The Russian presidency (Kremlin) reported that the recent round of trilateral talks held in the Emirati capital, Abu Dhabi, was constructive, indicating an agreement to continue these meetings in the coming period to enhance coordination among the participating parties.

The statement issued by the Kremlin did not reveal the precise details of the issues discussed during the meeting, but the positive assessment suggests progress on matters of common interest that prompted this trilateral meeting in the UAE.

These statements come amidst intensive diplomatic movements in the region, as the concerned parties seek to establish dialogue pathways, while informed sources confirmed that the continuation of these talks reflects a common desire to reach deeper understandings on current regional and international issues.

The trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi were constructive and will continue.

Field sources reported the continued Israeli forces carrying out a series of intense aerial and artillery attacks that targeted wide areas in the Gaza Strip, leading to extensive destruction of properties and infrastructure. These developments come amidst a continuous field escalation witnessed in the Strip on various fronts.

The sources clarified that the Israeli army's operations were not limited to traditional shelling, but also included systematic demolition operations of residential blocks and buildings in several areas, a method that has been increasingly repeated recently to change the geographical features in those areas.

In a related context, Israeli artillery continues to randomly target the eastern and northern areas of the Strip, increasing the suffering of displaced persons and residents who face harsh humanitarian conditions, amidst the absence of any immediate signs of de-escalation of military operations on the ground.

Israeli military operations continue to target infrastructure and residential areas through concentrated aerial and artillery bombardment.

On Saturday, settlers continued to escalate their attacks in various areas of the West Bank, targeting livestock herders, farmers, and their properties, pushing residents into difficult situations that threaten their livelihoods.

The attacks included expelling herders from their pastures in the northern Jordan Valley, grazing sheep among residents' homes in the village of Fasa'il al-Wusta north of Jericho, and acts of sabotage in the plain of Al-Mughayyir village east of Ramallah, where settlers attacked agricultural lands and homes, exposing residents to direct dangers.

Palestinian sources reported that settlers forced livestock herders in the northern Jordan Valley to leave their lands and prevented them from grazing there, in a clear continuation of their escalation against citizens and their properties. In the village of Fasa'il al-Wusta, settlers grazed their sheep among the residents' homes and stormed the home of the Abayat family, a move that Hassan Malihat, the general supervisor of the Al-Baydar Organization for the Defense of Bedouin Rights, considered part of a series of escalating violations against residents in the area.

Al-Mughayyir village, east of Ramallah, also witnessed settler attacks on agricultural lands near the Al-Khalayel area, where crops and residents' properties were sabotaged, following a similar attack two days earlier in the southern part of the village, which included a direct assault on residents while they were grazing their livestock.

These attacks reflect a recurring pattern through which settlers seek to impose control over lands and displace residents, in the absence of effective protection mechanisms for those affected.

The escalating violations against residents in the area are part of a series of attacks aimed at imposing control and displacing citizens.

In a highly significant political development, the Prime Minister's Office of the occupation entity announced on Saturday evening that Benjamin Netanyahu will travel to Washington next Wednesday to meet with US President Donald Trump.

This visit comes at a critical moment, coinciding with the progress of the indirect "Muscat" negotiations between Washington and Tehran, where Netanyahu seeks to ensure that the security interests of the occupier are at the core of any agreement America concludes with the Iranian regime.

The occupation's Prime Minister's Office stressed that any negotiations with Iran should not be limited to nuclear enrichment only, but must include an explicit clause to limit cross-border ballistic missiles, and a comprehensive halt to support for those it described as "proxies" in the region.

Netanyahu believes that these conditions are the only guarantee to prevent Tehran from strengthening its regional influence under diplomatic cover.

Any negotiations with Iran should not be limited to nuclear enrichment only, but must include an explicit clause to limit ballistic missiles.

Over the past decade and a half, American strategic policy has witnessed a gradual shift towards focusing on the Indo-Pacific region, a path initiated by Barack Obama in 2011 to counter Chinese influence, and continued by strengthening military and economic alliances with countries in the region.

With Donald Trump's ascent to power in his first term in 2017, this trend solidified through the revival of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the imposition of technological restrictions on China. This approach also continued under Joe Biden, who strengthened defense relations with the Philippines and affirmed commitment to protecting Taiwan.

However, the current Trump administration is now adopting a different vision; the National Security Strategy issued last November shows that the White House's top priority is to maintain US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, with little space allocated to the strategic importance of Asia, to the extent that China was only mentioned on the nineteenth page of the document.

On the ground, relations with India deteriorated rapidly due to fluctuations in tariffs imposed by Trump, in addition to attempts at rapprochement with Pakistan. The administration also raised doubts about the reliability of its defense commitments with Japan, and adopted a more ambiguous stance towards Taiwan by declaring no opposition to unilateral changes in the Taiwan Strait.

In a notable shift, the White House recently approved the sale of advanced electronic chips to China, a move opposed by many regional partners. These indicators have prompted countries like Japan and South Korea to increase their self-military spending, while India has moved towards strengthening its alliances with other powers such as Russia, amidst a growing regional conviction that full reliance on partnership with Washington is not possible.

The United States under the Trump administration is adopting a vision that prioritizes maintaining its dominance in the Western Hemisphere, with a decline in the strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific region.

Military commentator Alon Ben David reported that the Iranian regime has entered a path of actual decline, an assessment that has become prevalent among most intelligence analysts in the occupation state. He indicated that the regime's survival is a matter of time, whether the United States launches a military attack or not, explaining that the regime will not be able to withstand continuous internal and external pressures, even if the collapse takes months or years.

Sources considered that any agreement Washington might reach with Tehran, whatever its content, would constitute a lifeline for a regime described as collapsing, likening the situation to the final stages of the Soviet Union's life, where external agreements kept a helpless regime alive for additional years. This assessment was recently conveyed to US President Donald Trump's envoys and senior officials in his administration.

The report noted that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, 87, may not realize the true state of his regime due to the circle of advisors surrounding him. It explained that Khamenei drifted in 2024 into a direct confrontation with the occupation, attacking it twice from Iranian territory, which enabled the Israeli air force to strip Iran of its defensive capabilities and leave it completely exposed.

Sources revealed that President Trump issued an order on January 14 to launch a targeted attack on Iran, but he backed down hours before execution after consultations with regional leaders. The consultations clarified that a limited strike would not change the regime's behavior but might endanger American interests, prompting Trump's team to prepare options ranging from liquidating the leadership to a broad campaign to strip the Revolutionary Guard of power.

The report pointed to the failure of the "Midnight Hammer" operation targeting nuclear facilities last June, as its results were disappointing, prompting Washington to prepare for broader action. The United States continues to reinforce its forces, despite planners realizing that the current buildup is insufficient to carry out a broad campaign, while Israel currently has more fighter jets ready to strike Iran compared to the current American presence.

Military plans face the obstacle of most regional countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait, refusing to allow the use of their airports for launching attacks, while Jordan remains the only country willing to do so alongside aircraft carriers. Analysts suggest that Trump may give negotiations a final chance to gain international legitimacy before resorting to military action, which senior defense officials see as the most likely option to end the crisis.

Any agreement Washington might reach with Tehran will constitute a lifeline for a collapsing regime, similar to what happened in the final stages of the Soviet Union's life.

In the Sultanate of Oman, yesterday, Friday, preparations began for a crucial round of negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran chose to move the negotiation venue from Turkey to Muscat, a move that reflects its desire to benefit from Oman's historical neutrality and ability to mediate successfully, away from geopolitical competition with Ankara, and to maintain the secrecy of sensitive files that will be discussed.

Data indicates that President Donald Trump's administration is dealing with the Iranian file with a 'deal' mentality, having entrusted the task to a team including Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and Thomas Barrack, who are personal associates of Trump and have major economic backgrounds. Washington is betting in this round on the military and political pressures that Tehran has recently faced, especially after the joint attack on its nuclear program and missiles in June 2025.

These negotiations come at a time when Iran is suffering from a decline in its regional influence, starting with the weakening of its strategic ally in Lebanon and the ceasefire in November 2024, leading to a radical shift in Syria with the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime in December 2024, which forced Iranian forces to withdraw and lose their military and political bases there.

Internally, the Iranian leadership faces a deep rift following the bloody popular protests that erupted last December due to the suffocating economic crisis. Observers believe that these internal pressures are the main motive behind Tehran's compulsion to sit at the negotiating table, in an attempt to avoid any direct American military strikes that could threaten the regime's stability.

For his part, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio set the ceiling for American demands, emphasizing that the talks must go beyond the nuclear file to include ballistic missile range and human rights record. In contrast, Tehran is trying to hold on to its missile program as a last line of defense for its regional influence, making these negotiations a major gamble that could determine the future of Iran's role in the region.

It seems that abandoning nuclear ambitions under these circumstances represents the end of Iran's dream of joining the global 'club of powers', while the question remains about its ability to maintain its regional arms and militias in the Arab region in the face of the Trump administration's insistence on achieving a comprehensive deal that ends this influence.

The negotiations must include, in addition to the nuclear dispute, the range of Iran's ballistic missiles and its treatment of its people.

Hebrew press reports confirmed that all indications point to the United States being on track to reach a new nuclear agreement with Iran, noting that the terms of this agreement are currently being drafted. This assessment is based on conversations with veteran commentators in Washington and high-level diplomats at the United Nations headquarters in New York, who confirmed that the current negotiations will continue for several weeks.

Observers believe that the immediate importance of these moves contradicts the assessments of Israeli security officials who see a military conflict between the two sides as inevitable. Sources close to the White House reported that the American attack on Iran has been postponed indefinitely, and that it has been ruled out of calculations for both the foreseeable and distant future.

In the context of diplomatic moves, observers in Washington interpreted the meeting held last Tuesday between Steve Witkoff, US President Donald Trump's envoy, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as a reconciliation step by Trump and a form of compensation in preparation for concluding the agreement with Tehran. The meeting witnessed an Israeli presentation of what was described as 'red lines' and the risks associated with any new agreement.

Despite Israeli attempts to influence, sources indicate that Netanyahu's views did not significantly affect Witkoff's direction, as the focus is currently on the Muscat negotiations that brought the American envoy together with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, with the participation of senior officials from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Pakistan, and Oman. The sources noted a prevailing concern among the Jewish community in New York due to Witkoff's escalating role as a key player in bilateral relations.

It is worth noting that these developments come at a time when the region is witnessing a rearrangement of diplomatic cards, as President Donald Trump's administration seeks to resolve the nuclear issue through direct and regional negotiation channels, which places Israeli military threats in the face of a new political reality.

The American attack on Iran has been postponed indefinitely, and will not happen in the foreseeable future, or perhaps even in the distant future.

The Ministry of Health in Gaza announced that a large number of patients and wounded are dying due to the obstruction of their passage for treatment outside the Strip, with the Rafah crossing closed since yesterday. This comes at a time when Israeli artillery shelled various parts of eastern Gaza City and eastern Jabalia town in the northern Strip, with a demolition operation east of Khan Younis in the southern Strip, which led to the death of a Palestinian in the Shuja'iyya neighborhood east of Gaza City, in an area located outside the areas of army deployment and control according to the Gaza ceasefire agreement.

On the humanitarian front, Zaher Al-Wahidi, director of the Information Center at the Ministry of Health in Gaza, confirmed in an interview with media sources that Israeli complications and security investigations exacerbate the suffering of Gaza residents, pointing to the closure of the Rafah crossing since yesterday. He said: "We lose patients and wounded daily due to the obstruction of their passage for treatment outside the Strip," pointing to a record shortage of medicines and medical supplies.

In this context, the Ministry warned of an imminent collapse of the healthcare system amid widespread depletion of medicines and medical supplies, and the inability of the remaining hospitals to meet the increasing needs of patients and wounded. The Ministry said in a statement that "46 percent of essential medicines, 66 percent of medical consumables, and 84 percent of laboratory materials and blood banks are unavailable in the Strip's hospitals," making the continued provision of healthcare a daily miracle.

The statement affirmed that the remaining operational hospitals in the Gaza Strip "are struggling to continue service and have turned into forced waiting stations for thousands of patients and wounded who face an unknown fate." The Ministry of Health in Gaza appealed to all concerned parties to intervene to strengthen drug stockpiles and save the health situation in the Strip's hospitals, as temporary emergency solutions are no longer effective.

Gazans are suffering tragic conditions due to the repercussions of a two-year Israeli genocide war in the Gaza Strip. Despite the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 10, 2025, Israel prevents the entry of agreed-upon quantities of humanitarian aid into Gaza, where about 2.4 million Palestinians, including 1.5 million displaced persons, live in catastrophic conditions. The Israeli occupation army also continues to violate the agreement daily by launching raids on various areas in Gaza, which has led to the death of 574 Palestinians and the injury of 1518, most of them children and women, in addition to material destruction.

In this context, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) said that 37 Palestinian children have died in the Gaza Strip since the beginning of the year amid a fragile ceasefire. The organization indicated in a report that "the situation remains extremely fragile and deadly for many children in Gaza, where children continue to suffer from airstrikes and are affected by the collapse of health, water, and education systems." It stressed the need for the ceasefire to hold and fulfill its promise to end the suffering of children in Gaza.

We lose patients and wounded daily due to the obstruction of their passage for treatment outside the Strip, and the remaining hospitals have turned into forced waiting stations facing an unknown fate.

The Israeli occupation army launched a campaign of raids, arrests, and field investigations at dawn on Saturday, targeting various areas of the occupied West Bank. The Israeli army stormed the village of Azzun, east of Qalqilya in the northern West Bank, and arrested about 21 Palestinians from the town, interrogating them on the spot, including a child, during a widespread raid and search of several homes, before releasing them later, according to local sources.

In the neighboring village of Kafr Qaddum, Israeli forces arrested Murad Shteiwi, director of the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission, according to official sources. The sources stated that the occupation forces stormed the village and arrested Shteiwi after raiding and searching his home. In Nablus, local sources reported that Israeli forces arrested a young man during a raid on a building in the northern mountain area in the center of the city.

Occupation forces also arrested a young Palestinian man in the Mina area of Bethlehem, after assaulting him and confiscating his vehicle. In the southern West Bank, the army stormed the town of Beit Ummar, north of Hebron, and arrested a young man after raiding his family's home, according to local sources. Occupation forces stormed the Far'a refugee camp in Tubas and raided several homes. Other areas in the West Bank were also subjected to Israeli night raids and foot patrols, with no arrests reported.

The number of prisoners in Israeli jails reached more than 9,300, including 56 women and 350 children, as of early February, according to a statement by the Palestinian Prisoner's Club. The Palestinian Red Crescent reported that a teenager was seriously injured by occupation bullets in the town of Al-Eizariya in Jerusalem, and another young man was injured by live bullet shrapnel during clashes in the town of Sa'ir in Hebron, which witnessed heavy firing and tear gas grenades, causing suffocation cases.

In Ramallah, clashes erupted in the village of Aboud and in the city of Al-Bireh, accompanied by gunfire and tear gas grenades. Meanwhile, sources reported that settlers stormed the vicinity of a Palestinian family's home in the village of Turmus Ayya, north of Ramallah, amidst provocations against the residents. Other settlers stormed the vicinity of a Palestinian home in the town of Qusra, south of Nablus, in the northern West Bank.

North of Hebron, in the southern West Bank, settlers released their livestock into the lands of the Hamroush area, east of the town of Sa'ir. Since the start of its war on the Gaza Strip on October 8, 2023, Israel has intensified its attacks in the West Bank, including killings, arrests, displacement, and settlement expansion. The attacks in the West Bank have resulted in at least 1,112 martyrs and approximately 11,500 injured, in addition to the arrest of more than 21,000.

The number of prisoners in Israeli jails reached more than 9,300, including 56 women and 350 children, as of early February.

The National Security Committee of the Iranian Parliament affirmed that Tehran 'has not and will not back down' from its red lines, following an indirect round of negotiations yesterday, Friday, between the United States and Iran in the Sultanate of Oman. Ibrahim Rezaei, a member of the presidium of the National Security Committee of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, wrote on the 'X' platform: 'The Islamic Republic has not backed down from its red lines and will not back down from them.'

Rezaei added that 'after the failure of all their other military, economic, terrorist, and other options, Americans today have no choice but to accept the legitimate frameworks and rights of the Iranian people.'

These statements by the Iranian official come after US President Donald Trump praised 'very good' talks with Iran on Friday, confirming that the two sides would meet again 'early next week.' Trump considered that the results of the current discussions might surprise many, saying: 'If the Iranians had presented their current offer at the beginning of the negotiations a year ago, my administration would have accepted it.'

Trump added: 'I will not allow Iran to possess a nuclear weapon, and if we could have achieved that agreement two years ago, we would have completed the deal. But the Iranians did not want to do that, and they are currently in agreement, and they are ready to offer more than they were willing to offer a year and a half ago.'

In this context, sources in Tehran stated that the negotiations did not involve any contentious discussion points regarding the technical aspects of the Iranian nuclear program. The sources clarified that future sessions are expected to include legal and technical experts specializing in nuclear matters, which will confirm whether the negotiation process will continue in its positive trajectory or not.

Despite his positive statements, the US President increased pressure on Iran yesterday, Friday, by using the tariff weapon. Trump issued an executive order imposing a 25 percent tariff on imports from any country that 'directly or indirectly' purchases goods from Iran, in implementation of his threat issued last month.

According to the text, which comes into effect today, Saturday, additional tariffs can be imposed 'on products imported into the United States that are produced by any country that directly or indirectly purchases or imports or otherwise obtains goods or services from Iran.'

Secretary of State Marco Rubio should determine the percentage these tariffs could reach, while the decree stipulated that they could be 'for example' 25 percent, a percentage mentioned by the US President in mid-January.

These tariffs will affect trade with a number of countries, including Russia, Germany, Turkey, and the UAE. According to World Trade Organization data, more than a quarter of Iran's trade activity in 2024 was with China.

The White House did not specify whether the issuance of a decree regarding these tariffs was linked to the negotiations that took place on Friday in the Sultanate of Oman. These are the first talks since the United States launched strikes last June on key sites of the Iranian nuclear program during the twelve-day aggression initiated by Israel against Iran.

After the failure of all their other military, economic, and terrorist options, Americans today have no choice but to accept the legitimate frameworks and rights of the Iranian people.

In a new escalation that raises concerns in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli occupation army, yesterday, Friday, warned of evacuating a residential building in the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, southeast of Gaza City, in preparation for bombing it, before its planes later destroyed it, in a move that brings back to the forefront the policy of 'pre-warnings' and expands the scope of targeting within civilian areas. These developments come within a series of escalating violations of the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 2025, amidst fears of entrenching an operational pattern similar to the widespread targeting scenarios applied in Lebanon.

The targeting came shortly after the occupation army issued an urgent warning to the residents of 'Shaaban Building' and its surroundings of the necessity of immediate evacuation, claiming the presence of 'Hamas infrastructure' inside or near the building. The targeted building is located in a populated area and houses dozens of Palestinians, and hundreds of families were forced to flee the neighborhood for fear of being injured.

This is the second building to be destroyed since dawn yesterday, Friday, after the demolition of a building belonging to the 'Abu Hattab' family in Khan Yunis camp, which resulted in at least one Palestinian injury and widespread damage to displacement tents and neighboring buildings. The targeting of residential buildings in the Gaza Strip sparked widespread anger among residents on social media platforms, as they considered these operations not random, but part of a clear plan implemented by the Israeli army.

Observers believed that the goal of this policy is to apply a scenario similar to what happened in southern Lebanon, which allows justifying the bombing of any building or targeting anyone classified as a threat. Activists pointed out that what is happening represents an 'exact replica' of the southern Lebanon model, referring to the similarity of military warnings thrown at villages there with those that have begun to reach Gaza neighborhoods, which they considered an indication of a long phase that may be limited to repeated strikes under the pretext of targeting weapons and military infrastructure.

Activists pointed out that the continuous escalation aims to reproduce the same operational method followed by the occupation in Lebanon, and to undermine the second phase of the ceasefire agreement and evade the obligations arising from it. In the same context, bloggers confirmed that evacuation decisions mean nothing but displacing families and pushing them into the open, considering that forced displacement has become a constant feature of the suffering of Gaza residents.

Bloggers also confirmed that the so-called 'Lebanese model' is no longer just a theoretical proposition, but has actually materialized since the ceasefire agreement came into effect on October 10, 2025, with daily violations continuing through bombing, shooting, and limited incursions despite the announcement of a cessation of hostilities. They added that Israel seeks to establish an equation that allows it to continue targeting Gaza from the air whenever it wishes without announcing the collapse of the truce, similar to its current approach in Lebanon, under the pretext of preventing Palestinian factions from rebuilding their military capabilities.

These developments come despite Washington's announcement that the second phase of the ceasefire agreement came into effect in mid-January, which includes the reopening of the Rafah crossing, an additional Israeli withdrawal, and enabling reconstruction, commitments that Israel continues to evade.

What is happening represents an exact replica of the southern Lebanon model, where military warnings are used to justify repeated strikes under the pretext of targeting weapons and infrastructure.

Potential military scenarios, should the United States decide to bomb Iranian facilities, raise major questions about the expected scale of the response. Estimates suggest that Iran and its allies might target Israel and American bases in the region, with the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, and targeting oil facilities in the Gulf. This would leave Washington facing difficult escalatory choices to save face.

In the face of this escalation, two hypotheses emerge; the first is sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to overthrow the regime, which contradicts President Trump's electoral promises to end foreign wars and drains state resources allocated to confront China. The second hypothesis is resorting to nuclear weapons, which is an unlikely option given that it would legitimize Russia's use of them in Ukraine and open the door to global nuclear chaos.

Economically, the war would be catastrophic; oil and gas prices could multiply several times over if Iran succeeds in disrupting navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, leading to global inflation and a crazy surge in basic commodity prices. These costs recall Trump's previous statements about the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, which amounted to 7 trillion dollars, an economic absurdity that the American voter will not tolerate.

Past experiences play a role in the current miscalculation; Iranian caution in responding to the assassination of Qassem Soleimani and the bombing of nuclear facilities previously, made Trump believe that Tehran would not go far in its responses. This past might lead the American administration to believe that a blockade or bombing will not have catastrophic consequences, which represents the essence of the risk in current political calculations.

In conclusion, the United States' fear of paying the high cost remains the primary deterrent to war so far. If diplomacy succeeds in conveying firm Iranian messages through intermediaries, the escalation may recede. However, any Iranian hesitation or concessions on enrichment or missile capabilities may be understood as weakness that encourages Washington and Israel to demand more under the threat of arms.

Trump, like his predecessors, knows the cost and does not want to pay it, but the difference is that he first experimented by assassinating Soleimani, and when nothing happened, he dared to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

Media sources, quoting a US official and diplomats, reported that the White House plans to hold a meeting of the "Gaza Peace Council" leaders on February 19, as part of pushing for the implementation of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement. According to the sources, the anticipated meeting will be the first official meeting of the Council and will include a donors' conference dedicated to the reconstruction of Gaza.

The sources pointed out that preparations are still in their early stages and may be subject to changes, while the White House declined to comment officially. The administration of President Donald Trump has begun communicating with dozens of countries to invite their leaders and participate in the logistical arrangements for the meeting scheduled to be held in Washington D.C.

In a related context, sources quoted Israeli officials as saying that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may meet President Donald Trump at the White House on February 18, one day before the expanded meeting.

The sources quoted the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, as saying that Washington seeks to launch an "agreed-upon disarmament process," which includes the complete destruction of military infrastructure and tunnels in the Gaza Strip.

The announcement of the "Gaza Peace Council" last month was met with widespread skepticism, as Western countries refrained from joining it due to its broad powers and the exclusive veto right granted to US President Donald Trump over its decisions, which led some countries to believe that it was an unofficial alternative to the UN Security Council.

The "Gaza Peace Council" currently has 27 members chaired by Trump, and it has received a mandate from the Security Council to oversee the implementation of the ceasefire and work on governance and reconstruction files. The implementation of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement, which came into effect last October, is proceeding very slowly, as Israel has allowed the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, while the technocratic Palestinian government is still operating from Egypt without entering Gaza.

Washington seeks to launch an agreed-upon disarmament process, which includes the destruction of military infrastructure and tunnels in the Gaza Strip.

US President Donald Trump on Friday praised talks he described as 'very good' taking place with Iran, following an indirect round of negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic in the Sultanate of Oman, confirming that the two sides would meet again 'early next week'. Tehran had earlier announced an agreement to continue negotiations with Washington after the current round of talks concluded.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that the indirect negotiations held with the United States were a 'good start', noting that there was an agreement on the principle of continuing the negotiation process and an agreement to continue meetings.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One: 'We had very good talks about Iran, and it seems Iran is very eager to make a deal,' adding that the two sides would meet again early next week.

These talks are the first since the United States launched strikes on key sites of Iran's nuclear program last June during the twelve-day war that Israel initiated against Iran. These moves come as Washington strengthens its military capabilities in the Middle East by deploying the aircraft carrier 'Abraham Lincoln', while Iran has vowed to target American bases if attacked.

Araghchi led his country's delegation in the talks, while the American delegation was led by Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy to the Middle East, in addition to the President's son-in-law Jared Kushner. Araghchi praised the atmosphere of the talks, explaining in statements to Iranian state television that they took place in a positive atmosphere where the two sides exchanged views, with an agreement to determine mechanisms and timing later.

Araghchi stressed that the discussions focus exclusively on the nuclear issue, refusing to discuss any other issues, while the United States emphasizes the necessity of addressing the ballistic missile program and Iranian support for armed groups in the region.

Iran's Foreign Minister urged Washington to stop 'threats' to ensure the completion of the discussions, noting that negotiators would decide how to proceed after consulting with their leaders. For his part, the Omani Foreign Minister described the talks held in Muscat as 'very serious', emphasizing the importance of clarifying positions and identifying areas of possible progress.

Araghchi had affirmed his country's readiness to defend its sovereignty against any 'excessive demands', stressing that Iran enters diplomacy 'with open eyes' and in good faith while adhering to its rights.

We had very good talks about Iran, and it seems Iran is very eager to make a deal.

In the halls of Washington and the media centers monitoring the conflict in the Middle East, highly divergent expectations have emerged regarding a potential US strike on Iran. These expectations differ not only in degree but also in kind, revealing a deep divergence of opinions among seasoned analysts reading the same data. This division presents the world with a difficult choice between two irreconcilable predictions, at a time when one of the most important decisions the Trump administration must make needs to be evaluated.

One of these analysts, Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, believes that if a US military action were to actually occur, it would be a 'calculated restraint,' and would ultimately prove to be merely a 'face-saving' measure. This action would be limited in scope, unilateral, and aimed above all at solving the political conundrum currently facing Trump. In stark contrast, an analysis by former CIA intelligence officers Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern suggests that US military action could happen within days, leading to an all-out conflagration that would engulf US bases, Israel, and the global economy.

The striking disparity between two irreconcilable predictions lies at the heart of this analysis; while Professor Mearsheimer sees calculated restraint stemming from military impotence, Johnson and McGovern see an unstoppable march towards war. Professor Mearsheimer built his analytical framework on a grim reality: that regime change in Iran remains militarily impossible and would have enormous negative regional consequences. Indeed, his analysis suggests that US military leaders informed Trump on January 14 that they could not guarantee regime change, especially after the failure of CIA-planned protests in the streets of Iran.

This leaves Trump with a series of painful choices. Mearsheimer says: 'Simply massing more military forces in the region does not make regime change more achievable, and this is precisely the problem Trump has brought upon himself with his aggressive rhetoric.' He adds that the only option left for him now is to launch a 'limited strike, a means of saving face to declare victory and then withdraw.' However, this also carries serious risks, as 'Iran has made it clear that any military strike, however limited, will lead to a full retaliatory response.'

The consequences of such an event would be easy to predict: 'Iranian missiles falling on American targets across the Middle East, attacks on Israel despite its attempts to stay out of this war, and perhaps even an attack on the Strait of Hormuz, an act that would have devastating consequences for the global economy.' A fundamental assumption in Mearsheimer's argument is his assertion that US policy towards Iran is not driven by legitimate security concerns, but by 'the Israeli lobby.' He cited the Clinton administration's attempt at rapprochement with Iran as an example of how US presidents have been prevented by the lobby from pursuing beneficial policies, and how this creates a constant risk of war between the two countries.

Johnson and McGovern have no such doubts. Based on their access to intelligence sources and back channels, they reported that 'a US strike could happen this weekend or next week, with Iran immediately declaring war.' The operational difficulties they present are enormous; Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and the UAE reportedly refused to allow the United States to use their airspace, leaving aircraft carriers in vulnerable positions off their coasts. Johnson calculates that the naval fleet's air defense missiles would run out within 10 days of fighting without access to a safe port for resupply, should Bahrain be attacked.

Johnson clearly states: 'Iran is likely to declare war,' outlining Tehran's three-pronged approach: attacking US bases in the region, attacking Israel, and closing the Strait of Hormuz. Johnson notes that Iran is making its intentions clear to oil-dependent countries in the Gulf and Asia, hoping that these countries will pressure the United States to back down. McGovern, meanwhile, paints the potential consequences in darker colors, suggesting that Trump may commit the fatal error of 'the law of unintended consequences,' which could push Iran to 'annihilate' Israel.

McGovern points out that the justification for war is clear; US intelligence assessments concluded that Iran 'might consider the possibility' of resuming its nuclear program, which is not a justification for unleashing a potential catastrophe. Again, McGovern points to Israel's role as a driving force behind the United States, saying that '98 percent of the reason we are going to war with Iran is due to the priorities of the government in Jerusalem, which are sacred in Washington.' But unlike Mearsheimer's scenario, McGovern makes it clear that there is no evidence of Iran backing down. Johnson notes that the June operation did not even succeed in crippling Iran's ability to retaliate, as retaliation came within ten hours.

What explains these divergent conclusions? While both analyses agree that the influential variables are Trump's hawkish stance, Iranian deterrence capability, Israel's interests, and the impossibility of regime change, they reach different conclusions regarding the timing and likelihood of such a war. Mearsheimer's conclusions are based on 'rational actor theory,' which holds that the impossibility of military action and catastrophic consequences will ultimately dictate the behavior of the parties. Johnson and McGovern's conclusions, on the other hand, are based on insider information, with both believing that the momentum of the situation has exceeded the parties' ability to think rationally and strategically.

The implications of this analytical disagreement are significant, as the results of a war with Iran would be catastrophic, not only for the Middle East but for the entire world; such a war has the potential to create a global economic crisis, as well as the possibility of drawing in Russia and China, given their significant interests in Iranian oil fields. The question that the interested observer must ask is: which interpretation of the same intelligence information should be believed? Should we believe the professor who believes that the strategic paralysis caused by military impossibility will govern actions, or the intelligence experts who believe that there is an unstoppable momentum towards the coming conflict? The answer to this question will determine whether the coming weeks will see tense diplomatic maneuvers or the outbreak of the most dangerous conflict in the Middle East in decades.

98 percent of the reason we are going to war with Iran is due to the priorities of the government in Jerusalem, which are sacred in Washington.

A Palestinian child was injured by live bullets in occupied Jerusalem, while Israeli forces carried out a wide campaign of incursions and arrests in several cities and towns in the West Bank, resulting in injuries and the arrest of dozens of citizens. The Jerusalem Governorate reported that a 15-year-old child was injured by Israeli occupation forces' bullets in the town of Al-Eizariya, east of occupied Jerusalem, after a special force in a civilian vehicle opened fire on a group of children and youths near the separation wall in the Qanater area.

The Governorate added that the child, a resident of Abu Dis town, was injured in the lower extremities and suffered severe bleeding, and his condition was described as critical. The Governorate stated that Israeli forces prevented ambulance crews and citizens from reaching the injured child for more than an hour, and imposed a military cordon on the area, before allowing Palestinian Red Crescent crews to provide first aid and transport him to the hospital.

In the occupied West Bank, Israeli occupation forces arrested 21 citizens during a wide incursion campaign into the town of Azzun, east of Qalqilya, accompanied by a complete closure of the town's entrances, raids on homes, searches and destruction of property, and field detention and interrogation of a number of residents. Local sources reported that occupation forces stormed the city of Al-Bireh and stationed themselves near Al-Am'ari refugee camp, and fired live bullets and a flare bomb, with no injuries reported.

In Hebron Governorate, a 20-year-old young man was injured by live bullet shrapnel in his hands and legs during an incursion into the town of Sa'ir, northeast of the city. A number of citizens also suffered from suffocation due to the firing of tear gas canisters in the towns of Sa'ir and Beit Ummar, where witnesses reported that occupation forces assaulted a young man and closed commercial shops. Israeli forces also arrested a young man from Khirbet Janba in Masafer Yatta, south of Hebron, after storming citizens' homes and firing sound bombs.

In Salfit Governorate, two citizens from the town of Deir Ballut, including the head of the town's municipality, were arrested during an incursion into its western area, while Israeli forces raided homes in the eastern neighborhood of Jenin city, detained 3 young men and two children, and conducted searches and identity checks of citizens.

In a related context, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and all Palestine and Jordan, Theophilos III, warned of escalating settler attacks in the West Bank, expressing his concern about settlement expansion and restrictions on freedom of worship in Jerusalem. During his meeting with consuls general and members of the diplomatic corps, he called for serious international action to protect civilians and ensure access to holy sites, emphasizing the heavy human cost borne by Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip.

Since the outbreak of the war on the Gaza Strip on October 8, 2023, Israel has escalated its attacks in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, through killing, arresting, displacing, and expanding settlements. These attacks have resulted in the martyrdom of at least 1,112 Palestinians, the injury of about 11,500 others, in addition to the arrest of more than 21,000 people, according to official data.

Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem called for serious international action to protect civilians and ensure access to holy sites, emphasizing the heavy human cost borne by Palestinians.

The positions of several Middle Eastern countries have undergone significant shifts regarding the prospects of military escalation with Iran, amidst rising regional tension and increasing pressure on the United States to make a decisive choice between military and diplomatic paths. Sources reported that further regional conflict could lead to chaos and perhaps open opportunities at the same time, as US President Donald Trump said on January 2: "We are ready," promising that America would intervene to save Iranians protesting their regime, while Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed to ignite a regional war if Washington launched airstrikes.

Initially, few in the Middle East seemed enthusiastic about further conflict, and decision-makers in the region tried to dissuade America from military action, but positions now appear more varied. Israel had previously opposed strikes, fearing that an attack would be symbolic and provoke Tehran to launch missiles before Tel Aviv was ready, and Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, was surprisingly reserved when he stated in January: "The best revolutions start from within."

A month later, Israel began urging America to launch an attack, and its generals traveled to Washington to discuss strike plans. On February 3, Steve Witkoff, Trump's envoy, met Netanyahu, who tried to convince him that any agreement with Iran was futile. Saudi Arabia's position also became more nuanced; after initial warnings against using its airspace, Prince Khalid bin Salman, the Minister of Defense, was quoted as telling US officials on January 30 that if an attack did not occur, "it would only encourage the Iranian regime."

Several factors explain these shifts, including reassurance from the massive American military buildup and the arrival of the aircraft carrier "USS Abraham Lincoln" and additional air defense batteries, which gives Trump the option of launching a sustained air campaign. On the other hand, Israelis and Saudis fear that any diplomatic agreement, especially if it includes sanctions relief, might give the regime in Tehran a chance to survive despite the damage to its nuclear program in the twelve-day war last June.

In contrast, Turkey stands out as a major opponent of any military intervention, fearing that a war on its 534-kilometer-long border could cause mass displacement. Its foreign minister, Hakan Fidan, urges Americans to continue negotiations. Ankara's influence has grown since the Syrian revolution in late 2024, with Trump crediting Erdogan for the fall of the Assad regime, while Netanyahu sees Israel's strikes on Hezbollah as the main reason.

This does not happen in isolation from reality, as the region still suffers from the effects of the past two years' wars, and Trump has complicated the situation with shifting alliances. In the wake of military victories, Israel saw itself as the dominant regional power, while Iran today appears weaker than ever, amidst increasing competition for influence that could ignite widespread chaos or create new opportunities.

Prince Khalid bin Salman told US officials on January 30 that the absence of an attack would only encourage the Iranian regime.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) announced on Thursday the actual start of installing the first batch of relief housing units in the Gaza Strip. This step comes as part of the 'Gaza Neighborhoods' program, which aims to support the most vulnerable groups and provide urgent shelter solutions in light of the escalating humanitarian crisis in the Strip.

This process is being carried out in close coordination with the Government Emergency Room, the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, and relevant ministries, as well as international partners. The project aims to provide temporary housing solutions that preserve the dignity of displaced persons, with units consisting of a durable metal structure covered with insulating panels to withstand weather conditions.

UNDP expressed its gratitude to the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Korea, and the Kingdom of Sweden, in appreciation of their generous support and funding for these units, which come at a very critical time, especially with the number of displaced persons within the Strip reaching approximately 1.9 million Palestinians, making the needs for transitional shelter enormous and unprecedented.

The program affirmed that this initiative is part of the 'Neighborhood Approach' strategy it is implementing in cooperation with other UN agencies. This vision is not limited to providing shelter only, but extends to include improving access to health and educational services, providing water and sanitation supplies, and solid waste management.

Sources revealed that additional transitional shelter units have been prepared and purchased in advance, and work is currently underway to complete the procedures for their entry into the Strip based on joint field assessments of the needs of the local community in various affected areas.

This initiative is part of the 'Neighborhood Approach' strategy, which aims to provide dignified shelter solutions for displaced persons and improve access to basic services.

A new investigative report, broadcast on Friday evening, revealed direct cooperation between armed groups and the Israeli occupation army in the Gaza Strip, based on documented audio and video confessions of an agent who was arrested after carrying out the assassination of an officer from the internal security apparatus in Gaza.

The investigation showed the agent's confessions as he received direct orders from an Israeli intelligence officer, who asked him to place a hidden camera on his clothes to document the entire operation from planning to execution. Footage obtained from security agencies in Gaza highlighted direct communication between the agent and the Israeli intelligence officer while following the details of the assassination of Internal Security Officer Ahmed Zamzam, which was carried out on December 24, 2020.

During the investigations, the agent (M.J.) confessed to carrying out the operation under full cover from the Israeli occupation army, while the recording camera installed on his clothes showed immediate instructions from the Israeli intelligence officer leading up to the assassination. The confessions also revealed that the perpetrators of the operation were trained by Israeli intelligence, and that they used silenced pistols and two electric motorcycles. According to the investigation, Officer Ahmed Zamzam was directly responsible for the file of armed groups cooperating with the occupation.

Following the assassination, a source in the resistance security stated that one of the three agents involved in the assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Zamzam in the Maghazi refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip confessed, after his arrest, that agent Shawqi Abu Naseera summoned him and two other agents to a meeting with an officer from the occupation intelligence.

The source added that the Israeli officer informed the agents that their mission was to kill Lieutenant Colonel Zamzam on the pretext that he was managing a security file that could lead to their exposure and that of other agents, noting that the officer handed them three silenced pistols, three electric motorcycles, clothes equipped with small cameras, and phones connected to wireless headphones, in addition to the coordinates of Officer Zamzam's movement path.

The investigation also revealed the names and training locations of members of armed groups cooperating with the Israeli occupation army in the Gaza Strip, and presented the full protocol for recruiting Israeli agents within the Strip. In the promotional material for the investigation, the voice of one person appeared saying: 'My father.. see if the camera on the shirt is working,' referring to the field documentation of operations.

The investigation showed that a network of armed groups is spread across the Gaza Strip from north to south, moving freely behind the 'Yellow Line' which represents the security separation route where Israeli forces are stationed. These groups face multiple accusations of cooperating with the occupation, despite denials from some of their leaders, amid increasing evidence of their movement within areas prohibited to Palestinians according to the ceasefire agreement.

Among the most prominent of these formations is the 'Popular Forces' group, founded by Yasser Abu Shabab, who was later killed and succeeded by Ghassan Al-Dahini. Hussam Al-Astal also leads another armed group that has sparked widespread controversy due to its frequent appearance in video clips within areas prohibited to Palestinians south of Khan Younis. Last August, Al-Astal officially announced the formation of his groups under the name 'The Striking Force for Combating Terrorism,' a move that raised suspicions, especially since he was detained until the beginning of the war on the Strip on charges related to dealing with Israel by the Ministry of Interior in Gaza.

In the Shuja'iyya neighborhood east of Gaza City, a group led by Rami Adnan Helles is active, while Ashraf Al-Mansi leads what is known as the 'Popular Army' in Beit Lahia and Beit Hanoun, a group that was formed last September under the direct patronage of Yasser Abu Shabab, revealing a network of coordination and cooperation between these armed formations across the geography of the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli officer informed the agents that their mission was to kill Lieutenant Colonel Zamzam on the pretext that he was managing a security file that could lead to their exposure.

Israelis are anticipating the imminent entry of foreign journalists into the Gaza Strip, where destruction and devastation are widespread, amidst Israeli fears that the Strip will once again dominate global headlines. Gadi Ezra, an Israeli propaganda expert, affirmed that the scenes of destruction and chaos in Gaza will prompt journalists, as humans who wish to present new angles and justify their role, to launch a widespread media campaign in traditional media, social networks, and various political circles.

Ezra added in an article published by Yedioth Ahronoth that the fundamental problem Israel will face is a narrative mix combining the description of Gaza as 'the world's largest open-air prison' and accusations of 'genocide.' He explained that the world will witness an exaggerated presentation including humanitarian stories, images of obliterated areas, and calls for a peaceful life that the media will portray as being prevented by 'Israeli thugs.'

The Israeli expert pointed out that the narrative foreign journalists will return with is an accusation against the army of using Gaza residents as human shields and depriving them of their dignity. He warned that these details would marginalize the events of October 7th in international memory, while enhancing Palestinians' sense of pride and identification with their nationalism, which serves their goal of tarnishing Israel's international reputation.

He explained that the anticipated coverage would portray Israeli operations in Gaza in a bloody light, consistent with the goals of the anti-Israel camp seeking to establish a Palestinian state and describe Israel as an apartheid state. He considered that the entry of journalists would intensify the media conflict, as it would provide each party with an opportunity to showcase its priorities to the world.

In a related context, Ezra noted that the current competitors in the arena are seeking to win the support of US President Donald Trump through various methods, indicating that whoever succeeds in portraying themselves as the ultimate savior will increase their chances of winning the support of the US administration. He concluded by saying that the entry of journalists represents a major challenge, but it could become an opportunity if the Israeli narrative is conveyed, claiming that the presence of a moderate civilian leadership in Gaza is an Israeli interest to pave the way for the elimination of Hamas.

The scenes of destruction in Gaza will prompt journalists to present new angles that may ignite a widespread media campaign against Israel in global media.

By: Said Arikat

Thomas Friedman’s recent column, “Minneapolis and Gaza Now Share the Same Violent Language,” attempts to draw a moral and operational equivalence between American domestic policing under ICE and the violence witnessed in Gaza. On the surface, his argument might seem provocative: masks, gunfire, chaos, and political opportunism. Yet a closer reading reveals a familiar pattern in Friedman’s work—a selective framing that downplays Israel’s systematic occupation while subtly conflating Palestinian resistance with lawlessness. In attempting to critique U.S. domestic enforcement, Friedman inadvertently reinforces the very narratives that normalize Israel’s decades-long military domination.

Friedman’s comparison rests heavily on optics. He notes that ICE officers, like Hamas fighters, wear masks, suggesting a hidden intent or fear of accountability. He argues that photographs of the two could be indistinguishable. This observation, however, collapses a vast power asymmetry into a superficial visual parallel. ICE officers operate as agents of a state with judicial oversight, paid salaries, and a political mandate; Hamas fighters operate as militants resisting an occupying power with a centuries-long history of displacement and disenfranchisement. By suggesting that a visual resemblance implies equivalence in behavior or culpability, Friedman sidesteps the structural realities of occupation. The Israeli military, whose conduct he treats as exceptional yet morally constrained, routinely engages in actions—airstrikes, targeted assassinations, checkpoints, collective punishment—that far exceed ICE’s domestic reach and consequences.

Friedman’s critique of ICE is in part valid. The videos he cites—of Renee Good and Alex Jeffrey Pretti being shot or endangered—demonstrate the hazards of aggressive enforcement and militarized policing. Yet he frames these incidents as part of a moral symmetry with Gaza’s suffering, implying that American citizens are subject to the same patterns of state violence as Palestinians under occupation. This is misleading. In Gaza, Israel’s occupation is constant, pervasive, and designed to control not just movement but resources, governance, and survival. Palestinians live under checkpoints, airstrikes, siege, and a military judiciary that functions outside ordinary civilian law. The trauma and structural violence are not momentary episodes of overreach but a sustained system of control—one that Friedman, despite his extensive Middle East reporting, rarely confronts directly in his work.

Friedman also frames Netanyahu’s electoral calculations as morally equivalent to Trump’s ambitions in Minneapolis, suggesting that both leaders exploit violence for political gain. While it is certainly true that political expediency shapes decision-making everywhere, his framing minimizes the fact that Israel’s policies are embedded in occupation. Netanyahu’s calculations are not about mere electoral optics—they are about maintaining an internationally contested military occupation, displacing populations, and enforcing a systemic hierarchy of citizenship. To equate this with domestic U.S. politics, where ICE actions occur within the framework of a legal system with avenues for accountability, is to obscure the magnitude of Israeli state violence.

Equally troubling is Friedman’s treatment of Palestinian casualties. He expresses sympathy for the journalists killed in Gaza but presents their deaths primarily as collateral damage in a narrative about Israel’s “fire, ready, aim” culture. He fails to interrogate the legal and moral frameworks that govern an occupying army’s responsibilities under international law. By highlighting these deaths as errors or lapses rather than as the predictable outcome of an ongoing siege and occupation, Friedman perpetuates the normalization of Israeli military impunity. The pattern is consistent with his longstanding stance: unwavering support for Israel, coupled with a selective acknowledgment of harm when it cannot be ignored.

Ironically, Friedman’s column indirectly supports the very analogy he seems hesitant to make: ICE officers do, in fact, emulate Israeli occupation practices. Militarized raids, coordinated assaults on civilian areas, targeting of individuals based on perceived threat, and a culture of anonymity—all mirror techniques used by the Israeli military in Gaza and the West Bank. Yet Friedman quickly draws back from this implication, reframing it as a superficial resemblance rather than a critique of systemic influence. His reluctance to fully confront this reality reflects a broader reluctance in his work to challenge Israel’s strategic and moral policies, even when parallels are unmistakable.

Friedman’s column further underplays the human agency and resistance of Palestinians. Hamas is presented largely as an obstacle to peace or a political nuisance, rather than as a movement emerging under conditions of occupation, siege, and systemic disenfranchisement. By emphasizing the group’s electoral or military calculations, Friedman ignores the context that produces these choices. He paints Palestinian actions as morally flawed, while glossing over Israel’s structural role in creating and sustaining the conditions for conflict. In doing so, he mirrors a common journalistic bias: attributing violence primarily to the oppressed while treating the oppressor’s decisions as strategic necessity or electoral politics.

Finally, Friedman’s repeated invocation of electoral politics—Trump, Netanyahu, Hamas—is reductive. It suggests a symmetry of choice that obscures power disparities. Palestinian leadership does not wield a state apparatus comparable to Israel’s. ICE officers, despite abuses, operate under a domestic legal framework with comparatively limited lethality. By failing to account for these differences, Friedman’s moral equivalence risks flattening the lived realities of those under occupation, presenting them as morally ambiguous actors rather than victims of a structured system of oppression.

In sum, Thomas Friedman’s attempt to link Minneapolis policing with violence in Gaza is a superficial, misleading equivalence that obscures the reality of Israeli occupation. His visual analogies and focus on individual incidents distract from systemic power imbalances, leaving readers with an impression of symmetry that does not exist. If anything, Friedman inadvertently confirms that American enforcement agencies have imported occupation-style practices, yet he cannot—or will not—fully acknowledge the ethical and political implications. The column thus reflects a long-standing pattern: a reluctance to critically confront Israel’s military actions and occupation, even while drawing attention to abuses elsewhere. ICE may mirror some tactics of the Israeli military, but the moral and structural context is crucial—and Friedman’s framing obscures it entirely.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aty said on Friday that attempts to divide the Gaza Strip are a "red line that cannot be accepted," accusing Israel of obstructing the travel of Palestinians through the Rafah crossing and hindering the entry of humanitarian aid. Abdel Aty added, in a press conference following a meeting of the ministerial committee of the Arab-Islamic Contact Group in Slovenia, that this Egyptian position is firm regarding the unity of the Strip.

The Egyptian minister pointed out that the situation in Gaza remains very fragile despite some slight progress, and criticized the limited opening from the Palestinian side at the Rafah border crossing, stressing that Israel places obstacles to the movement of Palestinians from both sides and hinders the arrival of essential relief supplies to the besieged Strip.

Regarding the West Bank, Abdel Aty affirmed that the situation is deteriorating with Israel's continued policy of repression, intimidation of civilians, and seizure of land by force, emphasizing that the absence of a political horizon exacerbates the crisis on the ground.

Regarding the de-escalation path, Abdel Aty explained: "We are working to consolidate the ceasefire in Gaza, and we are consulting with our partners in the Middle East, the European Union, and the United States regarding an agreement to move forward," without delving into additional details about the terms of these consultations.

Abdel Aty stressed the importance of intensifying the entry of humanitarian aid, describing the situation on the ground in Gaza as "tragic," and pointing out that stability for Israel in the region cannot be achieved without the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Last mid-January, the United States announced the entry into force of the second phase of US President Donald Trump's plan for Gaza, despite Israel's request to postpone it. However, Tel Aviv continues to tighten procedures through the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing and continues its military operations.

On regional affairs, Abdel Aty said that Egypt is working intensively to prevent the outbreak of a comprehensive war and encourage diplomatic solutions to stop the escalation. This coincided with the Omani capital, Muscat, hosting negotiations between the United States and Iran today, Friday, resuming a path that was disrupted in June 2025 after raids targeted Iranian facilities.

Attempts to divide the Gaza Strip are a red line that cannot be accepted, and there is no stability for Israel without the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Ami Ben Dror, the former head of the security team for the Prime Minister of the occupation, Benjamin Netanyahu, revealed a series of moral and behavioral scandals related to Netanyahu and his family, especially his wife Sara, whom he described as "obsessed with theft." Dror explained in a press interview on Friday that he joined the VIP protection unit after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and worked with former leaders such as Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak.

Dror pointed out that Netanyahu systematically evaded paying restaurant bills, which forced security personnel and assistants to pay them out of their own pockets. He recounted an incident at the "King David" hotel in Jerusalem, where Netanyahu ignored the bill despite it being brought early, describing his behavior as "garbage on a moral level," considering that his position exacerbated these behaviors in him and his inner circle.

Regarding Sara Netanyahu, Dror described her as suffering from "kleptomania" (pathological obsession with theft), confirming that she steals hotel towels and official gifts that belong to the state. He added that she is the center of gravity in the home and was the driving force behind stopping the plea bargain deal to ensure remaining in power, believing that her son Yair would politically inherit his father.

The former head of security also confirmed details of Yair Netanyahu's physical assault on his father, incidents that Netanyahu had previously denied. Dror explained that these assaults were severe and required direct intervention from the security team to protect Netanyahu, noting that this incident was the main reason behind sending Yair to live in Miami, USA.

Dror touched upon Netanyahu's relationship with his daughter "Noa" from his first wife, revealing that he had to meet her secretly in Jerusalem cafes between 1996 and 1999 away from the eyes of his current family, before the meetings completely ceased, which he considered behavior that does not indicate a "normal father."

Dror concluded his remarks by expressing his hope of seeing Netanyahu behind bars, not out of revenge but to achieve justice. He accused him of obstructing prisoner exchange deals for political motives, which led to the death of about 44 prisoners who could have returned alive, stressing that his decisions were always subject to procrastination and political pressure.

Netanyahu was never a moral person; he used to eat in restaurants without paying the bill, and guards and assistants were forced to pay the bill for him.

The Syrian and Iraqi arenas are witnessing rapid security and political changes, coinciding with an American military repositioning in the region, represented by withdrawals from strategic sites that had been under American control for years. These movements raise questions about the priorities of the American administration in the post-direct presence phase, and the goals it seeks to achieve on both the political and security levels in Syria and Iraq.

A high-ranking security source revealed that American forces have begun gradual withdrawal operations from the Al-Shaddadi base south of Hasakah Governorate in Syria, heading towards Erbil in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. The withdrawal included the transfer of equipment via ground convoys and the evacuation of some personnel by air, without full clarification of the reasons or their connection to larger redeployment plans in the region.

This move came after statements by US administration officials regarding a complete withdrawal from Syria by mid-this year, amid the declining role of the Syrian Democratic Forces as a main force against ISIS, and the advance of the Syrian army in the northeast of the country. The US envoy for Syrian affairs coordination, Tom Brack, confirmed that Syrian government forces are qualified to take over security tasks after Damascus joined the international coalition to combat ISIS last November, which reshaped the military and political landscape in the region.

In Iraq, the Higher Military Committee confirmed the completion of the withdrawal of the US-led international coalition forces from Ain al-Asad base in Anbar, as part of an agreement signed with Baghdad in 2024. The agreement stipulates the termination of the military coalition's mission by the end of 2025, and the evacuation of forces from the region by this September.

The withdrawal included the gradual transfer of equipment and soldiers to bases such as Erbil and Harir, with a focus on continued security and intelligence coordination with local forces to ensure border monitoring and the pursuit of ISIS cells. Experts indicate that the American goal is not limited to direct withdrawal, but also includes preventing the return of ISIS, ending Iranian influence, supporting the political process to achieve relative stability, protecting Israel's security and continuing attempts to bring Damascus into security agreements with Tel Aviv, protecting economic interests, and containing Russian influence in the region.

Syrian government forces are qualified to take over security tasks after Damascus joined the international coalition to combat ISIS last November.

The Sultanate of Oman has returned to the forefront of the regional scene as a platform for indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran, at a highly complex moment where the ongoing war in Gaza intersects with escalating tension on the Lebanese front. Through this channel, Washington seeks to contain the regional explosion and prevent it from sliding into a comprehensive confrontation, while the discussions in Muscat go beyond the nuclear file to include the core of regional balances and the future roles of Tehran's allies.

According to analytical sources, the current negotiations aim to extract guarantees related to Iranian regional behavior and the nuclear program, while Tehran seeks an economic breathing space to confront accumulated pressures. However, the current American vision, influenced by President Donald Trump's administration, emerges as an obstacle to flexible solutions, placing the region at a pivotal moment that may not be repeated.

Hezbollah stands out as one of the undeclared variables at the negotiating table, as the party is no longer merely a military ally, but an influential element in the equation of stability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Any understanding between Washington and Tehran will directly reflect on the ceiling of its military movement and its internal positioning in Lebanon, especially in light of the challenges raised by the party's leaders, including Sheikh Naim Qassem and Hajj Mohammad Raad, regarding support mechanisms in the event of aggression against Iran.

Should the negotiations succeed, the scene may move towards a reduction in military escalation, especially on the southern front of Lebanon, in exchange for strengthening political presence within the equation of "controlled stability." New approaches to the relationship between arms and the state may be proposed, based on adapting to regional transformations, a path that coincides with international pressures that increased after the Lebanese army commander's return from his recent visit to Washington.

However, if the negotiation process fails, expectations indicate a doubling of pressure on fragile arenas, foremost among them Lebanon. Hezbollah may find itself facing a broader Israeli escalation that goes beyond the familiar rules of engagement, amid internal economic collapse and a decline in the state's ability to contain, making the cost of confrontation higher and the margin for maneuver much narrower.

The data indicate that the post-Oman negotiations phase will necessitate a redefinition of roles according to new balances that place internal stability at the core of calculations. Hezbollah will face a historical test to transform these shifts into a stabilizing element, especially since the next decade in Lebanon will be managed by more precise and sensitive equations towards any error in assessing the cloudy regional situation.

Whatever the outcomes of the Oman negotiations, their results will establish a new reality in the regional environment within which Iran's allies operate, foremost among them Hezbollah.

The issue of Palestinian lands in occupied Jerusalem has returned to the forefront, following an Israeli decision to complete the registration of the city's lands in the land registry, in a move that Palestinian parties say aims to facilitate control over lands in East Jerusalem and enhance settlement expansion. According to press reports, the Israeli government has allocated about 30 million shekels (approximately $9.6 million) to implement what it calls 'land settlement and registration,' a process that actually began in 2018.

Palestinian parties and human rights organizations confirm that the decision exploits real estate regulation to expand settlement, and reinforces the application of the 'Absentee Property Law' which is used to seize Palestinian properties, amid great difficulties faced by Jerusalemites in proving ownership due to Israeli complexities. On the ground, reports indicate the registration of about two thousand dunams over the past eight years, most of which are for neighborhoods and settlements, in addition to transferring lands to state ownership and attempts to issue eviction orders against Palestinian families.

Jerusalemites warn that these steps represent an unprecedented escalation that threatens their existence and aims to change the demographic and geographic reality of the city. Data indicates that the number of settlers in the West Bank reached about 770,000 by the end of 2024, distributed among 180 settlements and 256 settlement outposts, 138 of which are classified as pastoral and agricultural.

The United Nations affirms that settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories is illegal and undermines the possibility of implementing the two-state solution, calling for decades for its cessation without success, as Israel seeks to change the demographic structure of the region and displace Palestinians, entrenching the occupation and liquidating the Palestinian cause.

According to data from the Palestinian Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission, settler groups committed about 4,723 attacks in the occupied West Bank during 2025, resulting in the martyrdom of 14 Palestinians and the displacement of 13 Bedouin communities comprising 1,090 people.

The decision exploits real estate regulation to expand settlement, and reinforces the application of the 'Absentee Property Law' which is used to seize Palestinian properties.

The Gaza Strip is experiencing a severe fuel crisis that directly impacts hospitals, government agencies, municipalities, and essential services, amidst escalating challenges despite the second phase of the ceasefire agreement coming into effect. From the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Yunis, south of the Strip, sources reported that electricity generators are operating at no more than 40% of their maximum capacity, due to fuel shortages and the breakdown of some generators due to a lack of spare parts, while the Israeli occupation prevents the entry of new large generators.

Sources added that the number of fuel trucks that have entered Gaza since the agreement came into force does not exceed 14% of what is required, which threatens the continuity of operations at the Nasser Complex and delays the provision of medical services to patients, especially children, the elderly, and those with chronic diseases. They confirmed that the medical sector faces double pressure due to fuel shortages, as hospitals rely on generators to ensure the continuity of operating rooms and critical departments, noting that the continuous shortage threatens the healthcare system's ability to provide necessary care and increases the difficulty of transferring emergency cases for treatment abroad.

In Gaza City, sources quoted the management of a fuel station as saying that 70% of stations were completely or partially damaged during the recent war, while the daily supplied fuel volume is insufficient to meet needs. Sources said that sales have dropped from more than 10,000 liters per day before the war to only about 200 liters currently, indicating that residents are forced to rely on black markets and unsafe alternatives, amid a significant increase in prices.

Sources warned that the restrictions imposed by the Israeli occupation on the entry of fuel equipment and spare parts further complicate the crisis, as there are no alternatives to operate generators or repair damaged equipment, which leaves residents and healthcare providers in direct confrontation with an ongoing crisis that threatens their daily lives.

Residents of the Gaza Strip suffer from complex crises created by Israel with the aim of pressuring the population and turning their lives into an unbearable hell, after a two-year war of extermination, which left more than 71,000 martyrs and over 171,000 injured, and massive destruction affecting 90% of civilian infrastructure.

The number of fuel trucks that have entered Gaza since the agreement came into force does not exceed 14% of what is required, which threatens the continuity of operations at the Nasser Medical Complex and delays services for patients.

The Israeli occupation army issued an urgent warning on Friday to residents of the Zeitoun neighborhood in the Gaza Strip, specifically those living at the intersection of 'Umm Al-Mu'minin' and 'Al-Ma'madani Al-Barriya' streets, demanding them to immediately evacuate a specific building and its surrounding areas, in preparation for launching a military attack on it in the near future.

The occupation army clarified in its statement that this warning targets a building marked in red, in addition to all residents in its vicinity, in preparation for launching a military attack on it in the near future.

The occupation army attributed the targeting decision to its claim of the presence of 'terrorist infrastructure' belonging to the Hamas movement inside or near the mentioned building, making it a target for imminent aerial operations.

On the other hand, the military statement emphasized the necessity for civilians to stay at least 100 meters away from the site to ensure their safety, stressing that the evacuation must be carried out 'immediately' due to the seriousness of the field situation.

The evacuation must be carried out immediately due to the seriousness of the field situation.

The Middle East is witnessing today the birth of a new American strategy, completely different from the old calculations that were based on protecting Israel's security alone to ensure influence in the region. What is particularly striking is the American policy towards Syria, where Washington allowed legitimacy to reunify the country despite Israel's historical opposition, and abandoned the Kurds and Druze who were seen as allies. This step is not random, but part of a more ambitious American vision aimed at transforming Syria from an open conflict zone into a player that can be integrated into the network of Arab alliances, a محور capable of confronting Iranian influence and managing tensions in a precise manner.

Iraq represents a strategic gateway that prevents Iran from using its territory as a pressure tool against this axis, while Jordan provides a base of stability and a geographical and political link between the Gulf states and the Levant. As for the Gulf states, they form the beating heart of this trend due to their economic, geopolitical, and military power, in addition to their ability to exert direct pressure on Iran and monitor the Strait of Hormuz and vital supply lines. In this context, it is noted that the Trump administration gave Arab countries a greater role in regional talks, with Turkey actively involved in some files, in a clear indication of Washington's endeavor to distribute influence and empower regional allies to play direct roles in crisis management, away from the traditional approach that placed Israel at the center of all equations.

What distinguishes American policy today is that the threat of using force against Iran is not seen as an end in itself, but as a pressure tool within an undeclared strategy aimed at gradually removing Iran from the Arab scene and imposing new balances without being drawn into a comprehensive confrontation. At the same time, Washington sends a clear message to its Arab allies that it is capable of protecting their interests and ensuring regional stability. The American move towards Iran is no longer presented as a direct service to Israel as before, but comes within a broader vision that includes energy security, regional influence, and strategic stability in the Middle East, a vision that is gaining increasing acceptance within the American street, where the idea of fighting costly wars in defense of Israel has become widely questioned.

This shift is also reflected in the Israeli discourse itself, as Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel will seek in the future to rely more on itself, and reduce its military dependence on the United States in protecting its security. This statement cannot be separated from the changes in American policy, nor from the escalation of calls within the United States not to supply Israel with weapons used to kill civilians, which reflects a tangible change in the American political and popular mood towards the nature of the unconditional support that Israel enjoyed for decades.

Despite all this, Arab-American relations have not been affected over the decades, even in the most intense moments of tension, such as the United States' support for Israel in its wars against Lebanon, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and the Gaza wars. These relations have remained relatively stable, which reflects the ability of Arab countries to separate their political differences with Israel from their strategic interests with Washington. The Abraham Accords were a first attempt to translate this trend into practical reality, but they are not the only condition, as the United States can manage the new scene and integrate the Palestinian issue into a diplomatic path that reduces historical tensions without harming broader strategic partnerships.

With this approach, old challenges turn into opportunities to redraw the map of influence in the Middle East. American policy is no longer just a deterrent to Iran or a protective umbrella for Israel, but a project to build an integrated Arab network capable of achieving stability and engaging in long-term economic and political partnerships, with careful management of chronic conflicts. Allowing the reunification of Syria, and integrating Iraq, Jordan, and the Gulf states into a cohesive Arab axis, along with using military and political pressure on Iran, reflects Washington's ability to maintain its central role as a guarantor of regional balance, while achieving broader strategic goals that include reducing Iranian influence, and reshaping the relationship between Arabs and Israel within a more pragmatic and less costly framework.

In conclusion, this American strategy represents a structural shift in the approach to the Middle East: from almost complete reliance on Israel to building a broader regional balance, in which roles are distributed among Arab allies and Turkey, and threats are managed instead of being drawn into open wars. This approach not only reflects an evolution in Washington's understanding of its interests, but also a response to internal American shifts that reject costly wars and unconditional support, and seek a more rational policy that achieves stability, protects American interests, and gives the region a real opportunity to escape the cycle of continuous conflicts.