiyeh and three towns in the Beqaa region of eastern Lebanon, causing widespread panic and displacement. Hebrew reports indicated that the military command issued instructions to deepen the 'control line' along the Lebanese border, signaling the occupation's intention to remain for longer periods within Lebanese territory.

Israeli media quoted security sources confirming that military operations in Lebanon are expanding and becoming more complex, as the army has reinforced its presence at 10 strategic points deep inside Lebanese territory. These moves come as part of an attempt to impose a new reality on the ground that ensures strict security control over border areas and prevents any future threats.

On the diplomatic front, the Lebanese presidency moved urgently to confront the escalating Israeli threats, with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun asking his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron for immediate intervention. Aoun stressed the need for international pressure on Israel to prevent the targeting of the densely populated Dahiyeh, warning of an imminent humanitarian catastrophe.

Informed sources believe that Israel relies heavily on 'forced displacement' as a political and military pressure tool on both Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. This policy aims to create a state of social chaos and undermine the environment supporting the resistance, by forcing hundreds of thousands of civilians into displacement under harsh conditions.

Field sources reported that the current Israeli approach is characterized by a clear retaliatory logic against civilian populations, with infrastructure and residential areas being systematically destroyed. Observers fear that Israel may proceed to destroy thousands of housing units in Dahiyeh, repeating scenarios it carried out in Gaza Strip cities in recent months.

Sources also pointed out that the occupation seeks to change the geographical reality on the ground, as the number of Israeli military strongholds inside Lebanese territory has doubled from 5 to 10 in a short period. This expansion reflects an Israeli desire to turn southern Lebanon into a buffer zone subject to direct fire and field control.

Israel exploits international cover to launch its violent raids under the pretext of targeting military headquarters, while facts confirm that the shelling affects vital residential and commercial areas. This escalation has led to the displacement of nearly one million Lebanese citizens to the streets and shelters, placing the Lebanese state before unprecedented humanitarian and economic challenges.

In conclusion, Israeli threats to turn Dahiyeh into a 'second Khan Yunis' remain a dangerous indicator of the occupation's intention to expand the scope of an all-out war. With continued military buildup on the border, the Lebanese scene remains open to all possibilities, in the absence of any diplomatic horizon to stop the Israeli destruction machine.

Hezbollah made a mistake and will pay a heavy price... You wanted to bring hell to us, so you brought it upon yourselves.

Questions are escalating about the nature of China's stance towards the comprehensive war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran, especially in light of the declared strategic partnership between Beijing and Tehran. Analytical readings confirm that China will not be an active helper for Iran in this confrontation, as the Chinese leadership places its interests in energy security above any ideological considerations or political alliances, preferring to closely monitor the scene without direct involvement.

Beijing's calculations are closely linked to its enormous dependence on energy resources from the Middle East, as China imported about 55% of its oil needs from the region in 2025. Supplies from Iran alone account for about 13% of total Chinese imports, making any disruption to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz a direct threat to the Chinese economy, which still relies on oil to operate its vital sectors.

Despite the signing of a $400 billion strategic cooperation agreement in 2021, the reality indicates that most projects under this agreement have not been implemented. This is due to Tehran's apprehension about Chinese influence, met by Beijing's frustration with the unreliability of the Iranian side, and Chinese assessments that Iranian military and political power is exaggerated compared to the actual size of its economy.

Recent Chinese diplomatic reactions have shown clear coolness towards military escalation, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs merely issuing typical condemnations of the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei without condemning the comprehensive military campaign. Beijing called on all parties, including Iran, to cease military operations, in a clear indication of its desire to maintain balanced relations with Gulf states, Israel, and the United States.

Chinese strategic experts believe that the Iranian regime suffers from a significant gap between its revolutionary ambitions and its limited economic capabilities, as its GDP does not exceed 90% of Israel's. This disparity has led Beijing to doubt Tehran's ability to withstand Western military technology for long, especially after repeated security breaches that enabled Israel to target senior leaders and scientists.

Furthermore, the relationship with Washington stands out as a crucial factor in China's hesitation, as the world anticipates an upcoming summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Donald Trump at the end of March. Beijing seeks to avoid any clash that could hinder opportunities to reach a comprehensive agreement ending years of bitter trade and political rivalry between the two great powers, making the sacrifice of Iran a viable option for the sake of stable bilateral relations.

Reports indicate that Beijing has lost confidence in Iran's ability to effectively manage its proxies in the region, especially after the decline in the role of these groups under successive blows. Chinese observers considered the withdrawal of Iranian forces from Yemen in April 2025 as evidence of Iran's weak resolve in protecting its allies, which reinforced China's conviction not to bet on a regime that might collapse internally.

Should the war lead to a regime change in Tehran, Beijing does not see this as the worst-case scenario as long as the new leadership guarantees the continued flow of oil and the protection of Chinese investments. Chinese pragmatism dictates dealing with any authority that emerges after the war, provided it avoids military adventures that threaten the stability of global energy markets, whose prices have risen by 6% since the conflict began.

China currently holds oil reserves estimated at about 1.4 billion barrels, which gives it enough room for maneuver to withstand a short-term supply disruption, but it fears a long war of attrition. If the confrontation continues for an extended period and leads to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Beijing may be forced to re-evaluate its position, not in defense of Iran, but to protect its energy-dependent national security.

Political circles in Beijing mock Iran's responses, which they described as 'theatrical' in the face of major assassinations, deepening the trust gap between the two countries. Chinese analysts believe that Iran finds itself caught in a dilemma between its ideological roots and its urgent need to lift Western sanctions, a contradiction that prevents it from making decisive strategic decisions in moments of major confrontation.

Economically, Beijing is monitoring the Israeli economy's losses, which have reached 9.4 billion shekels per week, but it realizes that unlimited American support for Israel fundamentally alters the balance of power. This understanding prompts the Chinese leadership to adhere to a cautious diplomatic path, avoiding entanglement in a proxy war that could drain its resources at a time when it seeks to strengthen its internal growth.

China's current stance reflects a shift in its view of the Middle East, where Beijing no longer sees Iran as a 'spearhead' against Western hegemony, but rather as a troubled economic partner. This shift explains why Beijing refrains from providing qualitative military support, such as drones or advanced technologies, preferring to wait until the features of the region's new political map become clear.

Ultimately, the security of waterways remains the only red line that might prompt China to act, as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would mean a global energy crisis whose consequences Beijing cannot bear. However, China's primary bet remains on reaching understandings with the new US administration that guarantee its vital interests away from the fires of war raging in Tehran.

Strategic assessments conclude that China, despite its anti-hegemony rhetoric, remains a player seeking profit and economic stability first, which makes it closer to passive neutrality in the Iranian crisis. What matters to Beijing is not who governs in Tehran, but who ensures the safe arrival of oil tankers at Chinese ports, which any future leadership that prioritizes economics over ideology could provide.

China is prepared to work with any leadership that emerges after the strikes, as long as it protects the flow of oil and prioritizes shared economic interests.

Washington – Saeed Erikat – 3/6/2026

In a direct message to Iranian security institutions, US President Donald Trump on Thursday called on members of the Revolutionary Guard, army, and police to lay down their weapons and join what he described as "the Iranian people," warning that they would face only death if they continued to fight against American and Israeli forces. He also called on Iranian diplomats abroad to seek asylum and participate in forming a "new and better Iran," affirming the United States' readiness to grant immunity to security personnel who decide to abandon the fight.

Trump's statements came during an event at the White House to honor the "Inter Miami" team after winning the American Major League Soccer championship, where he entered the East Room accompanied by the team captain and Argentine star Lionel Messi before the sports event turned into a political platform during which the President announced the latest developments in the escalating war against Iran.

Trump said that the United States and Israel continue to carry out extensive military operations against Iran, confirming that recent strikes have destroyed a large part of Iran's missile capabilities. He added that US forces have destroyed twenty-four Iranian ships in the past three days and that operations are proceeding at a faster pace than planned and on an unprecedented scale.

He explained that the strikes focus on dismantling Iran's military structure, including missile launch platforms and drone capabilities, stressing that US forces are destroying these capabilities in a way no one expected. He reiterated that Washington acted because it saw that Tehran was preparing to attack American interests, adding, "If we had not struck them, they would have attacked us," without presenting any evidence.

In an interview with "ABC News," Trump said that US strikes destroyed about 58% of Iran's missile launch platforms, considering that the extent of the destruction would require Tehran nearly ten years to rebuild its military capabilities.

Regarding the future of operations, he said that some observers believe the war has effectively ended, but he added that for him, it has not ended yet and will end when he decides so, affirming that the United States will not allow the emergence of an Iranian leadership that poses a threat to its neighbors or to Washington.

He also indicated that his administration is working on measures to limit the impact of the war on global oil markets and trying to contain the economic turmoil resulting from the military confrontation.

For his part, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said that the United States possesses enough ammunition and equipment to continue the war against Iran for a long time, stressing that Iran's bet that Washington will not bear the cost of a prolonged conflict represents a major miscalculation.

He added that US forces are not suffering from a shortage of ammunition and are capable of continuing military operations for a long time if necessary, denying what he described as Iranian propaganda about shooting down an American aircraft.

Politically, Hegseth hinted that Trump might play a role in determining the nature of future Iranian leadership, but he stressed that the United States does not plan to receive refugees from the Middle East, considering that countries in the region are capable of accommodating them.

As for the commander of US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, he said that military operations are progressing rapidly and according to established plans, confirming that US forces have destroyed a large part of Iran's air defense systems.

In Congress, a divergence in political discourse emerged when Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said that the United States is conducting a "limited operation" over Iran, indicating that it is limited in scope and duration.

Johnson added, after the House voted to reject a war powers resolution aimed at stopping Trump's attacks, that Washington is not at war and does not intend to be so, considering that the military mission is almost accomplished.

He said that the strikes led to a 90% reduction in Iranian ballistic missile launches, and drone use decreased by about 80% as a result of continuous strikes.

Cooper revealed that US forces also destroyed twenty-four Iranian warships and that Trump issued directives to destroy the Iranian naval base to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its fleet, noting that Washington possesses additional undisclosed operational capabilities to counter drones.

Since last Saturday, the United States and Israel have launched a wide-ranging war on Iran, which Tel Aviv named "Lion's Roar" while Washington called it "Epic Fury." The strikes resulted in the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of senior military and security officials, in addition to civilians, while Tehran responded with a counter-operation named "True Promise 4."

The confrontation continues amid fears of the conflict expanding regionally.

Trump's call for members of the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian army to surrender reflects a clear attempt to shift the battle from the military to the psychological and political sphere. The message not only aims to weaken Iran's fighting capability but also seeks to dismantle the loyalty of security institutions to the regime. However, such calls rarely achieve quick results, as foreign wars often lead to strengthening internal cohesion rather than dismantling it, especially when soldiers feel that their country is under direct attack from foreign powers.

In contrast, the US administration's rhetoric reveals a great deal of ambiguity regarding the ultimate goal of the war. While Washington talks about destroying Iran's military capabilities, other statements indicate a desire to influence the form of political leadership in Tehran. This overlap between military and political objectives reflects a strategic dilemma that the United States has faced for decades in the Middle East: the ability to destroy armies does not necessarily mean the ability to shape the political systems that will succeed them.

Economically, the estimated cost of the war at about one billion dollars per day raises serious questions within the United States about the feasibility of continuing operations for a long period. Recent history shows that costly wars in the Middle East often turn into a long drain on American resources without achieving decisive objectives. With rising energy prices and the potential for global market disruption, the economic cost could become an internal pressure factor on the US administration, perhaps no less impactful than the military challenges.

The direct military confrontation in the Middle East entered its sixth day, with explosions resounding in capitals and cities stretching from Tehran to Beirut, all the way to Iraqi Kurdistan. These rapid developments come amidst an unprecedented war launched by the United States and Israel, which in its early days resulted in the death of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, pushing the region to the brink of a comprehensive regional conflict.

In the Iranian capital, Tehran, field reports showed widespread destruction affecting vital facilities and public buildings, including the Azadi Sports Complex and major commercial facades, due to intense airstrikes. Local sources reported that the city had turned into a 'ghost town' with the spread of security checkpoints and ongoing debris removal operations, while internet service quality dropped to a mere 1%.

On the Lebanese front, Israeli forces intensified their airstrikes on Beirut's southern suburb, a Hezbollah stronghold, leading to the leveling of entire buildings and the rise of dust and rubble clouds. This coincided with a ground incursion into southern Lebanon, where the Israeli army issued urgent warnings to residents to evacuate immediately and head towards the north and east, causing a massive displacement wave involving tens of thousands.

Victim statistics indicate a worsening humanitarian catastrophe, with Iranian authorities announcing the death of over 1,200 people since the start of military operations last Saturday. In Lebanon, the Ministry of Health confirmed the death of 72 people and the injury of hundreds in recent days, with expectations of these numbers rising as violent raids continue on densely populated areas.

On the ground, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced the execution of widespread missile attacks targeting Ben Gurion Airport and Israeli airbases, using heavy 'Khorramshahr-4' missiles. Iranian attacks also targeted US military sites in Kuwait, in addition to targeting an oil tanker in the Gulf waters, in retaliation for the strikes that targeted the Iranian leadership.

In a dangerous naval development, the first of its kind in decades, a US submarine successfully sank an Iranian frigate in the Indian Ocean, resulting in the death of 87 sailors and the loss of others. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the incident as an 'atrocity' that Washington would deeply regret, emphasizing that Tehran would not stand idly by while its naval vessels were targeted in international waters.

Politically, US President Donald Trump strengthened his position after the Senate struck down a resolution aimed at restricting his war powers, giving him a green light to continue military operations against the Iranian regime. The US Secretary of Defense affirmed absolute support to his Israeli counterpart in this confrontation, stressing the need to continue military operations until the set objectives are achieved.

Regionally, the spark of war extended to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, where Iran targeted headquarters of opposing Kurdish groups with three ballistic missiles. This attack came after Iranian warnings against the movement of these groups under the current circumstances, while Washington denied reports of its intention to arm Kurdish factions to ignite an uprising within Iranian territory.

Economically, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund warned that the global economy had entered a phase of severe hardship and turmoil due to the halt of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. This waterway is a vital artery through which about 20% of global energy supplies pass, and the Revolutionary Guard announced its full control over it, leading to a complete paralysis of oil and gas tanker traffic.

International reactions quickly followed, with Italy announcing its intention to send air defense systems to support Gulf states, while Australia deployed military capabilities in the region as a precautionary measure. For his part, the Canadian Prime Minister did not rule out his country's military participation in the conflict, indicating the possibility of a broad international coalition forming to participate in this escalating war.

Inside Iran, authorities postponed the funeral ceremonies for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei indefinitely, amidst strict security measures and a state of alert across all state agencies. Several Iranian cities witnessed massive gatherings where demonstrators raised slogans condemning the United States and Israel, at a time when the Iranian military leadership is seeking to restore its defensive and offensive capabilities.

For its part, the Kremlin clarified that Tehran has not yet requested direct military assistance from Russia, despite the close alliance between the two countries. The world is cautiously monitoring the Russian and Chinese positions on this conflict, especially with Beijing informing refineries to suspend the export of petroleum derivatives in anticipation of a prolonged global supply crisis.

Hezbollah in Lebanon, through its Secretary-General Naim Qassem, affirmed that the resistance would not surrender, despite internal pressures and demands to disarm it. The party announced the execution of operations to confront Israeli ground incursions, in addition to launching missile barrages towards Israeli depth in response to the assassination of the Iranian leader and the targeting of the southern suburb.

The contours of the new balance of power in the Middle East remain unclear as fierce fighting continues on multiple fronts. With increasing human and material losses, the international community awaits what the coming days will bring, amidst the insistence of the warring parties to press ahead with this confrontation that may completely redraw the map of the region.

The global economy faces a new ordeal due to the war in the Middle East, and navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is completely halted.

British writer David Hearst believes that the current war waged by Israel and the United States against Iran represents the beginning of a broader strategic project aimed at redrawing the political and geographical map of the Middle East. Hearst explained that the strike targeting the top Iranian leadership, which led to the martyrdom of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, revealed that the true goal goes beyond the nuclear file to undermining the Iranian state as a competing regional power.

Hearst pointed out in an article published on 'Middle East Eye' that the military attack came at a time when Tehran had made a significant diplomatic offer through Omani mediation, including reducing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. However, Washington and Tel Aviv chose military escalation, proving that negotiations were merely a time-buying cover to arrange the assassination of the Iranian leadership, which had been under US intelligence surveillance for months.

The writer believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu found in US President Donald Trump the ideal partner to realize a dream he has harbored for decades: delivering a decisive blow to 'Amalek,' as he describes Iran. Netanyahu aims through this comprehensive war to transform Iran from a strong central state into a weak confederation of fragmented ethnic cantons, thereby removing the last obstacle to absolute Israeli hegemony.

The article warned that the ambitions of the Israeli right are no longer limited to Palestinian territories but are now openly speaking of 'Greater Israel.' Hearst cited statements by US Ambassador Mike Huckabee and opposition leader Yair Lapid, which hint at regional expansion that could include parts of Iraq and Syria, extending influence between the Nile and Euphrates rivers in the absence of any deterrent regional power.

In the context of international alliances, India emerged as a non-Western strategic ally for Israel, with Hearst suggesting that New Delhi provides economic, technological, and alternative labor support for Palestinians. This alliance aims to make Israel less dependent on direct Western support and solidify its position as a dominant military power backed by airbases spread across the region, confronting Arab states with an eroding sovereign reality.

On the ground, Iran began implementing a 'long-term war' strategy and a counter-military response targeting global economic interests. Iranian attacks led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the disruption of vital oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, causing a sharp jump in global energy prices, in an attempt by Tehran to raise the cost of war for Washington and its allies to unprecedented levels.

Hearst explained that Iran expanded its targeting to include British and French military bases in Cyprus and Abu Dhabi via drones, reflecting a shift in Iranian combat doctrine towards internationalizing the conflict. The new leadership in Tehran, which activated the decentralized command system, realizes that pressure on the global economy is the only card that might force Trump to reconsider his military calculations.

On the Israeli domestic front, reports revealed severe economic bleeding, with the Israeli economy losing approximately 9.4 billion shekels weekly since the confrontation erupted last February. Despite these exorbitant costs, Netanyahu continues military pressure, considering this war the only 'insurance policy' for the survival of his political project after the damage to Israel's international reputation due to the war of annihilation in Gaza.

Hearst criticized what he called the 'fatal mistake' made by Iran and Hezbollah at the beginning of the October 2023 events, when they preferred not to open a comprehensive and coordinated front, which allowed Israel to deal with each party individually. Now, Iran finds itself forced to fight an existential battle after being deceived by American diplomatic messages that aimed only to buy time and prepare the theater of operations for major assassinations.

Regarding the Gulf states, the writer believes they are paying a heavy price for a conflict they did not desire, as Washington ignored Riyadh's and Doha's warnings about the consequences of striking Iran. These countries now find themselves in the crossfire, with increasing risks of civil wars erupting in Iran's vicinity, which could lead to massive waves of human displacement towards the West, destabilizing the entire region.

Netanyahu's strategy relies primarily on the weakness and fragmentation of Arab states, as he seeks to establish a new 'Sykes-Picot' that ensures Israel's permanent superiority. Hearst believes that this project will not stop at Iran but may later move to target other regional powers such as Turkey, under the same ideological and security pretexts currently promoted by the extremist right-wing government.

In conclusion, the Iranian regime is betting on its ability to withstand and exhaust the US administration, relying on the idea that Khamenei's death may give the revolution a new purpose and a higher fighting spirit. The fundamental question remains about Trump's ability to bear the consequences of a comprehensive regional war that harms the interests of his electoral base, amid Israeli insistence on moving forward to change the face of the Middle East forever.

Field data shows that the cost of US military operations, reaching one billion dollars daily, puts enormous pressure on Washington's budget, coinciding with a record increase in Israel's defense budget for 2026. This mutual financial exhaustion may ultimately determine the winner in the war of wills, unless international powers intervene to impose a de-escalation that prevents the comprehensive collapse of the global order.

The current scene in the Middle East indicates that the region has entered a dark tunnel of existential conflicts, where Israeli dreams of hegemony clash with Iranian attempts at survival. While fires rage in oil facilities and shipping lanes, it seems that the 'new reality' Netanyahu seeks to impose will cost the region and the world far more than expected when the first shot was fired in this war.

Destroying Iran as a regional power is part of a larger plan aimed at achieving the dream of 'Greater Israel' extending from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Beirut's Southern Dahiyeh witnessed a bloody night due to a series of violent airstrikes launched by the Israeli occupation army, targeting residential neighborhoods in Ghobeiry, Haret Hreik, and Hadath. This escalation followed widespread threats and warnings issued by the occupation to the residents of the area, causing a wave of displacement and massive destruction to properties and infrastructure.

In the Western Bekaa region, occupation forces committed a new massacre by targeting an inhabited house in the town of Mashghara, resulting in the martyrdom of four members of one family. The Lebanese Ministry of Health confirmed that among the victims were a five-year-old girl and a seven-year-old boy, in addition to a female citizen who sustained injuries of varying severity.

Field sources reported that Israeli warplanes expanded their raids to include the town of Toul in the vicinity of Nabatieh city, and the town of Kharayeb in the Zahrani district of southern Lebanon. These attacks come amid the occupation's intensification of its aerial operations, which have not spared villages and towns far from direct confrontation lines.

In the east of the country, enemy aircraft launched a raid targeting the area between the towns of Brital and Taybeh, south of Baalbek city, amidst intensive drone flights. The National News Agency reported that the shelling coincided with Israeli threats that included wide areas in the Bekaa and the South, further complicating the humanitarian situation.

Official data issued by the Public Health Emergency Operations Center indicate a steady increase in the number of victims, with the aggression's toll reaching 123 martyrs since last Monday dawn. Medical teams also recorded injuries to about 683 people with various wounds, amid significant pressure faced by the Lebanese health sector.

On the field level in the northern front, sirens sounded in the Metulla settlement and nearby border areas for fear of rocket shells falling from Lebanon. Sources reported that the resistance continues to confront Israeli infiltration attempts and target soldier gatherings along the Blue Line and deep in the Upper Galilee.

For its part, Hezbollah announced in successive statements the execution of military operations targeting Israeli occupation army positions, including shelling a position in the town of Markaba with rockets for the third time. These operations come in response to the continuous Israeli aggressions that systematically target civilians and Lebanese villages.

Recent Israeli warnings included vital cities and strategic areas south of the Litani River, including the cities of Tyre and Bint Jbeil and their surrounding villages. Through this policy, the occupation aims to empty large areas of their residents and impose a new field reality through excessive military force.

These developments come in the context of a comprehensive aggression launched by Israel since last September, turning border confrontations into a wide-ranging war that included all Lebanese territories. This war has so far led to the martyrdom of more than 4,000 people and the injury of about 17,000 others, according to official statistics.

In the context of regional escalation, reports indicate that the scope of the confrontation has expanded to include multiple fronts, warning of the region sliding into a wider conflict whose end cannot be predicted. Israeli airstrikes continue to target Beirut's Southern Dahiyeh almost daily, turning entire neighborhoods into rubble.

Despite international efforts aimed at reaching a ceasefire, the field continues to witness unprecedented escalation by the occupation army. Lebanese sources confirm that the deliberate targeting of civilians and children in the Bekaa and the South constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms.

Ambulance and civil defense teams continue to remove rubble and search for missing persons under the debris of destroyed homes in various Lebanese regions. With the continuation of the raids, fears of a worsening humanitarian crisis increase amid a lack of basic resources and the disruption of livelihoods for thousands of displaced families.

An Israeli enemy raid that targeted a house in the town of Mashghara led to the martyrdom of four citizens, including a five-year-old girl and a seven-year-old boy.

The Israeli occupation authorities announced strict security measures to close all holy sites in occupied Jerusalem during the current weekend. The occupation police claimed in a statement that this decision comes for security reasons in light of the current tensions in the region, noting that worshippers and visitors of all religions will be denied entry without exception.

This Israeli escalation comes at a sensitive time, coinciding with the holy month of Ramadan, which usually witnesses tens of thousands of Palestinians flocking to the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque to perform Friday and Taraweeh prayers. Since the beginning of the recent aggression, the occupation forces have imposed strict restrictions, preventing entry to the Old City, and limiting movement there to local residents and shop owners only.

In the context of field attacks in the West Bank, medical sources reported that a young Palestinian man with special needs was injured by occupation army fire in the village of Kharbatha Bani Harith, west of Ramallah. The Palestinian Red Crescent explained that its teams dealt with the young man's lower limb injury and transferred him to the hospital for necessary treatment after large forces stormed the village.

Kharbatha Bani Harith village witnessed violent confrontations following the storming, as occupation forces heavily fired live ammunition and tear gas canisters at citizens. Local sources confirmed that Israeli military reinforcements entered the area, leading to clashes with young men who tried to confront the storming with their bare chests.

In Tulkarm Governorate, north of the West Bank, ambulance crews received a second injury by live ammunition in the feet from the occupation army at the Shufa military checkpoint. These injuries occur almost daily near the apartheid wall and military checkpoints, where the occupation targets Palestinian workers trying to reach their workplaces.

Field reports indicate that the West Bank has been experiencing an unprecedented military escalation since October 2023, as the occupation has intensified its incursions, killings, and arrests. These operations are accompanied by rampant settlement expansion and forced displacement policies targeting the Palestinian presence in various governorates and villages.

The closure of holy sites in Jerusalem represents a blatant violation of freedom of worship and increases popular tension in the occupied territories. Human rights organizations continue to warn of the repercussions of these measures, which aim to isolate the holy city and change the existing historical and legal reality under flimsy security pretexts.

No worshipper or visitor will be allowed entry, regardless of their religion.

Retired Major General in the occupation army, Isaac Brick, issued strong warnings about the current course of military confrontation with Iran, considering that close coordination with Washington does not negate the existence of deep strategic risks. Brick explained that these risks may impose a new reality that determines the final outcomes of the war, far from declared ambitions.

Brick pointed out in his reading of field developments that the price paid by the occupation so far is extremely high, both in terms of human losses, including dead and wounded, and widespread destruction of infrastructure. He noted that the scope of the confrontation has expanded to include 11 countries, amid serious fears of the conflict escalating beyond the Middle East region.

The retired general considered that the biggest challenge facing the continuation of military operations lies in the sharp and accelerating depletion of strategic ammunition stockpiles for both the occupation and the United States. He stressed that this critical logistical reality starkly contradicts the promises and assurances provided by US President Donald Trump to the public.

Brick emphasized that current weapon depletion rates far exceed the ability of military factories to produce and compensate, placing immense pressure on decision-making centers in Washington. This imbalance between consumption and production may force the US administration to seek a political solution to end the fighting earlier than many expect.

Analytical sources stated that internal political pressures in the United States, driven by unsettling opinion polls, play a crucial role in shaping the current American stance. Global economic repercussions, especially tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, also increase Washington's desire to contain the situation and prevent it from sliding into a comprehensive, long-term war.

Brick predicted an imminent political clash between Trump and the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, as the latter insists on continuing the fighting until achieving what is called 'complete victory.' In contrast, the US administration may find itself compelled to prioritize its national and economic interests by halting operations at a specific time.

Regarding the Iranian front, Brick asserted that intensive air strikes would not succeed in bringing about fundamental political change in the regime's structure in Tehran. He explained that betting on a popular uprising to overthrow the regime is an uncertain gamble given the iron grip of the Revolutionary Guard on the state's key institutions.

Brick also downplayed the significance of military movements by some Kurdish groups across the border, describing them as indecisive in the overall balance of power. He affirmed that the Iranian regime has the ability to absorb current blows and remain steadfast against limited external and internal military pressures.

The retired general warned of a post-attack scenario, where Iran might immediately begin rebuilding its military and nuclear capabilities at a faster pace than before once operations cease. He indicated that expected Russian and Chinese support would play a pivotal role in enabling Tehran to regain its strength and disengage from any previous international obligations.

Brick believes that the return of the Iranian threat in a more dangerous form in the near future is a strong possibility if the war does not achieve tangible political goals. He considered that merely achieving tactical military successes without a political horizon would make the occupation face a renewed and more complex existential threat.

Brick's warnings were not limited to the Iranian front but also extended to the growing Turkish role in the region under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. He considered Ankara's pursuit of strengthening its regional influence as an additional security challenge that should not be overlooked in the occupation's strategic calculations.

He explained that the security environment surrounding the occupation is becoming more complex with the entry of new regional players into the confrontation or competition for influence. This overlap of regional interests makes it difficult to achieve long-term security stability, even if the Iranian threat is temporarily neutralized.

Brick concluded his analysis by emphasizing the necessity of reviewing the military and political objectives of the current war, away from resonant slogans. He stressed that acknowledging logistical and international political realities is the only way to avoid a strategic catastrophe that could befall the occupation due to misjudgment of the situation and disregard for military warnings.

The logistical reality and the depletion of ammunition stockpiles are completely different from the public statements made by Trump regarding the continuation of military operations.

International political reports have revealed a cautious Chinese approach to the widespread military escalation launched by the United States and Israel against Iran since late February. Despite the strategic partnership between Beijing and Tehran, indicators confirm that the Chinese leadership is unwilling to engage militarily, preferring to protect the energy flows that are the lifeblood of its national economy.

Analytical sources indicate that Beijing is closely monitoring the repercussions of the airstrikes that targeted Iranian command centers and led to the martyrdom of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Despite timid diplomatic condemnations, the official Chinese position has focused on calling on all parties to exercise restraint, a clear indication of equating the aggressor with the victim to maintain regional balances.

Observers believe that China's energy security is organically linked to the stability of the Gulf, as Beijing imported more than 55% of its oil needs from the region in 2025. China fears that any violent military reaction on its part could lead to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which could cause a global energy crisis that its current reserves cannot sustain for long.

Chinese disappointment with Iranian military capabilities reflects a shift in Beijing's strategic vision, with Chinese experts believing that Tehran's regional power has been exaggerated through years of proxy wars. Recent attacks have revealed widespread security and intelligence vulnerabilities within the structure of the Iranian regime, weakening Beijing's confidence in its ally's ability to endure long-term.

Economically, the $400 billion agreement signed between the two countries has not translated into tangible projects on the ground due to sanctions and Iranian fears of Chinese influence. Beijing now finds itself facing a new reality, where Iran's GDP is less than Israel's despite the vast difference in area and population, making it a struggling economic partner.

Calculations with Washington play a pivotal role in shaping China's current stance, especially with the approaching summit between Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump. Beijing seeks to avoid any confrontation with the US administration in the Middle East that could hinder opportunities to reach a comprehensive trade agreement that ends years of bitter rivalry between the two superpowers.

In light of the long-term war strategy announced by Tehran, China is awaiting the ability of the new Revolutionary Guard leadership, led by Ahmed Vahidi, to manage the conflict. If Iran succeeds in inflicting real damage on its adversaries, Beijing may be forced to reconsider its position and provide technical support and dual-use equipment similar to what it previously provided to Russia.

Reports indicate that political circles in Beijing are now accepting the idea of regime change in Tehran as a potential and non-catastrophic scenario, as long as the incoming leadership ensures the flow of oil. What is important for China is the stability of global markets, especially after oil prices rose by 6% due to the partial disruption of supplies in the early days of the confrontation.

Silent Chinese criticisms of mismanagement and corruption within Iranian state institutions also emerge as an additional factor in adopting a passive neutral stance. Chinese analysts believe that repeated Israeli infiltrations and the assassination of senior leaders and scientists reflect a state of internal distrust within the Iranian regime itself, making political investment in it high-risk.

For Israel, the continuation of the war incurs enormous economic losses amounting to 9.4 billion shekels per week, which Beijing monitors as a pressure factor that could end the conflict quickly. China hopes that these economic pressures on all parties will lead to a settlement that ensures shipping lanes remain open for its giant tankers heading east.

Estimates indicate that Beijing has oil reserves sufficient for about 30% of its annual imports, which gives it a short margin of maneuver before actual intervention. However, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz remains the 'red line' that could push the Chinese dragon to break its silence and act to protect its vital interests in the heart of the Middle East.

In the event of a rapid collapse of the Iranian regime, sources expect Beijing to quickly build bridges of communication with the new powers to ensure the continuity of oil agreements. China has proven in previous experiences its ability to adapt to sharp political changes as long as its commercial and geopolitical interests remain safe from direct targeting.

The disparity between Iran's revolutionary ideology and the urgent need for economic reform has put Tehran in a predicament that Beijing sees as a result of wrong decisions. Chinese analyses suggest that Tehran's insistence on confrontation without possessing sufficient economic power tools made it an easy target for superior American and Israeli military technology.

In conclusion, China's position remains subject to developments on the ground and Iran's ability to withstand the 'map-changing' campaign led by Washington. While military budgets in the region bleed billions of dollars daily, Beijing merely observes, awaiting the opportune moment to secure its share of the energy pie in the 'New Middle East'.

Beijing is not opposed to regime change in Iran per se; its top priority is to ensure that Tehran remains an effective economic partner that protects the flow of oil.

US President Donald Trump stressed the necessity of direct and personal American intervention in the process of identifying the next leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Trump affirmed in press statements that he would not allow the transfer of power to Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late leader, considering that Washington must be a partner in this fateful political decision.

These tough stances from the White House come at a sensitive time for Tehran, where intensive consultations are underway to choose a successor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Khamenei died on February 28, following a widespread military attack launched by Israeli and American forces on strategic Iranian targets.

Speaking to media sources, Trump described the son of the late leader as a figure lacking strong influence, indicating that his ascension to power would mean the continuation of previous confrontational policies. The US President clarified that he seeks to see new leadership capable of bringing peace and stability to the region, away from the escalation approach that characterized the past era.

Trump compared his desire to intervene in Iranian affairs to what previously happened with Delcy Rodriguez in Venezuela, stressing that the United States will not stand idly by while a leader adopting the same ideology is appointed. He warned that accepting a leader who follows in Khamenei's footsteps would force Washington to engage in a comprehensive military confrontation again within just five years.

Regarding international military cooperation, Trump showed great openness to receiving support from various countries to confront Iranian threats, especially concerning drones. He indicated in statements to press sources that he would welcome any technical or military assistance, in reference to potential Ukrainian offers to provide expertise in countering drones.

On the ground, the city of Qom in Iran witnessed severe security tensions, as the building of the religious body responsible for choosing the Supreme Leader was directly targeted last Tuesday. Reports stated that the attack clearly aimed to obstruct the vote counting process and disrupt consensus on the person who will assume the position of Vali-e Faqih in the next phase.

Despite the absence of official announcements, the name of 56-year-old Mojtaba Khamenei stands out as one of the strongest candidates to succeed his father due to his wide influence within the corridors of power. Mojtaba's strength is based on close and deeply rooted relations with the leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, although he has not held any official position in the state structure throughout the past years.

Iran has been in a state of confusion since the start of Israeli and American military operations last Saturday, which resulted in hundreds of deaths and injuries. These strikes targeted senior security and political officials, placing the Iranian regime before an existential challenge amid unprecedented international and field pressures to reshape the political scene.

Mojtaba Khamenei's ascension to power is unacceptable to me, and we want someone who brings peace to Iran.

Intelligence sources revealed secret Iranian moves that took place following the widespread American-Israeli attack, where officials in Tehran attempted to open indirect communication channels with the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). According to press reports, these attempts aimed to explore potential conditions for halting the intense aerial bombardment targeting key Iranian state institutions, despite official denials from the remaining Iranian leadership of any desire for dialogue with Washington.

Informed sources stated that the Iranian offer was passed through the intelligence agency of a third country, raising questions about the ability of current officials in Tehran to conclude binding agreements given the state of chaos resulting from the systematic targeting of leaders. These moves come at a time when the Iranian government is experiencing unprecedented pressure after losing historical figures in the initial raids of the military operation that began last February.

For his part, US President Donald Trump showed a rigid stance towards these initiatives, stating via social media platforms that it was too late for diplomatic talks. Trump expressed to reporters his belief that most of the leaders Washington had been targeting had already been eliminated, indicating that the leadership structure in Tehran was rapidly eroding under the weight of continuous strikes.

In a related context, the Israeli government is exerting intense pressure on the Trump administration to ignore any Iranian negotiation offers, with officials in Tel Aviv demanding the continuation of the military campaign for several additional weeks. The Israeli strategy aims to inflict permanent damage on Iranian military capabilities, leading to the complete collapse of the existing political system, which Washington sees as an option requiring careful evaluation.

It appears that Trump has begun to back away from the idea of supporting a comprehensive popular revolution in Iran, preferring instead the emergence of 'pragmatic' figures from within the current political structure, specifically from the Revolutionary Guard. The White House aspires to reach an agreement that ensures the complete dismantling of Iranian missile and nuclear programs, and the cessation of support for armed groups in the region, in exchange for allowing some leaders to remain in their positions.

Trump explicitly indicated that his preferred model for dealing with Tehran is the 'Venezuela scenario,' where military and economic pressure is applied to force the new leadership to grant the United States broad control over resources, especially oil. Observers believe that this approach reflects Washington's desire to achieve quick economic and geopolitical gains without engaging in a complex and long-term nation-building process.

On the ground, previous reports confirmed the martyrdom of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Commander Mohammad Pakpour, which prompted the Revolutionary Guard to activate a decentralized leadership strategy under the supervision of Ahmed Vahidi. This strategy aims to ensure the continuation of military operations and counter-responses even if communication with the center is cut off, complicating American-Israeli calculations about the 'decisive point.'

The US administration faces increasing internal pressures due to the exorbitant cost of military operations, estimated at about one billion dollars per day, as well as a significant 6% rise in global oil prices. This financial bleeding worries Trump's Republican allies, who fear long-term economic repercussions that could affect internal stability in the United States.

On the Israeli side, economic losses reached about 9.4 billion shekels weekly, prompting some economic circles to demand a reduction in the alert level to mitigate damages. Despite these losses, the Israeli military leadership insists that the current opportunity to change the face of the Middle East will not be repeated, and must be exploited to the end regardless of immediate costs.

Intelligence assessments prepared by the CIA indicate the difficulty of predicting the type of leadership that will emerge in Iran after the end of military operations, as all scenarios remain open to the possibilities of chaos. Experts warn that the collapse of the central government could lead to civil wars in areas inhabited by ethnic minorities, turning Iran into an enlarged version of the Syrian or Libyan models.

Despite Trump's previous calls for the Iranian people to take charge of their affairs, he expressed skepticism about the ability of any popular revolution to produce a pro-Western democratic system under wartime conditions. Trump said that the worst-case scenario is replacing the current regime with another that harbors the same hostility towards Washington, emphasizing the necessity of a 'strong person' to restore stability and protect common interests.

When asked about the possibility of supporting Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah, Trump did not show great enthusiasm, preferring to search for a figure with genuine popularity and influence on the ground within existing institutions. This approach reflects Trump's pragmatism, which seeks a 'strong man' who can regulate the rhythm of the exhausted Iranian state and ensure the flow of global energy supplies without threat.

The major dilemma facing Washington remains finding a mediator with sufficient legitimacy to convince the Iranian interior of any commitments towards the United States, especially given the hardline rhetoric currently adopted by the Revolutionary Guard. Trump describes the current leaders as 'mentally ill,' which practically closes the door to any diplomatic settlement with the known figures of the old regime.

In conclusion, all eyes are on what the coming weeks of military confrontation will bring, amid Israeli insistence on a decisive outcome, and American hesitation between ending the mission or seeking a political solution. With the continued bleeding of the global economy and rising energy prices, the 'Venezuela scenario' remains the most likely card on Trump's agenda for dealing with the explosive Iranian issue.

I believe that what we did in Venezuela is the optimal scenario, where leaders can be chosen.

The intensity of military tensions in Lebanon is escalating unprecedentedly, with recent hours witnessing intense Israeli airstrikes targeting entire neighborhoods in Beirut's southern Dahiya. These developments come amidst official and popular fears of a repeat of the 2006 war scenario, in which Israel adopted a strategy of widespread destruction of residential areas.

Beirut's southern Dahiya has currently become a semi-evacuated area, with Israeli evacuation orders continuing to be issued, reaching the Hadath neighborhood and other vital areas. These warnings have specified mandatory displacement routes towards eastern and northern Lebanon, exacerbating the already worsening humanitarian crisis.

Evacuation orders were not limited to the capital but extended to cover a wide geographical strip starting from the international borders up to the Litani River, including the historic city of Tyre. These movements raise serious questions about the occupation's ultimate military objectives amidst ongoing ground operations and intense aerial bombardment.

Observers and political researchers believe that the evacuation operations south of the Litani fall into two contexts; the first relates to paving the way for expanding the ground war, and the second aims to impose a new military reality that goes beyond previous ceasefire understandings. They point out that the cities currently targeted, such as Nabatieh, had suffered massive destruction in previous wars.

Regarding the southern Dahiya, analyses indicate that the occupation aims, through systematic destruction, to exert maximum pressure on the Lebanese government. Through this policy, Israel seeks to push the state to make sovereign decisions against Hezbollah, using the targeting of civilian facilities as a tool for political blackmail.

The 'Dahiya Doctrine' re-emerges as an imminent danger, a strategy that relies on inflicting severe damage on infrastructure and civilians to force the popular base to abandon its political and military choices. It appears that the occupation is heading towards raising the cost of confrontation for Lebanese civilians directly to compensate for its failures in the military field.

Informed sources indicate that Israel's resort to targeting the civilian dimension may reflect a gap in intelligence information related to Hezbollah's military and security structure. While military bases remain fortified, the occupation finds residential neighborhoods easy targets to demonstrate power and achieve media and psychological gains.

Internally, Lebanese positions on the crisis vary, with voices emerging that hold Hezbollah responsible for sliding into a comprehensive war that some believe the country could have avoided. However, others believe that evaluating the results can only be done after the battle ends and the features of the political settlement that may follow this escalation become clear.

Estimates indicate that Lebanon may be part of a comprehensive regional settlement aimed at ending the conflict in the Middle East, but reaching this stage may pass through the gateway of violent military escalation. It appears that the diplomatic path has not achieved tangible results so far, making the field the sole arbiter in shaping the features of the next phase.

On the humanitarian front, the Lebanese government faces enormous challenges in securing the needs of hundreds of thousands of displaced people who have left their homes in the South, Dahiya, and Bekaa. With the expectation of expanding evacuation orders to include new areas in northern Bekaa, fears of a collapse of the national relief system are increasing amidst the difficult economic conditions the country is experiencing.

Israel seeks to directly target the civilian dimension and force the resistance's supportive environment to pay a heavy price through widespread destruction operations similar to what happened in 2006.

News Analysis

Washington, D.C-In the long history of American intervention in the Middle East, U.S. officials have often tried to shape political outcomes behind the scenes. But it is rare for a sitting president to say openly that he intends to help choose the next leader of another sovereign nation.

That is exactly what Donald Trump did on Thursday when he declared that he should be personally involved in selecting Iran’s next leader. In an interview with the news site Axios, Trump dismissed Mojtaba Khamenei — son of Iran’s late supreme leader — as “unacceptable,” and said Washington wants someone who will bring “harmony and peace to Iran.” He went further, insisting that he “has to be involved in the decision.”

The comments came only days after U.S.–Israeli strikes killed Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, a dramatic escalation that pushed the confrontation between Washington and Tehran into far more dangerous territory. Iranian sources say Mojtaba Khamenei survived the attacks that targeted senior figures in the country’s leadership and is widely viewed as a possible successor to his father.

Mojtaba Khamenei is not widely known outside Iran, yet within the Islamic Republic’s clerical establishment he has long been regarded as influential. A mid-ranking cleric with close ties to the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, he has quietly built networks of influence for nearly two decades. For years his name has circulated among insiders who believe Iran’s leadership could eventually pass from father to son.

Trump’s hostility to that possibility may not surprise critics of Iran’s political system. What is striking, however, is the blunt way he described America’s role. The president did not merely criticize a potential successor. He suggested the United States should participate directly in determining who rules Iran.

Such rhetoric exposes a deeper question about the real objectives of the expanding war. At the outset the administration framed military action as deterrence — a necessary step to counter threats and restore stability. Talk of selecting Iran’s future leader, however, points toward something far larger: the political engineering of a postwar Iranian state.

That trajectory should sound familiar to anyone who remembers America’s recent wars in the Middle East. Over the past quarter century, U.S. interventions have repeatedly begun with narrow security arguments before drifting toward sweeping ambitions of regime change and national reconstruction. Again and again those ambitions collided with political realities far more complicated than planners in Washington expected.

The United States learned that lesson painfully in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both countries wars launched in the name of security slowly mutated into vast experiments in state-building. The assumption that American power could redesign foreign political systems proved dangerously optimistic.

Trump’s statements therefore carry a striking irony. For years he built his political identity attacking exactly those interventionist projects. He blasted the policies of George W. Bush, arguing that Washington had squandered trillions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to rebuild foreign societies.

That critique resonated with Americans weary of endless wars and doubtful that distant societies could be remade by outside force. Trump cast himself as the leader who would end such crusades — not revive them.

Yet his latest remarks suggest the same old reflexes returning to the center of American strategy. The notion that Washington should help determine Iran’s next leader echoes the mindset that shaped U.S. policy after the September 11 attacks. It rests on a familiar conviction: that American power can ultimately reorder the politics of other nations.

History offers little support for that confidence. Political systems, especially ones rooted in dense religious and ideological institutions like Iran’s, do not bend easily to outside direction. Any leader perceived as emerging from American pressure would face immediate legitimacy problems at home. Instead of stabilizing the country, such interference could deepen factional conflict and empower the hardest hard-liners.

There is also the danger of mission creep. Once a government begins speaking openly about choosing another nation’s leadership, it assumes responsibility for whatever turmoil follows. That burden can expand far beyond the battlefield, drawing the intervening power into years of political and security entanglement.

Iran would be an especially perilous arena for such experimentation. The country possesses deep institutions, powerful security services, and a political culture shaped by suspicion of foreign domination. For decades its leaders have warned that Washington seeks to dictate Iran’s destiny. Trump’s declaration risks proving that accusation correct in the eyes of millions of Iranians.

The deeper problem is strategic arrogance. The belief that a U.S. president can influence Iran’s succession reflects a stubborn habit in American foreign policy: assuming that global political outcomes ultimately remain subject to Washington’s will. Experience suggests otherwise. Nations resist outside engineering. Legitimacy cannot be manufactured abroad. And wars launched with grand visions of political redesign rarely end as planned.

For a president who once promised to avoid new Middle Eastern quagmires, the temptation to shape Iran’s leadership marks a remarkable reversal. Presented as a path to “harmony and peace,” it may instead ignite deeper resistance and longer conflict.

Baghdad, the capital, hosted a high-level meeting today, Thursday, bringing together the leaders of Iraq's four presidencies to discuss the rapidly escalating security developments in the country and the region. The meeting was attended by President Abdul Latif Rashid, Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al-Sudani, Parliament Speaker Mohammed Al-Halbousi, and the Head of the Supreme Judicial Council, Faiq Zidan.

In an official statement, the attendees expressed a unified stance unequivocally rejecting the use of Iraqi territory as a launching pad for aggression against any neighboring countries or threatening their security and stability. The leaders emphasized that Iraq seeks to distance itself from regional conflicts, while affirming the necessity of respecting Iraqi sovereignty and halting attacks targeting cities and governorates.

The meeting thoroughly reviewed the latest developments in the political and security arenas and discussed the direct implications of international tensions on the internal situation in the country. The leaders discussed the governmental mechanisms in place to prevent Iraq from being drawn into external conflicts that could destabilize the region and affect the safety of its citizens.

The presidencies affirmed their full support for the measures taken by the federal government to impose security and stability and protect the country's sovereignty from any violations. The attendees also reiterated the Iraqi state's commitment to protecting the security of diplomatic missions and international headquarters operating in the country, and ensuring the safety of their personnel from any potential threats.

This political move comes amid a recent military escalation in the region, where Tehran announced missile strikes targeting what it described as headquarters of opposing Kurdish groups within the Kurdistan Region. Sources reported that the Iranian shelling came under the pretext of thwarting infiltration operations planned by separatist groups across Iran's western borders.

For their part, the Iraqi presidencies considered the attacks on the Kurdistan Region and other areas a blatant violation of Iraqi national sovereignty. The leaders called for an immediate halt to all military operations in the region, emphasizing the need to respect the independence of states and not interfere in their internal affairs under any pretext.

The attendees called on the international community to take urgent and effective action to prevent the expansion of the conflict in the Middle East, warning of catastrophic consequences if the escalation continues. The statement indicated that diplomatic solutions and negotiation paths are the only way to spare peoples the scourges of wars and armed conflicts.

The region has witnessed severe military tension since late February, with international powers launching attacks on targets in Iran, resulting in hundreds of casualties, including high-ranking leaders. These confrontations have directly impacted the Iraqi arena, which has become a stage for the exchange of military and political messages between the warring parties.

In a related context, Tehran responded by launching a barrage of missiles and drones towards various targets, leading to significant human and material losses. The attacks included targeting interests and military bases in Arab countries, which raised widespread international concern about the situation spiraling out of control and turning into a comprehensive regional war.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard confirmed in official statements its targeting of bases belonging to Kurdish groups in northern Iraq, accusing them of working against the Iranian regime. In contrast, media sources denied the accuracy of reports that armed groups had crossed the Iraqi border into Iranian territory to carry out combat operations.

The city of Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Region, has been subjected to a series of attacks targeting vital facilities, including Erbil International Airport, which hosts a base for international coalition forces. The attacks also targeted the vicinity of the American consulate, causing damage to civilian properties and residential buildings, creating a state of panic among the local population.

Observers believe that the meeting of the four presidencies represents a serious attempt to formulate a unified national stance to confront the increasing external pressures on Baghdad. Through these diplomatic moves, Iraq seeks to affirm its role as an element of stability in the region, away from the policy of axes that could harm its supreme national interests.

In conclusion, the Iraqi leaders stressed that protecting sovereignty is not just a slogan, but a practice that requires the solidarity of all political forces to support state institutions. They affirmed that Iraq will not allow itself to be an arena for settling scores and will work with international partners to ensure de-escalation and a return to the logic of dialogue and international law.

Resorting to the negotiation path and diplomatic solutions is the optimal way to spare the region the dangerous repercussions of conflict at both regional and international levels.

A profound silence has fallen over the streets of Beirut's southern suburb, which has transformed into what resembles a 'ghost town' after unprecedented waves of mass displacement. Field sources reported that lights were turned off in most residential neighborhoods following the departure of hundreds of thousands of residents from their homes, in response to immediate evacuation warnings issued by the Israeli Army on Thursday, March 5, 2026.

The evacuation operations were not limited to security squares or the four neighborhoods identified by Israeli threat maps, but extended to cover all parts of the southern suburb. A state of panic prevailed among families who rushed to leave the area, leading to the complete closure of entrances and exits due to heavy traffic congestion and confusion in identifying safe destinations.

In the heart of the capital, Beirut, thousands of displaced families spread out on roads, public squares, and parks, while others resorted to schools that opened their doors to accommodate the increasing numbers. Hundreds of citizens were seen walking or riding motorcycles, fleeing the imminent shelling threatened by Israeli forces in their warning statements.

Lebanese state institutions are experiencing a state of shock and helplessness in the face of this escalating humanitarian reality, as official administrations lack the capacity to absorb these massive numbers of displaced people. Fears are growing of the crisis worsening amid the difficult economic conditions plaguing the country, with expectations of evacuation orders expanding to include other areas in the northern Bekaa.

Observers believe that the current threats bring back memories of the July 2006 war, when the suburb was subjected to systematic destruction that lasted for more than a month. There is a general feeling among the political class and residents that the suburb is now under direct existential threat, especially with Israeli hints at implementing what is known as the 'Dahiya doctrine,' based on the comprehensive destruction of buildings and infrastructure.

The displaced people who abandoned their homes today, most of them hail from southern Lebanon, which has witnessed previous conflicts since 1978, which exacerbates their humanitarian tragedy as displaced persons for the second or third time. Warnings are increasing that the scene in Beirut could turn into a repeat of the 'Gaza scenario,' where excessive force is used as a tool for collective punishment against popular strongholds.

On the ground, sources reported that the northern entrances to Beirut witnessed suffocating congestion with the influx of displaced people who tried to reach safer areas in Mount Lebanon and the North. Hundreds of cars remained stuck for long hours, while some preferred to stay inside their vehicles in the streets due to the lack of alternative shelter or sufficient relief centers.

These rapid developments come amid continued tension on the Lebanese front, which opened in October 2023 under the banner of supporting the Gaza Strip. With the conflict entering a new phase of direct escalation, the fate of the southern suburb remains suspended between military threats and faltering diplomatic efforts to contain the situation and prevent a slide into an all-out war.

The most dangerous scenario feared by all is shelling that leads to the destruction of entire neighborhoods, or what is known in Israel as the 'Dahiya doctrine'.

Washington - Said Arikat - 3/5/2026

News Analysis

US President Donald Trump's statements regarding the future of leadership in Iran have sparked widespread controversy, after he explicitly declared that he believes he should have a personal role in choosing the next Iranian leader. In an interview with an American news website, Trump said that the son of the late Iranian Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is "unacceptable to him," stressing that the United States wants "someone who brings harmony and peace to Iran." The US President did not stop at this position, but emphasized that he "must be involved in the selection process."

These statements come in the wake of the American-Israeli military strikes that assassinated Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei last Saturday, in a dramatic development that reshaped the equations of conflict between Washington and Tehran. According to Iranian sources, Mojtaba Khamenei survived the strikes that targeted leadership positions in Iran, and is seen within the religious and political establishment as one of the most prominent candidates to succeed his father as Supreme Leader.

Mojtaba Khamenei is a mid-ranking cleric, but he has close ties with the "Revolutionary Guard," which has made him an influential figure within the Iranian power structure in recent years, despite his relative absence from media appearances. Therefore, the mention of his name as a potential successor to his father does not seem surprising in light of the complex balances within the Iranian system.

However, what was striking about Trump's statements was not merely his rejection of this option, but the direct way in which he expressed his position. He said that he "must be involved in the appointment," comparing it to previous American experiences in influencing political balances in other countries, in reference to Venezuela. This type of statement opens the door to deep questions about the nature of American goals in the current war, and whether they go beyond military deterrence to an attempt to reshape the Iranian political system.

Politically, these statements reveal a clear shift in American discourse. At the beginning of the American-Israeli aggression, the war was presented as a defensive step aimed at preventing security threats and re-establishing deterrence. But the talk now about choosing the next Iranian leadership suggests that the goal is no longer limited to militarily weakening Iran, but extends to directly influencing the future of its political system.

This shift brings to mind the experiences of American intervention in the Middle East over the past two decades, when military operations began with limited objectives before gradually turning into projects to re-engineer political systems. In many of those cases, reality proved that changing regimes from the outside is a much more complex process than decision-making centers in Washington imagine.

Trump's statements also put the United States in a contradictory position with its traditional discourse about respecting the sovereignty of nations. The public call to participate in choosing the leader of another country represents an unprecedented level of direct political intervention, even in the context of the intense conflicts that have characterized American-Iranian relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Even more noteworthy is that this position also contradicts the political discourse that Trump himself adopted for years. He built a large part of his political popularity on criticizing long wars in the Middle East, and on rejecting the "nation-building" policies associated with the administration of former Republican President George W. Bush. However, the call today to intervene in determining the Iranian leadership seems, in the view of many observers, a direct extension of those policies that Trump strongly criticized.

This contradiction reflects a clear paradox between political discourse and practical reality. The president who repeatedly pledged to avoid costly wars and deep foreign interventions finds himself today speaking in a language very similar to the language that prevailed during the years after the September 11 (2001) attacks, when Washington sought to redraw the political map of the Middle East.

This trend also raises fears that the current war may gradually expand towards more ambitious and complex goals. Recent history shows that wars that begin under the banner of deterrence or defense can quickly turn into regime change projects, a path that often leads to long-term entanglement. The mere talk of choosing the next Iranian leadership means that Washington is already thinking about the form of power that will succeed the current leadership, and not just about how to end military operations.

But such a path carries significant political risks. A leadership that is seen within Iran as the product of foreign intervention will likely face a severe legitimacy crisis, which could lead to further instability rather than achieving the "harmony and peace" that Trump spoke of.

In this context, observers believe that the US President's statements reveal a renewed tendency in American policy based on the belief that military power can rearrange political systems in the world according to the American vision. However, previous experiences in the region indicate that societies are not reshaped by external decisions, and that attempts to impose change from outside often produce longer and deeper crises than planned.

Here lies the great paradox. The president who repeatedly promised his voters to avoid Middle East wars and not engage in "nation-building" projects finds himself today speaking in a language that suggests the reproduction of the very model that led the United States to long and costly wars in the region. While intervention in choosing the Iranian leadership is presented as a step towards achieving stability, many analysts fear that such an approach will lead to the exact opposite: opening a new chapter of conflict and instability in one of the world's most sensitive and complex regions.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/5/2026

Forty countries met on Wednesday in The Hague, Netherlands, to discuss ways to translate the principles of international law into practical measures aimed at stopping what diplomats describe as a gradual annexation process carried out by Israel in the occupied West Bank through settlement expansion and changes to its governance systems.

The meeting was co-chaired by South Africa and Colombia under the umbrella of what is known as “The Hague Group,” an international initiative launched in early 2025 to coordinate legal and diplomatic responses to Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as to the war in the Gaza Strip.

This is the largest meeting organized by the group since its establishment, and it comes at a time when international concern is growing over the acceleration of settlement projects and military operations in the West Bank, and the potential for a permanent change in the geographical and political reality of the occupied territories.

A joint statement issued after the meeting affirmed the participating countries' commitment to the United Nations Charter and to the fundamental principle of international law prohibiting the acquisition of territory by force, in addition to affirming the right of peoples to self-determination.

The participating countries agreed to work through three main tracks that are being developed in preparation for their adoption at an upcoming ministerial meeting.

The first track focuses on strengthening legal accountability mechanisms for potential international crimes. This includes exploring the imposition of additional disclosure requirements on travelers who have served in the Israeli army, which could expose them to legal scrutiny procedures under international crime legislation in force in some countries.

The second track concerns the application of the principle of non-recognition of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, by prohibiting the import of their products and preventing national companies from investing or operating within them.

The third track focuses on reviewing exports of weapons and dual-use materials, including military fuel, with the aim of preventing their transfer or transit to Israel if they are likely to be used to support the occupation.

The statement affirmed that the goal of these measures is to ensure that there is no “safe haven” for individuals who may be suspected of involvement in genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or the crime of aggression.

Representatives from countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America participated in the meeting, including Algeria, Brazil, China, Egypt, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe, in addition to the State of Palestine.

In Washington, a US official who requested anonymity, in response to a question from Al-Quds correspondent about the possibility of the United States joining the group, said he was not aware of any official or undeclared position on the matter, adding that the US administration is currently focused on the “Peace Council” initiative launched last month.

The Hague meeting comes at a time when international concerns are growing over the repercussions of Israel’s recent decisions, particularly the approval of the controversial settlement project known as “E1,” which experts warn could dismember the West Bank and undermine the geographical contiguity necessary for a viable Palestinian state.

On February 8, the Israeli government also approved a broad package of measures to restructure the governance system in the West Bank, including expanding Israeli civilian powers in areas that have been under military rule for nearly six decades.

Diplomats believe these steps represent a gradual expansion of what Israel describes as “imposing sovereignty” over the occupied territories, a goal long advocated by nationalist right-wing currents and settler movements within Israel.

Observers warn that these measures undermine the remaining limited powers of the Palestinian Authority and weaken the political framework on which the Oslo Accords were based more than three decades ago.

The initiative led by The Hague Group is based on the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in July 2024, as well as a subsequent resolution by the United Nations General Assembly calling on states not to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and to prevent any form of support that might contribute to its continuation.

Colombia's Deputy Foreign Minister for Multilateral Affairs, Mauricio Jaramillo, said the meeting reflects growing frustration among a number of governments over the absence of real mechanisms for implementing international law.

He added: “Israel is carrying out a land confiscation process in plain sight of the world. After what happened in Gaza, it seems that solidifying the de facto annexation of parts of the West Bank is the next step in a project of permanent occupation.”

He stressed that countries today face a clear choice between defending international law or allowing a culture of impunity.

The Hague meeting reflects a gradual shift in the positions of an increasing number of Global South countries towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as mere political statements are no longer sufficient in the eyes of many governments. After decades of non-binding condemnation, some countries have begun to seek concrete legal and economic tools to enforce compliance with international law. This shift does not necessarily mean the formation of a unified international front against Israel, but it reveals a growing trend towards “internationalizing accountability,” where countries are trying to use their national legislation and international courts to fill the vacuum left by the Security Council's inability to take binding action due to political divisions.

The steps proposed at The Hague meeting raise a deeper question about the future of the rules-based international order. The issue is no longer confined to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as much as it has become a test of the ability of international law to assert itself when the political interests of major powers conflict. A number of diplomats believe that the continued occupation without real political or legal cost undermines the credibility of international institutions. Therefore, the current moves also aim to send a broader message that the lack of consensus in the Security Council should not mean paralyzing the international community's ability to act.

Politically, The Hague Group initiative reflects a growing realization that the reality of the West Bank is changing at a faster pace than traditional diplomacy can keep up with. Rapid settlement expansion, along with the restructuring of Israeli governance in the occupied territories, is creating new realities that may make a two-state solution more difficult over time. For this reason, some participants believe that focusing on economic and legal accountability tools may be the only available means to stop this trajectory. However, the success of these efforts will remain dependent on the extent to which countries are willing to translate their political positions into politically costly practical measures.

Since the beginning of this new year 2026, everyone has been following the rapid developments, specifically in the Iranian scene, starting with the outbreak of widespread demonstrations that spread from the bazaar merchants in most Iranian cities. The demonstrators, including the youth, have overcome the barrier of fear with broad demands for the overthrow of the current Iranian regime, represented by Ali Khamenei, who was targeted and martyred along with some members of the Iranian regime, following a preemptive joint Israeli-American strike that marked the beginning of the war after the failure of the Geneva talks between the two parties. The primary goal of this war on Iran is to overthrow the Mullahs' regime, end Iran's nuclear power, destroy ballistic missile platforms, and eliminate Iran's proxy wars in the Arab East, namely Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, Iran's arms represented by Hezbollah.

On February 3, 2026, with the appearance of the Blood Moon amidst all the war explosions in the region, the rare red moon's appearance portends an ominous event and pivotal historical developments on our planet, including wars and unrest. The war intensifies on several fronts: Israel strikes Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon, targeting military and economic infrastructure (Al-Qard Al-Hasan buildings), and on the Iranian front, the war escalates, and missiles fly, igniting the sky with the fire of Iranian missiles and drones that targeted several American bases in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, and Jordan, in parallel with joint Israeli-American strikes on multiple sites in Iran. It is noteworthy that Iran, under the pretext of targeting American bases in the Middle East, shifted its targets and began targeting residential structures and hotels in Dubai, Bahrain, and Qatar, and targeting Aramco oil refineries in Saudi Arabia. It seems that Iran, before its regime falls, wants to ignite the Arab region, especially the Gulf states, and expand the scope of the war with the aim of destabilizing governance in these countries and seeking to weaken the safe and economically, touristically, and politically prosperous Gulf states, which are characterized by safety and security. Unfortunately, with all these missiles burning in the sky of the Arabian Gulf, it will inevitably lead to the withdrawal of many global investors and the relocation of their money to safer and more stable places, especially if Iranian missiles and drones continue to target tourist and residential facilities in the Arabian Gulf. Here, the mask falls, and the true intentions towards neighboring Arab countries to Iran are revealed, and it seems that there are hidden goals, possibly seeking to overthrow some regimes in the Arabian Gulf, as the core of the war expands and seeks to burn everything, and its fragments reveal the hidden aspects of the Persian-Arab conflict, especially the sectarian Shiite-Sunni rift, and ultimately its basis is the monopolization of power and its replacement, for example, Bahrain and the majority of the Shiite component in it, and the endeavor to destabilize security there. And here, why was the bridge connecting Saudi Arabia to Bahrain struck? It seems that Iranian missiles and drones are directed more towards Arab countries instead of liberating Jerusalem! And striking the Great Satan, as they claim. Iran's striking of oil facilities in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia certainly aims to weaken the economy of the Gulf oil and energy states, and this is very clear from Iran's endeavor to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 30% of the world's energy resources pass, meaning an attempt to influence global energy prices, not to mention disrupting and economically striking energy facilities in the Arabian Gulf, and this is represented in disrupting data centers and vital facilities such as transportation, airports, the tourism sector, hotels, and shipping.

In the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, amidst sirens, missiles, and their burning flames, burning and falling over the Kingdom's land, penetrating and destroying homes and injuring citizens, Jordan stated that (Iranian missiles are not passing through but are targeting Jordanian territories). Wheat silos survived a cyberattack, which was repelled, and it was noted that a number of Iranian missile attacks on Jordan and Saudi Arabia were launched by the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which claimed responsibility for these drone attacks. Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi also stated (Iran must respect Jordan's sovereignty and not violate our airspace. There are Iranian aggressions against the Kingdom and against our brothers in the Gulf states. Everyone's security is a red line). This military escalation has become not a fleeting event in regional political calculations but a fundamental factor in determining energy stability and global navigation security, and the Arab East faces rapidly escalating developments that complicate the scene and risk expanding the flame of war in the countries of the Arab East and threaten the region with sliding into a regional war, God forbid.

It seems that there is no hope of stopping the escalation and de-escalating matters through diplomatic negotiations. It seems that whoever decides the war with military force will draw the new maps of influence, as the US Secretary of War stated that military operations against Iran have rapidly achieved their goals, and full control over Iranian airspace has been achieved, and success has been achieved in controlling maritime passages, as 17 Iranian ships in the Arabian Gulf were destroyed, and about 2000 targets were bombed, including nuclear, military, and missile facilities, and several command headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It has become clear after the Israeli and American strikes on Iranian ballistic missile weapons that the intensity of missiles and drones has decreased, especially those that were targeting American bases in several Arab countries. The American goal is to uproot the Mullahs' regime, not just the military force but the structural power of the regime, including the Revolutionary Guard, Basij, police, and the structure of the current parliament with all its leaders, as they constitute and support the power of the current regime. For this reason, Trump stated that this war could be long. There is also a fundamental element in this battle between America and Israel against Iran: most of the ballistic missiles launched by Iran are supplied by China within strong economic relations between them, where China obtains 90% of its oil needs from Iran at preferential prices, thirty percent (30%) less than the global oil price, and China has invested in Iran about 400 billion in exchange for 25-year contracts in Iranian infrastructure investments, specifically financing Iran's proxy wars in the Middle East, where Iran regains its current military, missile, and technological power from China. The current American war against Iran is an internal war between America and China and its influence, as Trump seeks to impose a new Middle East, and with the overthrow of the current Mullahs' regime in Iran, it means reducing China's influence in its military support for current Iran, which has managed proxy wars in the Arab East, and Trump also seeks to impose a new world. Trump's policy will certainly affect the weakening of the Iranian-Chinese-Russian alliance and the economy of the BRICS countries that seek to weaken the power of the dollar and replace it with the new currency through which global oil will be purchased.

I believe that if these wars prolong, they will certainly affect the economies of some Arab countries and also the Gulf states, not to mention Iran's endeavor to dominate the influence of some of these countries, especially those with a Shiite majority, such as Bahrain, meaning the exacerbation of the war and conflict between Persians and Arabs and Iran's endeavor to destabilize the sovereignty of some Arab countries. This battle is pivotal, especially if America manages to change the rules of the game in the Middle East and achieve Trump's goal of making Iran great again, and now seeks to change the situation from within Iran and ally with and support the Kurdish opposition and arm it to change the balance of power on the ground in Iran (thousands of Kurds today are launching a ground attack in Iran), and the Ahwazis are also preparing for the battle to liberate Ahwaz from the Iranians.