The Palestinian young man Alaa Sobeih, 28 years old, was martyred today, Thursday morning, after being shot by extremist settlers during violent confrontations witnessed in the Tubas governorate, northern occupied West Bank. The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed the news of the martyrdom, noting that the confrontations erupted in an area near the village of Tayasir, located east of the governorate, where citizens confronted attempts of settlement expansion in the area.

Local sources reported that the confrontations began after groups of extremist settlers, under heavy protection from Israeli occupation forces, started establishing a new settlement outpost in the lands located between the villages of Tayasir and Al-Aqaba. This provocative move led to the outbreak of field clashes during which residents tried to defend their lands threatened with confiscation, which prompted the settlers to use live ammunition directly against the citizens.

Following the incident, the Israeli occupation army detained the body of the martyr Alaa Sobeih, preventing medical teams and residents from reaching him or transferring him for burial. This step comes within the systematic policy of the occupation to detain the bodies of Palestinian martyrs, which increases the state of tension and popular anger in all cities of the West Bank, which faces continuous escalation in settler attacks.

Concurrently, large forces of the occupation army carried out a wide-ranging military operation in the town of Tubas, where military vehicles and bulldozers stormed the town's neighborhoods under heavy gunfire. The invading forces raided a number of citizens' homes and tampered with their contents after thoroughly searching them, amid a military siege imposed on the area to ensure the security of the new settlement outpost that the settlers began to establish.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced the martyrdom of the young man Alaa Sobeih (28 years old) by settlers' bullets during confrontations in Tubas governorate.

Diplomatic preparations are accelerating in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, to host high-level delegations from the United States and Iran next Friday. These direct meetings aim to salvage the fragile ceasefire agreement and prevent the region from sliding into a full-scale confrontation, amidst intensive Pakistani mediation efforts to bridge the gap between the two sides.

Despite the diplomatic atmosphere, a language of threats and warnings has overshadowed the general scene, threatening to derail initial understandings before they even begin. Sources in the Iranian Foreign Ministry reported that Washington has begun to renege on its previous commitments, especially regarding the inclusion of the Lebanese arena within the terms of the proposed truce agreement, which Tehran considers a fundamental condition for moving forward.

For his part, a high-ranking source in the Pakistani Foreign Ministry confirmed that US President Donald Trump unexpectedly backed down from including Lebanon in the de-escalation agreement. The source clarified that the Pakistani mediator had previously received assurances that a two-week ceasefire would include the Lebanese front, but the recent American stance shocked the mediators.

In a firm message via his 'Truth Social' platform, US President Donald Trump stressed that US military forces, including ships and aircraft, would remain in their combat positions around Iran. Trump indicated that this deployment would continue until full and comprehensive compliance with the reached agreement is ensured, reflecting a lack of trust in the Iranian side.

In contrast, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian linked the stability of international waterways to the cessation of military operations in the region. Pezeshkian informed Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that ensuring the security of the Strait of Hormuz and freedom of navigation there is directly contingent on a complete cessation of attacks targeting Lebanon, emphasizing the unity of arenas in the Iranian vision.

The Iranian military establishment entered the crisis, with the Iranian army announcing its full readiness for all possible scenarios. Army spokesman Mohammad Akrami Nia stated that his country forced the other party to sit at the negotiating table thanks to its firm stance, indicating that Tehran's conditions are the core of any future discussion.

Akrami Nia warned that Iran is dealing with the diplomatic path with extreme caution due to its bitter past experiences with American promises. He affirmed that the Iranian armed forces are prepared for a long-term war if negotiations fail, describing the American side as untrustworthy, citing what happened in the nuclear deal and previous rounds of negotiations.

Islamabad is witnessing a security and diplomatic alert to secure the talks, which Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif described as a 'historic event.' Through this hosting, Sharif seeks to defuse a major regional crisis, calling on all parties to exercise restraint and give a real chance for peace to spare the region the ravages of a devastating war.

The Pakistani Prime Minister expressed his dissatisfaction with the recent military escalation in Lebanon, confirming that the Pakistani narrative aligns with the Iranian demand for Lebanon's inclusion in the truce. Pakistan believes there is an opportunity to transform the temporary ceasefire into a permanent and comprehensive peace agreement that ends the ongoing conflict between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other.

Pakistani diplomacy is working in coordination with influential regional and international powers to ensure the success of this round, with continuous consultations taking place with Turkey, China, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. These moves aim to mobilize international support for the Pakistani initiative and provide political cover to ensure the commitment of the conflicting parties to what will be agreed upon behind closed doors.

The US delegation will be headed by Vice President J.D. Vance, a move that reflects the White House's seriousness in directly managing this file. The US delegation also includes prominent figures such as Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, indicating Washington's desire to link the political track to broader regional arrangements that include economic and security files.

As for the Iranian delegation, it is led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a representation that combines legislative and diplomatic weight. The composition of the Iranian delegation reflects Tehran's desire to show internal unity behind the negotiator, while adhering to the military and political constants recently announced by the Iranian leadership.

Anticipation remains the master of the situation in international circles for what Friday's meetings will yield, as observers believe that the gap between the demands of the two sides is still wide. While Washington insists on specific technical and military compliance, Tehran rejects any agreement that does not guarantee the removal of the threat to its allies in the region, making the Islamabad negotiations a real test of the will for peace.

Our eyes are on the enemy, and our fingers are on the trigger; we are ready for a long war if negotiations fail.

Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip continued, as medical and field sources reported the martyrdom of at least three citizens, including a child, as a result of shelling and gunfire operations targeting various areas of the Strip today, Thursday. These developments come in the context of a series of violations committed by the occupation army since the agreement came into effect last October, threatening the stability of the fragile truce.

In the details of the attacks, an Israeli drone directly targeted citizen Youssef Khalil Ahmed Mansour, 33 years old, in the Al-Barweil area in Mawasi Rafah, south of the Strip, leading to his immediate martyrdom. The city of Beit Lahia, north of the Strip, also witnessed another citizen being shot by occupation forces, who continue to target civilians in border and populated areas.

In another crime that shook local circles, 13-year-old child Ritaj Abdul Raouf Raihan was martyred after being shot by occupation forces while she was inside an educational tent in Beit Lahia. The child was receiving her lessons at Abu Obaida bin Al-Jarrah School when she was surprised by Israeli fire, reflecting the extent of direct targeting of educational and civilian facilities.

Local sources also documented the martyrdom of a young Palestinian man in the city of Khan Yunis, south of the Strip, by occupation bullets, and his identity has not yet been identified. These attacks coincide with the continued fall of victims, as a number of citizens were martyred yesterday, Wednesday, including journalist Muhammad Samir Washah, who joined a long list of journalistic martyrs, reaching 257 martyrs since the start of the war.

Regarding official statistics, medical sources in Gaza announced an increase in the total death toll from the genocide war since October 7, 2023, to 72,317 martyrs and 172,158 injured. The sources clarified that the period following the signing of the ceasefire agreement on October 11 alone witnessed the martyrdom of 738 people and the injury of more than two thousand other citizens.

Regarding rescue efforts, specialized teams have been able to recover 759 bodies from under the rubble since the truce came into effect, but large numbers of victims are still missing under the rubble and in rugged roads. Ambulance and civil defense teams face extreme difficulties in reaching all affected areas due to continuous Israeli targeting and a lack of logistical capabilities.

Child Ritaj Raihan was fatally shot while receiving education inside an educational tent belonging to Abu Obaida bin Al-Jarrah School in Beit Lahia.

Current developments in the international political scene do not appear to be merely a traditional conflict between a victor and a vanquished, but rather closer to an open confrontation temporarily frozen under a fragile negotiating cover. Each party enters the dialogue table burdened with a high ceiling of conditions, attempting to market a special narrative to its audience, implying that it has managed to impose its rhythm on the other party.

Upon closer inspection of the details, it becomes clear that what is presented as American points and Iranian proposals is nothing more than an expression of two completely contradictory visions. The United States, through the 15-point package it put forward, is trying to promote its success in shifting negotiations to the core sensitive issues that concern its national security and the security of its allies.

The American vision includes radical demands, including dismantling Iran's military nuclear program, halting enrichment operations, controlling the ballistic missile system, and ending Tehran's regional influence. Washington considers that merely including these items on the table represents a political achievement that proves its ability to exert pressure.

In contrast, Iran refuses to deal with these items as a fait accompli or self-evident truths, but rather places them in the context of 'proposals under negotiation.' Tehran promotes to its audience that the United States' acceptance of opening the door to dialogue and a temporary ceasefire is a direct result of its steadfastness and its rejection of dictates under the weight of economic pressures.

Tehran put forward ten counter-items through which it aims to redefine the international agenda, shifting it from a technical focus on the nuclear program to a broader discussion that includes comprehensive regional security. Iran seeks to obtain clear guarantees of non-aggression and sanctions relief as a fundamental condition for any future progress.

The paradox is clearly evident in the 'nuclear versus security' file, where Washington sets red lines related to halting enrichment and dismantling facilities. Meanwhile, Tehran avoids clear commitment to these issues, promoting that the top priority has become to ensure non-exposure to military attack and to end the ongoing state of war.

As for the sanctions file, the gap appears wide; the United States affirms its readiness to lift sanctions only within a comprehensive deal that guarantees major Iranian concessions. Meanwhile, Iran insists that lifting sanctions is a fundamental and unconditional sovereign right, and places it as a central item in any dialogue, away from the logic of bartering.

Regarding regional influence, Washington stipulates an end to support for factions and proxies in the region as evidence of good intentions and progress in the diplomatic path. Iran responds by demanding a halt to military strikes on its allies, considering that its regional role serves the interest of 'protecting stability' and consolidating its position as an indispensable power.

The Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the most complex points of contention, where the United States demands guaranteed freedom of international navigation without any restrictions or threats. In contrast, Iran promotes itself as a regulatory and control authority by proposing the idea of transit fees, transforming the file from an international security issue into a sovereign and economic card.

Even the issue of a ceasefire is interpreted contradictorily; Washington presents it as a necessary step to create an atmosphere for serious negotiation. Meanwhile, Tehran considers it a forced American concession that came after the failure of the 'maximum pressure' policy to force the Iranian leadership to surrender under fire.

Minute contentious details, such as the inclusion of the term 'enrichment' in some drafts but not others, are used as tools in the media war between the two parties. Washington uses them to say that Iran is evading its obligations, while Tehran uses them to confirm that the final conditions have not yet been settled and that it still has the ability to modify.

The conclusion indicates that each party is not promoting what has actually been agreed upon, but rather what it has succeeded in introducing into the international discussion agenda. Washington boasts of forcing its adversary to discuss dismantling its capabilities, and Tehran boasts of forcing Washington to recognize its security conditions and halt military operations.

The current truce appears to be no more than a fragile tactical pause in a long and extended conflict, lacking the solid foundations that ensure its sustainability. It is likely that each party will use this time to rearrange its cards and strengthen its field and political capabilities in preparation for upcoming rounds that seem inevitable in the absence of radical solutions.

Ultimately, the 'victory' declared by both sides remains merely a media formulation directed at internal consumption rather than a tangible political reality. The distance between the American ceiling and the Iranian ceiling is still very wide, and the bitter truth is that no one has yet settled the conflict in their favor.

The scene looks as if everyone has won in their own narrative, while the truth is that no one has settled anything yet, and what happened was a consolidation of negotiating positions, not the achievement of their goals.

Hebrew media sources revealed that the Israeli occupation's Political-Security Cabinet (the Cabinet) secretly approved a large-scale settlement plan aimed at establishing 34 new settlements distributed throughout the occupied West Bank. This step comes as part of an unprecedented settlement escalation, as the number of recently approved settlements has risen to 103, reflecting a governmental trend to impose a new demographic and geographical reality that will be difficult to reverse in the future.

The new plan primarily targets sensitive areas deep within Palestinian territories, particularly in the northern West Bank and what is known as 'Northern Samaria,' where settlement outposts will be planted within densely populated Palestinian enclaves. Among the most prominent proposed locations are settlements named 'Noa' and 'Emek Dotan,' which are planned to be established in remote points aimed at severing the connections between surrounding Palestinian villages and completely isolating them from each other.

The secret decision's provisions include immediate executive measures aimed at accelerating construction operations and imposing a fait accompli on the ground, by starting to extend electricity and water networks and basic infrastructure to these sites before commencing the actual housing process. This tactic aims to ensure the legal and practical establishment of these settlements in record time, thereby reducing the ability to object to them or remove them in any future political settlements.

Despite political insistence, the Chief of Staff of the occupation army expressed clear reservations about this plan, pointing to the significant security challenges that forces will face in securing these remote locations. Military commanders explained that deploying forces in these scattered outposts would deplete limited manpower, but the political level in the occupation government ignored these warnings and insisted on proceeding with the approval of the settlement project.

The occupation government deliberately kept this decision out of the spotlight to avoid confrontation with the international community, especially the administration of US President Donald Trump, amidst ongoing diplomatic activity and regional talks. Observers believe that the occupation is racing against time to exploit the current circumstances and the state of war to achieve settlement leaps that will definitively eliminate any chance of establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state, and transform the West Bank into isolated cantons.

The plan includes establishing settlement outposts in very sensitive areas within densely populated Palestinian enclaves to complicate the geographical reality.

Field sources reported an escalation in the pace of settler militia attacks in various areas of the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem, where settler groups carried out a series of organized attacks under heavy protection from the occupation forces. These violations focused on targeting unarmed citizens in pastoral communities and towns adjacent to settlements, leading to injuries and panic among the residents.

In a crime described as serious, a group of settlers kidnapped 14-year-old child Osaid Mahmoud Ghanem from the town of Qabalan, south of Nablus. The settlers took the child to a nearby settlement before he was later handed over to the Palestinian liaison, in an incident that reflects the extent of the threat facing children in areas classified as 'C'.

In Hebron Governorate, brothers Mahmoud and Muhammad Farid Al-Hamamda were subjected to a brutal assault by settlers in the Masafer Yatta area while they were herding livestock. The attackers did not stop at beating them, but also threatened the shepherds with weapons and prevented them from accessing natural pastures, as part of attempts to control land and displace its original owners.

The attacks extended to include the destruction of public and private property, as settlers pelted citizens' vehicles with stones east of Ramallah, causing damage to the windows of several cars and inflicting material losses. The 'Yitzhar' junction south of Nablus also witnessed provocative gatherings of settlers that obstructed traffic and spread panic among Palestinian travelers on bypass roads.

In occupied Jerusalem, settlers continued their violations against holy sites by storming the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque from the Mughrabi Gate, where they carried out provocative tours and performed Talmudic rituals in the eastern area of the mosque. These incursions coincide with acts of sabotage that affected farms and facilities in the Mikhmas area, indicating the integration of roles between settler groups and occupation forces to tighten the noose on the Palestinian presence.

These increasing attacks reflect a systematic policy to displace Palestinians and tighten the noose on them with official cover from the occupation government.

The Israeli occupation army escalated its aerial raids on wide areas in Lebanon, for the second consecutive day since the ceasefire agreement was concluded between Tehran and Washington. These attacks come amid a state of ambiguity and political contradictions regarding the extent to which the Lebanese arena is covered by the provisions of this truce, which has led to a rapid deterioration of the field situation.

The occupation forces committed bloody massacres in southern Lebanon, where medical and field sources reported the death of 7 martyrs in an initial toll as a result of a raid targeting the town of Abbasiyah in the Tyre district. Also, 10 other people, including women and children, were martyred in a violent aerial bombardment that targeted an inhabited house in the town of Zrarieh, raising the death toll from the recent raids to 17 martyrs.

The series of Israeli raids extended to include the towns of Kafra, Jumayjimah, Safad al-Battikh, Majdal Zoun, and Deir Antar, in addition to targeting the vicinity of the Qasmiyah bridge, Haboush, Kounin, and Jabshit. Warplanes also destroyed a two-story house at the entrance to the eastern town of Douair, coinciding with intense artillery shelling that targeted the outskirts of the town of Haris.

In the southern suburb of Beirut, occupation aircraft launched a raid at dawn today targeting the Chiyah area, resulting in massive destruction of buildings and properties. These strikes come within the framework of the continuous military pressure policy practiced by the occupation on the Lebanese interior despite talk of international understandings for de-escalation in the region.

On the humanitarian front, Lebanese families stranded in the south Litani region issued urgent distress calls to the international community to secure their evacuation under international patronage. These appeals came after the occupation army destroyed the Qasmiyah marine bridge, which led to the isolation of the area and cut off supply and displacement routes for besieged civilians.

For its part, Hezbollah announced the resumption of its military operations against occupation sites, confirming in official statements the targeting of the Manara settlement with a concentrated rocket barrage. The party indicated that its fighters were able to strike an Israeli force that was entrenched inside a house in the border town of Taybeh using a kamikaze drone that achieved a direct hit.

Hezbollah's operations also included targeting an Israeli military vehicle in the town of Taybeh with a guided missile, stressing that these moves are a natural response to repeated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement. The party's leadership affirmed that operations will not stop as long as the American-backed Israeli aggression on Lebanese territories continues.

Inside Israel, Hebrew media acknowledged the interception of rockets launched from Lebanon towards the Upper Galilee regions, and sources reported that air defense systems dealt with three rockets that targeted Avivim, Manara, and Margaliot. These rocket barrages reflect the occupation's failure to neutralize the party's offensive capabilities despite the intensity of the aerial raids.

Politically, media reports revealed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's dissatisfaction with the current truce formula, as he seeks to separate the Lebanese track from the Iranian one. Sources stated that Netanyahu asked US President Donald Trump to guarantee the continuation of military operations in Lebanon until the occupation's goals of disarming Hezbollah are achieved.

Journalistic sources quoted a senior Israeli official warning that Tel Aviv has put itself in a strategic dilemma, where it is now faced with the choice of either blowing up the entire agreement or backing down from the escalation. The official indicated that the continuation of the raids could lead to the American administration's patience running out and show Israel as a party seeking to thwart international diplomatic efforts.

In a related context, senior officers in the occupation army questioned the realism of the declared goals of the war on Lebanon, considering that disarming Hezbollah requires a complete ground occupation of Lebanese villages and territories. Israeli military analyses suggested that the current confrontation will ultimately end with a political settlement, given the high cost and field complexities of a military solution.

The resistance's response will continue until the Israeli-American aggression on Lebanon stops.

Reserve General and former commander of the occupation army, Gadi Eisenkot, launched sharp criticism against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing him of selling illusions to the Israeli public. Eisenkot clarified that Netanyahu constantly speaks of triumphant military victories, while the reality on the ground proves that none of the strategic goals set at the beginning of the confrontations have been achieved.

Eisenkot pointed out in radio statements that Israel is now experiencing a state of imposed ceasefire, both in the Gaza Strip and in the confrontation with Iran. He expressed deep concern about the repercussions of this failure on the Lebanese front, calling on Netanyahu to resign immediately due to his inability to decisively win battles and translate supposed military achievements into political gains.

Regarding the evaluation of the war's outcomes, Eisenkot identified two basic criteria: the first is the extent to which declared goals are achieved, and the second is the improvement of Israel's strategic situation. He affirmed that failure was the government's ally in both criteria, as goals were not achieved, and Israel's international standing declined, especially in the United States, which began to view Israeli policies with suspicion.

Eisenkot conveyed warnings described as 'red flags' issued by the current army commander, cautioning against the risk of the military institution collapsing due to increasing burdens and a severe shortage of manpower. He considered that continuing the war without a political horizon drains the army's capabilities and places it before unprecedented existential challenges in its history.

The former commander touched upon what he described as the 'complete subservience' to the American administration, considering that Israel lost its independence in decision-making from the first days of the war. He explained that young people in America, including Jewish groups, have become strongly opposed to Israeli policies, which threatens the most important strategic alliance for the Hebrew state.

Regarding the Iranian file, Eisenkot described the retention of 440 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium by Tehran as a grave strategic failure. He warned that the Revolutionary Guard's control over the levers of power in Iran increases the likelihood of a rush towards nuclear weapons, which represents a direct threat that cannot be overlooked.

Eisenkot criticized the absence of a clear strategy in dealing with multiple fronts, noting that the current fighting contradicts the classical security doctrine based on rapid decisive action. He stressed that the failure to decisively win the battle in 'little Gaza' after two years of fierce fighting reflects the extent of the confusion experienced by the political and military leadership.

In a related context, Eisenkot attacked the composition of the current 'cabinet,' describing its members as 'empty and eccentric leaders' who do not realize the magnitude of the risks. He considered that the Talmudic and populist designations given to military operations, such as 'eternal darkness,' are merely attempts to cover up field and political failures.

Regarding the situation in northern occupied Palestine, he indicated that settlers there feel complete neglect and loss of security, despite repeated government promises. He criticized the management of the fight against Hezbollah, affirming that the party is conducting a successful guerrilla war while the government is unable to translate the army's tactical successes into a stable political reality.

For its part, Haaretz newspaper launched a similar attack in its editorial, criticizing the use of historical and religious terms to justify military failure. The newspaper affirmed that there is widespread disregard within Israel for the massacres committed in Lebanon and Gaza, where the focus is only on calculations of material and political profit and loss.

In contrast, Minister Ze'ev Elkin tried to defend the government's performance, claiming that Israel had achieved significant gains in southern Lebanon by establishing a security zone. Elkin claimed that removing residents from border areas up to the Litani River gives the army effective control and the ability to protect northern residents in the future.

However, Eisenkot responded to these claims by emphasizing that 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating,' and that the absence of a clear mechanism to end the war will make any tactical achievement merely a long-term attrition. He stressed the need for an alternative leadership capable of aligning goals with actual capabilities, away from empty promises.

Eisenkot also pointed out that a comparison between the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and the current situation shows a significant contradiction in Netanyahu's own positions. While Netanyahu then demanded the government's overthrow due to its failure to achieve decisive victory, today he clings to power despite the repetition of the same failures, and in a deeper and more dangerous way.

Eisenkot concluded his remarks by emphasizing that Israel needs to restore its moral and strategic balance, warning that continuing the current approach will lead to dire consequences. He considered that restoring deterrence is not achieved through resonant speeches, but through courageous decisions that place the state's interest above narrow political interests.

Netanyahu tells Israelis about triumphant victories while they see the war's goals not being achieved, and Israeli decision-making is no longer in its hands but in Washington's.

Although the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran is temporary, the war has effectively ended and will not resume after two weeks. The one who started this war and boasted about eliminating "Iranian civilization" from existence and returning Iran to the "Stone Age where it belongs" can no longer continue it. Time was pressing on the American president, and any additional day this war continued, which he could not resolve as quickly and easily as he expected, and the continued rise in oil derivatives prices and financial market turmoil within America, would most likely lead to a certain loss for his party in the upcoming midterm elections, which would hinder the remainder of his presidential term and weaken the chances of any Republican candidate winning the presidential elections in 2028.

Iran's endurance of an intense American-Israeli aerial bombardment campaign, despite its heavy human and material cost, and Iran's ability to transform the war, which was intended by America and Israel to be swift and clean, into a fierce, open, and escalating war that plunged the entire world into a severe and worsening crisis, forced the American president to exert the highest levels of pressure in search of a way out that would save face not only for himself but also for his country, which he embroiled in an intractable war. When he failed, and discovered the extent of the limited American ability to achieve the imagined victory, he was forced to agree to a temporary cessation of a war that would not be renewed, and to return to negotiations with an Iranian regime he had fought to overthrow, in exchange for a conditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was originally open before the outbreak of the war. No matter how Trump now tries to embellish the claim of achieving victory in a war he chose to fight, not out of necessity, on behalf of Israel at Netanyahu's instigation, the objective truth indicates that he suffered a clear loss, which will have negative repercussions not only on him but also on his country.

The American president humiliated himself with the outcome of a war he launched with exaggerated expectations that he could not achieve, and he shook America's standing with it. All the declared goals for which he fought this war were not resolved on the battlefield, and he must now negotiate with Iran over them. His mere acceptance of a ceasefire and going to the negotiating table not only represents an implicit acknowledgment of the failure of using force, which he primarily relied on to impose his terms on Iran, but also his willingness to make concessions to it in order to reach an agreement. Iran imposed on America, the global superpower, the necessity of accepting a return to the path of negotiation, a path based on the necessity of mutual concessions between the negotiating parties. As a result of this American-losing war, the relationship that Trump imagined to be a vertical power relationship with a regionally faltering Iran, meaning that America, with its surplus power, could impose Iran's compliance with its terms, was revealed to be, in fact, a horizontal power relationship between it and Iran, where Washington cannot achieve part of its demands except through peer-to-peer negotiation with Tehran.

And what future repercussions this revelation will have on America's position as a global superpower. By excessive arrogance, underestimation of others, and recklessness in decision-making, Trump, in his hasty war on Iran, revealed the hidden truth: the extent of the deterioration in America's global standing since the beginning of this millennium. This deterioration has escalated since then as a result of serious revisionist attempts by major and regional powers to weaken the superpower, escape the grip of the unipolar international system, and transform the international system into multipolarity. The successive steps taken by China in the past two decades to expand its regional hegemony, Russia's war on Ukraine, the expansion and movement of "BRICS" countries, the establishment of new economic frameworks and the development of new international financial systems, and Europe's belated awakening, are but examples of the continuous movement in indirect confrontations with America, aimed at undermining its position as a global superpower.

Suddenly, a direct confrontation emerges, not imposed on this superpower, but chosen by it, as an "exam" to show all the powers and revisionist movements trying to drain its standing that it still possesses a superior ability to repel its "aggressors" and maintains its full hegemony as a superpower. Trump chose war on Iran believing it would be an easy task, through which he would show the world that America is still in the lead and controls global events. But the outcome of this war shows that America, even with its excessive use of military force, was actually weak and unable to resolve the matter even with a regional power that it itself said was weak and had dilapidated power. This is certainly an indicator of weakness, and a signal that all other parties seeking to strengthen their international standing will pick up, and an open invitation for them not to hesitate from now on, but rather to intensify their future challenges to America, because the door has been revealed to be wide open for them. He who could not contain Iran will not be able to impose compliance on revisionist and other rising regional powers. Since the beginning of the third millennium, the international system has been undergoing a transformation. By observing the behavior of major powers, especially China and Russia, and rising regional powers, such as India, Iran, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, and North Korea, it was clear that they were unwilling to tolerate the continuation of the unipolar international system, under which America sat at the top of the international hierarchy. But now, as a result of Washington's failure to resolve the war on Iran in its favor, the change in the international system's status has become inevitable and irreversible. It has become clear that America is suffering from an irreversible state of decline in its power and a retreat in its standing. This does not mean at all that it will not remain a superpower with its influence in the global balance of power, but it does mean that it is no longer able to impose its absolute will on the world, as it was before the exposure of the limitations of its power and its ability to impose compliance on Iran. One of the revealing pieces of evidence for this is that despite the weakness and collapse of the standing and capabilities of international institutions due to American targeting, especially the United Nations, Washington was unable to even obtain a Security Council resolution from them authorizing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz by all means, but was met with a double veto from Russia and China, which deprived it of the cover of international legitimacy for continuing its war on Iran. In addition to Trump and America, Netanyahu and Israel are the second biggest losers of this war, which was launched under intense and continuous pressure from them. Aside from the systematic destruction campaign carried out by warplanes on Iran, which caused significant but repairable and compensable damage, all Israeli goals for this war were not achieved. Aside from the details, such as the Iranians not taking to the streets to overthrow the regime, the failure to incite the Kurds to declare war on Iran, the Iranian regime not falling after a series of assassinations of its political and military leaders, the elimination of Hezbollah's military capability, and the continued shelling of Israeli sites with Iranian missiles, the most important and largest Israeli goal of ending Iran's status and role as a rival and equal regional power to Israel was not achieved, but rather actually strengthened.

Iran will negotiate with America, and the humiliated Israel will be forced to swallow the consequences, and it will be forced to comply, and it will not be able to do anything but try to sugarcoat the bitterness with false claims of imagined achievements. Even by sheltering behind America and involving it in using its excessive military force, it could not achieve its goals, so how will it fare after losing this cover? Netanyahu's desperate attempt for two decades to eliminate Iran as a regional power has failed miserably. The war is now ending, and the Middle East that Netanyahu promised to change is not only remaining as it was, but has undergone a transformation in the opposite direction to Israel's interests. Netanyahu's boastful declaration that Israel had become a global power was nothing more than an illusory claim with no substance other than the continued guarantee of American protection. But this protection is no longer as it was before the two wars, on Gaza and Iran, guaranteed and assured without any accountability or questioning.

The objective result that Israel must confront is that its sequence of military failures, in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran, proves that its absolute reliance on its military capabilities, supported by America, cannot achieve the legitimacy of its existence. What can achieve that for it are two fundamental things: the necessity of ending the occupation and upholding the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people, represented by freedom and independence, and ending its hostility and continuous attempts to dominate the region. As long as these two conditions are not met, Israel will continue to suffer disappointments.

As for the third loser in this war, it is the dilapidated Arab system, composed of regimes that agreed to mortgage their continued existence by subordinating themselves to others, specifically to America. During this war, the false situation of this system was exposed, and it collapsed with extreme speed and ease, due to the failure of those who were relied upon to defend it to carry out the task, which regularly costs the depletion of Arab resources. This system has lost huge material resources, but more importantly, it has lost stability and reputation, which will require a lot of resources and years to restore. And even with restoration, the result may be that the situation, especially regarding the moral standing of many countries, will not return to its previous state until after a long period. This war, and the Arab choices that permeated it, revealed a lack of self-confidence, which, even if not available, lessons are learned and work will be done in the future to build it. It is clear that dependency is a state of mind before it is determined by the availability of material capability. The Arab system, in its current state, has condemned itself to remain dependent; it sits on the sidelines of the ongoing conflict to determine the position of influential regional powers in the region. And the situation of this system will remain dependent and marginalized as long as the forces controlling political decision remain as they are currently.

In contrast to the losers, Iran emerges from this war as the biggest winner. Despite its heavy but compensable material losses, the country and the regime stood firm, fought a war efficiently and competently, and forced America to negotiate to end the war according to terms presented by Iran, in exchange for American demands. The cohesion and good performance of Iran during the war earned Iran a great actual and moral standing, making it a power that should be taken into account, not only regionally, but also on the general international level. Tehran will emerge from this war stronger in its regional standing than it was, having achieved a very important victory, directly for itself, and with indirect effects for many parties in the world as well.

For years of conflict in Eastern Europe, the United States and its allies have provided open and generous support to Ukraine, including billions of dollars, the latest weapon systems, and intelligence information. The Western goal of this support was clear: to use the Ukrainian arena as a proxy war to drain Russian military capabilities and weaken Moscow's international influence through harsh economic sanctions.

However, the geopolitical scene has recently witnessed a major reversal, as Russia strategically began to exchange roles with the West. While Washington engaged in extensive confrontations to support its allies against Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to employ Tehran as a tool for indirect confrontation with the United States from behind the scenes.

This Russian strategy manifested in providing unprecedented military and technical support to the Iranian side, including supplying it with accurate intelligence information and advanced field tactics. Observers believe that Moscow raised the slogan 'Ukraine for Iran' in a decisive response to European criticism of Russia's escalating role in the Middle East.

US President Trump acknowledged this new reality when asked about Russian support for Tehran, confirming that both parties are playing the same game in different arenas. Reports revealed that the Trump administration rejected an explicit Russian offer to stop supporting Iran in exchange for Washington ceasing to arm and finance Ukrainian forces.

Technical data indicates that Russian support goes beyond mere weapons, extending to providing high-resolution satellite imagery via the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS). This data allows Tehran to monitor US and Zionist military bases and strategic assets in real-time, increasing the accuracy of potential Iranian strikes.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in turn, confirmed this information, noting that Russian expertise is now flowing intensely towards Tehran. This cooperation represents a return of favor, after Iran had supplied Moscow with 'Shahed' kamikaze drones at the beginning of the Ukrainian war and provided it with manufacturing blueprints for local production.

Today, Iran adopts the Russian military approach based on using dense swarms of cheap drones to overwhelm advanced air defense systems. These swarms are followed by precise missile strikes targeting command and control centers and radars, tactics that have proven effective in the Ukrainian field and were transferred verbatim to Iranian advisors.

In addition to the military field, Russia employs its capabilities in artificial intelligence to wage a misleading propaganda war aimed at amplifying Iranian power and demonstrating its superiority. Russian official media works to widely disseminate this content to distract American focus and raise concerns in Western circles.

Putin's goal from this escalation appears to be to drain American resources away from the Ukrainian front, which has been partially achieved with Washington being forced to withdraw 'Patriot' systems from Europe. This shortage in Ukrainian air defenses came as a result of redirecting missiles towards the Gulf region, given the limited US production of no more than 65 missiles per month.

Moscow's gains were not limited to the military aspect but also extended to global energy markets, which witnessed a significant rise in prices due to tensions. This increase forced Washington to ease some oil sanctions on Russia, providing Moscow with billions of dollars in financial flows that were used to finance its war machine without directly firing a single bullet against US forces.

Ukraine for Iran... This is how Moscow responded to the West's draining of its forces by supporting Tehran with advanced military tactics and real-time space information.

Washington – Saeed Erikat – 9/4/2026

News Analysis

On Wednesday, the White House announced that US Vice President J.D. Vance would lead the American negotiating team in the upcoming talks in Islamabad over the weekend. This move, according to initial indications, reflects an attempt to inject political momentum into a fragile negotiating path linked to a limited-duration ceasefire. This comes after the announcement, on Tuesday-Wednesday night, of a two-week agreement to cease hostilities between the United States, Israel, and Iran, amidst an atmosphere dominated by caution and skepticism about its sustainability.

According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Vance, who opposed the war from its beginning and even before, will head the delegation, which also includes President Donald Trump's envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. The level of American representation in these talks is seen as an indicator of the seriousness of engagement, especially after previous reports suggested Vance's potential absence for security reasons, or that the meetings would take place at a different time. The administration has affirmed its confidence in the security protection arrangements for the Vice President during his visit to Pakistan.

In contrast, diplomatic leaks indicate that Tehran prefers Vance to lead the negotiation process, given its reservations about Witkoff and Kushner's performance during previous rounds, and their accusation of misrepresenting some Iranian positions. Vance is also among the few voices within the administration who have expressed reservations, according to reports, about the option of military escalation with Iran, which may explain the Iranian bet on him as a more amenable negotiating partner.

During a speech in Budapest, Vance indicated that Trump is showing impatience with the slow progress towards ending the war, emphasizing that the President has directed his team to negotiate “in good faith.” However, these positive signals coincided with adverse developments on the ground, as the ceasefire was quickly subjected to serious tests, amidst mutual accusations and violations.

Iran accused Israel of targeting oil facilities, while Gulf countries reported being subjected to drone and missile attacks by Iran on Wednesday, after a night that saw missile strikes on Israel. This mutual escalation reflects the fragility of the announced understandings and raises questions about the mediators' ability to contain the deterioration.

The issue of including Lebanon in the ceasefire agreement stands out as one of the most prominent points of contention. While Pakistani mediators indicated that the agreement extends to include the Lebanese arena, the United States and Israel categorically denied this. Vance affirmed that what he described as a “legitimate misunderstanding” led Iran to believe that Lebanon was included, stressing that the agreement focuses exclusively on Iran and Washington's allies, specifically Israel and the Gulf states.

Despite Vance's talk of Israeli readiness to show some restraint in Lebanon in support of the negotiations, no clear field indications of this have emerged, as southern Lebanon witnessed a significant escalation in Israeli strikes. Vance considered that Iran's linking the fate of the negotiations to the situation in Lebanon remains an “option” taken by Tehran, in a reference to Washington's rejection of expanding the negotiation framework.

On another note, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf escalated his rhetoric, accusing the United States of violating three provisions of a ten-point Iranian proposal, presented as a basis for a long-term agreement. These provisions, according to the Iranian narrative, included the ceasefire covering Lebanon, preventing the penetration of Iranian airspace, and recognizing Tehran's right to enrich uranium.

While Trump had previously announced his acceptance of the Iranian proposal as a basis for negotiation, Washington later confirmed that the version published in Iranian media did not reflect the actual submitted formula, without revealing its details. This discrepancy reflects a persistent trust gap, explicitly pointed out by Ghalibaf, who considered the United States' record of “violating commitments” justifies Iranian suspicions.

For his part, Vance tried to downplay the importance of the differences, considering that focusing on three points of contention might mean a broader common ground. However, he stirred controversy by questioning the accuracy of Ghalibaf's understanding of some elements of the proposal, a comment that could be seen as further complicating the negotiating atmosphere.

In the same context, Leavitt described the ceasefire as a “victory” for the United States, pointing to the achievement of key military objectives, including weakening Iranian naval and missile capabilities and reducing its support for regional allies. However, she implicitly admitted that these capabilities were not completely destroyed, but rather set back years, which opens the door to varying assessments of the confrontation's outcomes.

The nature of current American moves reflects an attempt to manage the balance between escalation and containment, as Washington seeks to leverage military pressure to improve negotiation terms, without sliding into an open confrontation. However, the multiplicity of conflict paths, from the Gulf to Lebanon, makes it difficult to confine understandings to a narrow geographical framework. Moreover, the discrepancy between political rhetoric and ground realities may gradually erode trust, unless declared intentions are translated into verifiable commitments.

The selection of Vance to lead the negotiating delegation highlights an awareness within the administration of the importance of the personal dimension in managing international crises. Negotiations in such contexts do not rely solely on texts, but also on the level of trust between the parties. If it is true that Tehran sees Vance as a less hardline interlocutor, this could open a limited window for understanding, even if surrounded by internal political constraints on both sides.

The assignment of the negotiation task to Vance raises questions about the diminished roles of figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, whose names were previously associated with Middle East files. This marginalization may reflect an assessment within the administration of their weak technical and diplomatic expertise in managing a complex conflict of this magnitude, or considerations related to the need to reset the negotiation path away from channels that proved to have limited effectiveness in previous crises.

Furthermore, the close association between some American negotiators and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raises doubts about the neutrality of American seriousness in negotiation, weakens Tehran's trust in Washington's seriousness, and reinforces the conviction that negotiations are taking place within a biased framework, especially since the United States launched a war on Iran twice while negotiating with the Witkoff-Kushner team. Therefore, the success of the diplomatic path requires demonstrating greater American independence, either by changing faces or modifying negotiation mechanisms to ensure a relative balance in the approach.

The disagreements over the provisions of the Iranian proposal reveal a deeper dilemma related to conflicting narratives, where each party adheres to a different interpretation of the same document. In the absence of full transparency, it becomes difficult to verify the validity of mutual claims, which reinforces an atmosphere of suspicion. Moreover, the introduction of sensitive sovereign issues, such as enrichment or airspace, into the core of negotiations, further complicates reaching a quick settlement, and makes any agreement vulnerable to instability at the first field test.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself today facing a complex political and military reality, following the American President's sudden announcement of a two-week suspension of attacks on Iran. This decision, taken by Washington without prior consultation with Tel Aviv, sparked a wave of concern in Israeli circles about the utility of the heavy costs paid during the recent confrontation.

Analytical sources reported that Israel, despite its use of excessive military force, failed to achieve a decisive resolution that would eliminate what it describes as the 'Iranian threat'. Observers believe that Trump's announcement of the agreement, which was drafted away from the closed rooms in Tel Aviv, reflects a clear American desire to avoid sliding into a comprehensive regional war that does not serve Washington's current interests.

In this context, political analyst Aidan Kivlar pointed out that the emergence of JD Vance, the US Vice President, represents a 'new nightmare' for Netanyahu and his ambitions. The new trends in the White House seem more inclined towards de-escalation, which was clearly evident in the sharp drop in oil prices immediately after the announcement, strengthening Trump's political position domestically.

A state of skepticism prevails within the Israeli security and political establishment regarding the leaked terms of the agreement, especially since they focused on secondary issues such as navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Critics believe that ignoring fundamental issues, such as uranium enrichment and ballistic missiles, empties Israeli military operations of their strategic content promoted by Netanyahu.

Despite official statements attempting to show full coordination between the two sides, behind the scenes reveals a deep gap in visions between the Trump administration and the right-wing government in Israel. Netanyahu had hoped for continued military pressure until the complete collapse of the Iranian regime, which was not achieved in the current form of the agreement.

Sources clarified that Iran succumbed to the demand to open the Strait of Hormuz after its infrastructure suffered severe blows, but this achievement is not enough for Israel, which fought the war for much broader goals. The current negotiations do not seem promising regarding the dismantling of the nuclear program, which puts Netanyahu in an embarrassing position before his right-wing public.

Reports indicate that Netanyahu ultimately realized that the political fate of his wars was linked to Trump's decisions, who seeks to achieve quick gains before the midterm elections. This realization reduced the room for maneuver available to the Israeli Prime Minister, who finds himself unable to openly oppose his strongest ally in the White House.

On the military front, Israel achieved successes in reducing Iranian missile capabilities and damaging vital facilities, but the cost was catastrophic on the home front. Missile barrages caused widespread destruction of homes and casualties, in addition to significant human losses among soldiers during ground operations in Lebanon.

Analysts believe that Israel has once again reached 'ground zero' or an intermediate state that is neither a resounding victory nor a crushing defeat. This strategic reality raises questions about the utility of the sacrifices made, as long as the Iranian regime still exists and possesses its uranium stockpile and missile capabilities.

Furthermore, the challenge posed by JD Vance stands out, as studies have shown that his popularity is rising among a public that does not prioritize Israel. Vance's sarcasm directed at Netanyahu regarding the possibility of overthrowing the Iranian regime reflects a shift in the political mood within the Republican Party itself.

The ceasefire, which also included the Lebanese front, means a return to cautious calm without resolving the outstanding issues that led to the outbreak of the confrontation in the first place. This situation puts Netanyahu under double pressure; from the internal opposition accusing him of failure, and from the American ally dictating its own pace.

Netanyahu is currently trying to cover up his disappointments through a mobilization speech aimed at boosting the morale of his right-wing camp, despite his awareness that strategic threats have not dissipated. The public, who was promised 'overwhelming victory', finds itself today facing a de-escalation agreement that returns things to what they were before the recent escalation.

With elections approaching in both Israel and the United States, narrow political calculations become the primary driver of major decisions. Trump wants to present a diplomatic achievement that ends the exorbitant cost of the war, while Netanyahu fears that halting the war will open internal accountability files regarding its results.

In conclusion, it seems that the next phase will witness a silent struggle between Tel Aviv and Washington over the details of the final agreement with Iran. While Washington seeks to close this file, Israel insists that any agreement that does not guarantee the complete dismantling of Iranian nuclear capabilities is merely a postponement of a coming and more fierce conflict.

Israel has once again reached an intermediate point: not a clear victory, nor a complete defeat, but another round ending without a fundamental change in the strategic reality.

By: Said Arikat

April 9, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- The decision to send J.D. Vance to lead negotiations with Iran in Islamabad reflects more than a tactical diplomatic move—it exposes the accumulated contradictions in Washington’s long and troubled negotiating record with Tehran. Announced alongside a two-week ceasefire involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, the initiative is framed as a step toward de-escalation. Yet both the structure of the talks and the conduct surrounding them suggest that the United States continues to struggle with credibility, consistency, and control over its closest regional ally, Israel.

At first glance, Vance’s appointment appears to signal a course correction. Known for his skepticism toward military escalation, he contrasts with figures such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, whose earlier involvement in Middle East diplomacy has drawn criticism in Tehran and beyond. Iranian officials have openly questioned their reliability, accusing them of distorting positions and negotiating in parallel with military pressure. This perception is not incidental—it is rooted in a broader pattern in which diplomacy and coercion have proceeded simultaneously, often undermining each other.

Indeed, one of the most persistent Iranian grievances is that Washington has repeatedly negotiated while escalating militarily. Iranian officials point to past episodes in which talks coincided with strikes or threats, reinforcing a belief that diplomacy is used as cover rather than commitment.  This pattern has produced what Iranian leaders describe as a “zero trust” environment, where even genuine proposals are viewed through the lens of anticipated betrayal.

The legacy of the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement continues to loom over current efforts. That decision, coupled with subsequent pressure campaigns, entrenched skepticism not only in Tehran but also among regional actors. Analysts have long argued that inconsistent U.S. strategies—oscillating between maximalist demands and abrupt diplomatic overtures—have weakened the prospects for sustained engagement.  The current initiative risks falling into the same trap if it fails to reconcile rhetoric with practice.

Compounding this credibility gap is the role of Israel, which continues to operate as both a partner and a disruptor in the diplomatic process. Despite the announcement of a ceasefire, Israeli military operations—particularly in Lebanon—have persisted, directly contradicting the spirit, if not the letter, of the agreement. Recent reporting confirms that Israel not only rejected the inclusion of Lebanon in the truce but also continued strikes against alleged Hezbollah targets, even as negotiations were being prepared.

From Tehran’s perspective, this dynamic reinforces a longstanding accusation: that Israel acts as a spoiler, intervening at critical moments to derail diplomatic progress. Iranian officials have explicitly accused Israel of attempting to sabotage negotiations and provoke broader conflict, particularly when talks appear to gain traction.  Whether or not one accepts this framing in full, the timing of Israeli actions has repeatedly coincided with sensitive diplomatic junctures, complicating efforts to build momentum.

Washington’s response to this challenge has been notably ambivalent. While U.S. officials insist that the ceasefire does not extend to Lebanon, they have also called for restraint—without enforcing it. This dual posture allows Israel operational freedom while preserving a diplomatic narrative, but it comes at a cost: it undermines the coherence of the U.S. position and fuels perceptions of selective commitment to de-escalation.

The result is a fragmented negotiating environment in which multiple, overlapping conflicts resist compartmentalization. Efforts to isolate the U.S.-Iran track from broader regional dynamics have proven ineffective, as events in Lebanon, the Gulf, and beyond continue to shape the strategic calculus of all parties. The insistence on a narrow geographic scope for the ceasefire may therefore reflect political expediency more than strategic realism.

Against this backdrop, Vance’s role becomes both more significant and more constrained. His perceived pragmatism may create a limited opening with Iranian negotiators, who appear to prefer engagement with figures less associated with prior breakdowns. Yet personal credibility, while important, cannot substitute for structural change. Without a clear shift in how the United States aligns its military actions, diplomatic messaging, and alliance management, even the most capable envoy will struggle to achieve lasting results.

The internal recalibration within the U.S. negotiating team also raises important questions. The apparent sidelining of Witkoff and Kushner suggests recognition—implicit if not explicit—that previous approaches have fallen short. Their close association with Benjamin Netanyahu has further complicated perceptions of U.S. neutrality, reinforcing Iranian suspicions that Washington’s diplomacy is shaped by Israeli priorities as much as its own.

For negotiations to gain traction, the United States may need to demonstrate a greater degree of independence—not only in personnel but in policy execution. This includes establishing clearer boundaries with Israel when its actions threaten to derail diplomatic efforts, as well as committing to a more consistent negotiating framework that avoids the oscillation between pressure and outreach.

Ultimately, the Islamabad talks are less a breakthrough than a stress test. They will reveal whether Washington has absorbed the lessons of its past engagements with Iran or remains bound by the same patterns that have repeatedly undermined them. If Israel continues to act as an unchecked spoiler, and if U.S. diplomacy continues to be paired with coercive tactics that erode trust, the current ceasefire will likely prove as fragile as those that came before it.

In that sense, the stakes extend beyond the immediate negotiations. They touch on a more fundamental question: whether the United States is prepared to conduct diplomacy with Iran as a strategic commitment rather than a tactical instrument.

Washington – Said Arikat – 8/4/2026

News Analysis

A report by New York Times journalists Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman provides a detailed account of Donald Trump's decision-making process to engage in military action against Iran, revealing a complex operation where personal assessments, divergent intelligence data, and divisions within his team intertwined, alongside a clear influence from coordination with Benjamin Netanyahu.

The story begins with a pivotal meeting on February 11 at the White House, where Netanyahu presented Trump with a plan supported by Israeli intelligence, focusing on an "opportune moment" to strike Iran quickly and effectively, while minimizing risks. The plan included destroying Iranian missile capabilities, weakening the regime, and even opening the door to its change. The Israeli side presented Iran as internally fragile and externally containable.

Trump showed clear responsiveness to this proposal from the outset, reflecting a growing convergence in his vision with Netanyahu, especially regarding Iran as an exceptional threat. However, this approach faced scrutiny from US intelligence agencies the following day, where the plan was broken down into four main objectives: targeting leadership, weakening military capabilities, igniting internal unrest, and achieving regime change. While the first two objectives were deemed achievable, the latter two were rejected as unrealistic.

Despite this, Trump focused on the feasible military objectives, ignoring reservations related to broader implications. This selective handling of information reflects a broader pattern in his leadership style, where he tends to adopt what aligns with his preconceived notions.

Within his team, Vice President J.D. Vance emerged as the most prominent opponent, warning of the risks of escalation and regional instability. In contrast, Pete Hegseth supported the military option, while Marco Rubio adopted a middle ground, advocating for limited strikes without sliding into major goals like regime change. Military and intelligence officials, such as John Ratcliffe and General Dan Caine, presented the risks without explicit opposition.

Geopolitical context played an additional role, as previous military successes boosted Trump's confidence, alongside his firm conviction of Iran's danger. At the same time, political efforts led by Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff failed to achieve a breakthrough, further convincing the administration that the military option was the most viable.

With intelligence emerging about a rare opportunity to target Iranian leadership with a single strike, the pace of the decision accelerated. In a February 26 meeting, advisors reiterated their positions without a serious attempt to obstruct the general direction, leading Trump to finalize his decision to move forward, justifying it by the necessity of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Ultimately, this trajectory reflects a decision shaped by a delicate balance between personal assessment and institutional evaluation, where presidential inclination outweighed reservations, driven by a strategic opportunity and implicit political consensus, leading to a choice with far-reaching consequences.

This trajectory reveals a structural problem in the US decision-making mechanism, where the president, driven by personal convictions, can reorder intelligence assessment priorities to serve his orientations. Instead of intelligence being a tool to control decisions, it transformed into a selective reservoir used to justify a preconceived choice. This pattern raises questions about the effectiveness of institutional checks and balances, especially when senior officials hesitate to offer explicit opposition, allowing political judgment to override long-term strategic analysis.

Israel's role in this issue stands out as a crucial factor in guiding the decision, not only through providing intelligence but also by shaping an entire framework for strategic thinking. Netanyahu's success in framing Iran as an "easy and available" target reflects the allies' ability to influence Washington's calculations, especially when it intersects with preconceived notions of the American leadership. This raises a question about the extent of the independence of American decision-making and the limits of allies' influence in pushing it towards high-risk military options.

J.D. Vance's limited opposition, despite the clarity of his warnings, reflects a recurring pattern in US administrations, where dissenting voices are contained within the framework of "ultimate commitment" to the president's decision. This behavior reinforces the impression that internal discussions, no matter how sharp, rarely become an actual obstacle to executive decisions. The result is an environment that prefers apparent cohesion over genuine debate, which can lead to underestimating risks, especially in complex issues such as regional wars and their international repercussions.

Day after day, the harsh repercussions of the ongoing wars waged by the Israeli occupation army are revealed, with the recent emergence of a crisis of deep psychological and neurological casualties affecting military ranks. Hebrew press sources reported an increasing number of soldiers, both in regular service and reserves, suffering from severe brain injuries that led to permanent disabilities that changed the course of their lives.

According to the reports, these soldiers face severe challenges in understanding social situations and making simple daily decisions, as well as severe sleep disturbances and memory loss. Specialists indicate that a large number of those injured do not initially realize the nature of their injuries, or are unable to link the deterioration of their health to the explosions they were exposed to on the battlefronts.

Professional estimates indicate that the scale of the phenomenon has become unprecedentedly widespread since October 7, 2023, with about 400 soldiers officially diagnosed with brain injuries. However, sources confirm that the actual number may reach about 24,000 injured, as many refrain from seeking treatment centers for fear of stigma or due to a lack of understanding of the symptoms.

Diagnosing these cases is a very complex process due to the overlap of symptoms of organic brain injuries with post-traumatic stress disorder. Sources quoted psychological expert Professor Alon Friedman as saying that a wide sector of soldiers suffered from a 'double trauma' combining organic brain damage and psychological collapse, which makes treatment and rehabilitation a major medical challenge.

In live testimonies reflecting the magnitude of the tragedy, families of injured soldiers recounted painful details about their sons turning into strangers after returning from Gaza. In the case of soldier Oz Okampo, who was injured in Khan Yunis, his mother described the situation as the family receiving a completely different person from the one they bid farewell before going to military service, noting his complete loss of independence.

As for soldier Udi Reches, 20 years old, he lost the ability to speak for many weeks after being injured in the Gaza battles at the end of last year. His family had to teach him basic skills again, starting from forming simple sentences to how to manage his daily affairs, after the left side of his face was shattered and his brain was damaged by a violent explosion.

Reports indicate that Reches's injury occurred during combing operations inside residential buildings in the Gaza Strip, where an explosion of a booby-trapped door caused him cut wounds and a violent concussion. His mother confirms that the rehabilitation journey seems 'arduous and endless', as her eldest son has turned into something like a small child who needs constant accompaniment even in the simplest movements.

For his part, Dr. Yaron Sahar, an official in the Israeli Ministry of Health, explained that brain injuries in the field often result from blast waves or shrapnel. These waves cause the brain to violently shake inside the skull, leading to the tearing of nerve fibers and damage to functional abilities, concentration, and the ability for social initiative.

In the same context, Dr. Gili Givati from the Rehabilitation Department of the Ministry of Defense warned of the profound change in the personality of the injured, describing it as a real shock for families. She confirmed that soldiers with brain injuries exhibit aggressive or withdrawn behaviors that were not previously present, making it almost impossible for their loved ones, who hope for their return as they were, to accept the new reality.

Despite this enormous number of injuries, sources indicate the absence of a comprehensive and unified national policy for dealing with the rehabilitation of brain-injured individuals. Experts warn that the medical and military establishment is unprepared to absorb this 'exceptional and unprecedented' number of permanent disabilities that will cast a shadow over Israeli society for many years.

These data complete a grim picture revealed by previous reports, which spoke of more than 20,000 soldiers suffering varying injuries during the aggression on Gaza. These numbers are added to tens of thousands of cases suffering from severe psychological disorders, reflecting a significant depletion of the human resources of the occupation army as a result of fierce resistance in the field.

This silent crisis within the Israeli military establishment reveals a heavy price paid by soldiers away from the announced casualty statistics. With the continuation of military operations, observers expect these numbers to worsen, placing enormous pressure on the rehabilitation system and social services, which have begun to show their inability to contain the repercussions of the long war.

To receive an injured son with a brain injury means you are receiving a completely different person from what he was when you sent him to the army.

Colleague journalist Muhammad Samir Wushah, who works as a correspondent for media sources, was martyred as a result of an Israeli airstrike that targeted a civilian vehicle he was riding in in the Sheikh Ajlin neighborhood, west of Gaza City. Medical and field sources confirmed that the bombing led to the martyrdom of Wushah and another companion immediately after the car was targeted on Al-Rasheed coastal street.

Civil defense crews explained that they were able to recover the bodies of the two martyrs from the wreckage of the vehicle, which was directly hit by the occupation aircraft. This targeting comes in the context of a series of attacks that have affected journalistic crews in the Strip, as data from the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate indicates a record rise in the number of martyrs among media workers since the start of the aggression in October 2023.

In a related context, Wednesday witnessed a significant field escalation, as sources reported the martyrdom of two other young men as a result of bombing and shooting operations carried out by the occupation forces east of the Zeitoun neighborhood, south of the city. These bloody field developments come amid continued repeated Israeli violations of the concluded ceasefire agreement, amid systematic targeting of civilians and movements on the main roads in the Strip.

Civil Defense in Gaza reported the martyrdom of two Palestinians, one of whom was a journalist, as a result of the occupation aircraft bombing a civilian car on Al-Rasheed Street, west of Gaza City.

International press reports have indicated the emergence of sharp and unprecedented political divisions within the American arena, against the backdrop of escalating statements made by President Donald Trump against Tehran. Trump threatened to launch an attack that would lead to the annihilation of an entire civilization if Iran continued to refuse to conclude a new agreement guaranteeing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, which sparked a storm of angry reactions inside and outside Washington.

Media sources considered these threats to have exceeded all customary diplomatic standards, leading to a sharp divergence in positions among political forces. While some Republicans supported what they described as a belated decisive action in the stalled negotiations, Democrats found in these statements additional legal and political material to bolster their efforts to impeach the president on the grounds of threatening global security.

The right-wing 'MAGA' base, which is the backbone of Trump's supporters, witnessed surprising cracks after prominent figures announced their separation from the president's approach. These leaders affirmed that the threat to target Iranian civilians and destroy their civilizational heritage represents a transgression of moral and political red lines, indicating a radical shift in the loyalties of the far-right, which has long supported Trump's controversial policies.

In this context, conservative broadcaster Tucker Carlson launched a scathing attack on the current American strategy, describing it as 'despicable' and lacking responsibility. Carlson expressed his shock at the move towards using deadly military force to kill civilians just weeks after the crisis erupted, warning of the catastrophic consequences of this military escalation on the image and international standing of the United States.

For her part, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene surprised political circles by joining the opposition front demanding Trump's removal through the activation of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Greene, who was classified as one of the president's strongest allies, explained that Trump's recent behavior has become an imminent danger to supreme national interests, necessitating urgent constitutional action to ensure the stability of the state.

The wave of criticism did not stop there, as right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones described what was happening as 'the madness of the king,' calling on American institutions to immediately remove Trump. Jones indicated in statements on social media platforms that the sudden shift in leadership's mindset towards total violence reflects a sharp deterioration in the president's ability to manage international crises with wisdom and balance.

In the same vein, conservative activist Candace Owens described President Trump as a 'genocidal maniac,' demanding that Congress and the military intervene immediately to stop any military action that could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. These hardened positions from former allies reflect the magnitude of the gap created by war escalation policies, threatening the cohesion of the political bases on which Trump relies for his future ambitions.

You might have a good leader, then suddenly he goes mad. This is the madness of the king.

Recent reports have raised fundamental questions about the accuracy of the security assessments provided by Benjamin Netanyahu's government regarding the destruction of Iranian military capabilities. While the Israeli leadership insists it has succeeded in 'strangling' the Iranian regime, field realities indicate that Tehran has shown no real signs of depleting its strategic missile stockpile.

In a striking field development, air raid sirens blared in major Israeli cities coinciding with Passover celebrations, following the launch of the largest Iranian missile barrage in weeks. This continuous bombardment has led international observers to question the effectiveness of the intensive airstrikes that targeted Iranian production and storage sites over the past months.

Journalistic sources indicate that Israeli estimates announced after the June 2025 war, which was then described as a 'historic victory,' may have involved significant exaggerations. Despite the severe strikes, Iran resumed missile production at an accelerated pace, leaving Israelis in a constant state of alert, seeking shelters.

Despite the numerical decrease in missiles compared to the first day of the war, Iran has succeeded in maintaining a stable daily launch rate. This stability reflects a logistical capability to maneuver and overcome joint Israeli and American airstrikes that targeted Iranian military infrastructure.

Western analysts believe that one reason for this resilience is Iran's possession of launch platforms far exceeding what external observers had believed. These platforms are highly capable of camouflage, with many taking the form of civilian trucks that are difficult to detect and track in Iran's vast geography.

Tehran has also resorted to a strategy of distributing its arsenal in distant eastern provinces, complicating the tasks of warplanes that face difficulty flying for long periods in those areas. Some of these missiles have been equipped with lighter warheads to ensure they reach their targets from much greater distances.

While Israel claims to have destroyed about three-quarters of the launch platforms, recent American intelligence assessments indicate that half of these platforms are still intact and operational. It appears that fortified underground 'missile cities' have played a crucial role in protecting these capabilities from concentrated aerial bombardment.

Information indicates that Iranian teams showed high flexibility in evacuating cave and tunnel entrances immediately after being bombed, allowing platforms to be brought out and surprise launches to be carried out. Cloudy weather conditions sometimes contributed to providing natural cover for these movements away from satellite eyes.

Building the Iranian missile program, which began decades ago, was not merely an arms assembly operation, but a multi-billion dollar investment in a complex network of manufacturing and research. This network was not limited to inside Iran but extended to providing regional allies with the necessary technological expertise to produce their own arsenals.

In this context, Hezbollah in Lebanon still represents an existing threat despite the destruction of part of its major warehouses, with military sources estimating it possesses thousands of short-range missiles. These capabilities give it the ability to strike vital targets deep inside Israel, further complicating security calculations in the region.

Indicators of broader regional coordination have also emerged, with reports suggesting the use of medium-range missiles to target military bases outside the direct geographical scope, such as the British base in Cyprus. This expansion in the target bank reflects an Iranian desire to demonstrate its ability to influence the trajectories of regional conflict.

Despite the strikes that targeted steel factories and electronic research centers, the ability to continue launching remains present and effective. Experts believe that rebuilding the entire arsenal may take years, but the current stockpile is sufficient to continue a long-term war of attrition against defense systems.

On the other hand, Israeli army officers acknowledge that the terrifying scenarios envisioned at the beginning of the war about widespread destruction in major cities have not been fully realized. However, Iran's failure to 'overwhelm' air defenses does not necessarily mean the end of the threat, but rather its transformation into a more sustainable and bothersome pattern.

Ultimately, the Iranian regime remains capable of using the missile card as a pivotal tool in its defensive and offensive strategy alike. Despite material and human losses, Tehran has shown no signs of military collapse, placing the Israeli leadership before a field reality contrary to political promises.

Israelis might be excused for doubting Netanyahu's words, especially since he declared a historic victory in 2025 while they are still rushing to shelters today.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his support for US President Donald Trump's decision to suspend military attacks against Iran for two weeks. This stance comes amid dramatic shifts in the region after weeks of direct confrontation that erupted last February, with Netanyahu linking this support to Tehran's commitment to open navigation straits and cease all forms of hostile attacks.

In a move that raised questions about the unity of the field position, Netanyahu stressed that this agreement regarding the Iranian front does not extend to include the Lebanese arena. He clarified in his statements that military operations against Hezbollah are ongoing, indicating an Israeli desire to separate negotiation tracks and prevent Iran from gaining advantages for its regional allies within the initial understandings with Washington.

On the other hand, international media sources quoted a senior White House official confirming that Israel is an original party to the ceasefire agreement announced by Trump. The official indicated that Tel Aviv has already agreed to suspend its intensive air campaign, to make way for ongoing diplomatic negotiations to reach a final formula that ends the conflict that has lasted for weeks.

In a related context, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif revealed different details, confirming that the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, and their allies have agreed to an immediate ceasefire on all fronts. Sharif clarified that the agreement takes effect immediately and includes Lebanese territories and any other areas experiencing armed conflict related to this regional confrontation.

High-level Israeli security sources reported that the understandings between Washington and Tehran explicitly include a cessation of fighting between the Israeli army and Lebanese Hezbollah. According to these sources, the agreement stipulates a mutual ceasefire in exchange for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, which contradicts the public statements recently made by Netanyahu.

US President Donald Trump had earlier announced a two-week truce, describing it as a historic opportunity to conclude a long-term peace agreement. Trump affirmed that both the American and Iranian sides agreed to cease mutual shelling, noting that this period would be sufficient to address the remaining points of contention, which were significantly reduced during recent consultations.

Trump clarified that the truce is conditional on full and immediate Iranian approval to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, considering that the United States has achieved and exceeded its military objectives. The US President revealed receiving a ten-point Iranian proposal, which he described as a valid basis for negotiation to end the chronic crisis that has plagued the region's stability throughout the past period.

These developments come at a time when Israel is suffering from significant field pressures, as military briefings acknowledged the difficulty of decisively ending the battle in Lebanon without a full occupation of the territories. The ongoing aggression has also caused the displacement of nearly one million Lebanese, amid growing Israeli fears of sliding into a long-term war of attrition that brings back bitter past military experiences in southern Lebanon.

Reports from informed sources indicate that the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation sensed a state of surprise in political circles in Tel Aviv due to the timing of Trump's announcement. It appears that the final updates to the agreement reached the Israeli leadership at the last minute, which explains the contradiction in statements between welcoming the truce with Iran and insisting on continuing the war in Lebanon.

Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, is scheduled to host delegations from the United States and Iran next Friday, in an attempt to finalize the comprehensive agreement. This mediation aims to transform the temporary truce into a permanent cessation of hostilities that began on February 28, which the international community is cautiously awaiting.

Domestically in Israel, Netanyahu faces criticism regarding the absence of the final verbatim text of the agreement, which political analysts pointed out, considering that the lack of clarity could lead to the collapse of the truce. Tehran, for its part, insists on the necessity of including Lebanon in any settlement, considering that the security of the region is an indivisible whole, which puts additional pressure on the US administration to persuade its ally Israel to comply.

In conclusion, the question remains about the ability of the next two weeks to shape a new reality in the Middle East, away from the language of missiles and airstrikes. While Trump speaks of 'the verge of a final solution,' Netanyahu insists on keeping the northern front ablaze, leaving the region facing open scenarios between comprehensive peace or a return to comprehensive escalation.

The ceasefire announced by US President Donald Trump for two weeks does not include military operations in Lebanon.

The Middle East is passing through a dangerous historical turning point that goes beyond mere fleeting military clashes, as the features of a wide-ranging confrontation led by the United States and Israel against Iran are crystallizing. Despite the announcement of fragile cease-fire agreements, field indicators confirm that the region is still living on a hot plate, especially with the continued escalation of fronts from Palestine to Lebanon.

What the region is witnessing today represents an embodiment of the concept of 'war without a center,' which geographically extends to include vital waterways from the Strait of Hormuz to Bab al-Mandab. This confrontation is not merely an attempt to dismantle a nuclear program, but rather a forced re-engineering of the region aimed at trapping Arab countries in a systematic bleeding and acute polarization.

A careful reading of the scene reveals the collapse of the hypothesis of a rapid military decisive victory promoted by decision-making circles in Washington and Tel Aviv. The field reality has proven that we are facing a networked war of attrition, which does not recognize traditional borders and makes military bases and economic interests open targets in the absence of a clear political horizon.

American-Israeli strategy moves along paths aimed first at exhausting Iranian regional power and removing it from the sphere of influence while it is heavily wounded. The second path seeks to impose forced alignment on Arab capitals, pulling them from a position of positive neutrality into a furnace of conflict that does not serve their direct national interests.

'Managed chaos' emerges as a tactic to keep the region in a state of continuous turmoil, which justifies the continuation of Western security guardianship and control over global energy routes. This situation places Arab countries before difficult choices, ranging from engaging in international axes at a heavy moral cost, or passive withdrawal that may threaten their internal security.

Returning to history, we find that managing existential crises requires a mixture of political realism and defensive innovation, as happened in major historical junctures. The ability to disengage from hostile alliances and engage in complex diplomatic maneuvers remains the only way to neutralize the numerical and technical superiority of adversaries in moments of breakdown.

Jurisprudence of crisis management calls for the necessity of 'holding back' when fronts overlap and matters are ambiguous, which means refusing to be drawn into proxy wars. Converting national capabilities into fuel for conflicts that serve external agendas represents a direct threat to the future of coming generations and the stability of countries targeted by polarization.

Survival engineering at the present time requires internal fortification based on collective awareness and national sovereignty, away from external dictates. The realization that material balances of power are not absolute gives the Arab decision-maker greater ability to maneuver and take sovereign positions stemming from the supreme interest of the state and the people.

Adherence to the principle of 'sovereign and geographical neutrality' is an urgent necessity to protect Arab lands and airspace from becoming an arena for settling international scores. There must be a collective stance that rejects the use of military bases scattered in the region as a starting point for any hostile action, because that deprives states of their sovereignty and makes them vulnerable to reciprocal retaliation.

Activating 'preventive diplomacy' and building unified regional blocs represents the first line of defense against the military madness threatening the region. Pressure in international forums to stop the escalation must stem from a common regional security vision, which confirms that solutions do not come through foreign gunpowder but through arrangements originating from within.

On the economic front, it has become imperative for Arab capitals to accelerate the pace of inter-integration to secure supply chains and basic needs. In light of the targeting of energy facilities and the threat to maritime passages, food and economic security become an integral part of the comprehensive national security defense system.

The brinkmanship policy currently being practiced aims to scatter the cards and reproduce relations of dependency in the Middle East. The response to these policies is not through momentary emotional reactions, but by adopting long-term strategies that ensure the independence of Arab decision-making and prevent the depletion of wealth in endless wars.

Arab countries today have a historical opportunity to impose a rational balance that protects their future from projects of hegemony and systematic destruction. Drawing lessons from history confirms that strong will and complete awareness are the real tools for achieving survival in an era of major geopolitical transformations and political earthquakes.

In conclusion, the current scene confirms that the region is living in the heart of an earthquake aimed at forcibly reshaping the political map. Survival from this earthquake requires a vision that combines conscious caution and deliberate practical action, to ensure that Arab geography does not turn into merely a 'mailbox' for the messages of competing great powers.

Survival from major traps requires flexible minds capable of defensive and diplomatic innovation, and not just emotional reactions.

International press reports revealed that Tehran informed international mediators that its presence at the upcoming Islamabad talks, scheduled for next Friday, is contingent on an end to Israeli aggression against Lebanese territories. This move comes amidst an escalation in the pace of military operations launched by the occupation, which sources described as brutal and directly targeting civilians.

The sources clarified that the Iranian side brandished a strategic card, namely, retracting previous commitments regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation. Observers believe that this threat raises the level of tension in the region to unprecedented levels, given the vital importance of the strait to global energy supplies.

In a related context, Tehran issued stern warnings that it would not stand idly by if the targeting of Lebanon or Iranian depth continues, affirming its determination to continue attacks against Israeli targets in the region. This stance reflects the interconnectedness of military and political fronts in the current confrontation between regional parties.

On the ground, Israeli occupation forces committed a series of horrific massacres in the Lebanese capital Beirut and various areas in the South and Bekaa during daylight hours. Air raids focused on residential neighborhoods and civilian facilities during peak hours, leading to dozens of casualties, including martyrs and injured.

A spokesperson for the Lebanese Ministry of Health stated that the toll of the recent aggression reached 89 martyrs and approximately 700 injured, noting that among the victims were 12 paramedics who died in raids targeting relief teams in the south of the country. These figures reflect the extent of the systematic targeting of vital and humanitarian sectors in Lebanon.

For its part, the occupation army announced the execution of what it described as 'the largest strike' since early March, with its aircraft targeting approximately 100 sites in just ten minutes. The occupation claimed that the attacks hit command headquarters and military systems belonging to Hezbollah, in an attempt to justify the intensity of the firepower used.

However, eyewitness accounts from the targeted areas refuted the occupation's narrative, as residents confirmed that the shelling hit predominantly Sunni areas located outside Hezbollah's usual geographical operational scope. Witnesses indicated that widespread destruction affected inhabited buildings and residential apartments, causing panic and widespread displacement.

Field reports indicate that the Israeli shelling did not spare main streets and public facilities, leading to a complete paralysis of movement in several Lebanese cities. This escalation comes at a time when diplomatic efforts were seeking to contain the situation and prevent the region from sliding into an all-out war.

Political analysts believe that the Iranian linkage between the negotiation process in Islamabad and the field situation in Lebanon presents complex challenges for mediators. Iranian demands for an immediate ceasefire place additional pressure on active international powers to intervene and stop the Israeli war machine.

Amidst this volatile scene, anticipation remains the dominant sentiment regarding what the coming hours will bring, both on the military front and in the corridors of international diplomacy. Threats related to international waterways remain a crucial factor that could prompt major powers to act quickly to avert a global economic and security crisis.

Iran warned that it would continue its attacks on Israel and the region if the targeting of Lebanon and Iran continues, and may retract its commitment to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The Israeli Supreme Court rejected an urgent petition filed by the extremist Temple organizations' union, demanding that settlers be allowed to storm the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque before the end of the Jewish Passover holiday. Although the decision was a rejection, legal experts see danger in the court's original acceptance to consider matters related to Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is considered a تجاوز (transgression) of the existing legal and historical status quo.

This judicial move raises fundamental questions about the legality of Israeli courts' intervention in the administration of Islamic holy sites, especially since international law does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied city of Jerusalem. The occupation authorities continue to ignore international resolutions by imposing a new reality in which they consider themselves the sole decision-maker in opening and closing holy places.

In a related context, the Israeli government extended the state of emergency until mid-April, which resulted in the Islamic Endowments Department being informed of the continued closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Observers believe that this extension comes within the framework of exploiting security circumstances to impose long-term political restrictions on Muslim worshippers' entry to their mosque.

For his part, lawyer specializing in Jerusalem issues, Khaled Zabarka, explained that the mere acceptance by the Supreme Court to consider the petition carries dangerous political dimensions that go beyond the legal aspect. He pointed out that this step implicitly means the court's declaration that Al-Aqsa Mosque falls under full Israeli sovereignty, and that the occupation authorities alone have the authority to control its gates.

Zabarka stressed that any decision related to opening or closing Al-Aqsa Mosque must be exclusively in the hands of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, as the internationally recognized sovereign entity through the Hashemite custodianship. He considered that ignoring the role of the Islamic Endowments Department in this petition represents a clear attempt to marginalize the historical and legal Jordanian role in Jerusalem.

Legal sources pointed out that the occupation authorities deliberately closed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre since the outbreak of the recent military confrontations, citing security and safety instructions issued by the Home Front. However, the fact that other places of worship remain open without restrictions proves that the motives behind the closure of Al-Aqsa are purely political motives aimed at imposing a new reality.

With talk of a possible de-escalation, specialists called on the Islamic Endowments Department and the Kingdom of Jordan to take the lead and initiate the announcement of opening the doors of Al-Aqsa Mosque to worshippers independently. This step is seen as an urgent necessity to restore administrative and field initiative and to thwart the occupation's attempts to link the opening of the mosque to settler incursions.

In an interpretation of the implications of the rejection, researcher Ziad Abhais believes that the court's decision did not reject the principle of incursions, but rather returned the authority to assess the situation to the extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. This means that the court is solidifying the endeavor to annex Al-Aqsa Mosque to Israeli administrative and security sovereignty, away from any considerations of international law or signed agreements.

Abhais warns of a dangerous equation that the occupation is trying to impose, which is linking the entry of Muslims to Al-Aqsa Mosque to ensuring the security of settlers during their incursions into the outer courtyards. The occupation authorities exploit the absence of shelters in the open courtyards to justify preventing worshippers, while the covered prayer halls remain safe shelters that are only used to restrict the movement of Palestinians.

For his part, academic Abdullah Maarouf indicated that the opening of Al-Aqsa Mosque in the coming period may be according to Israeli conditions aimed at establishing the concept of 'shared holy site'. Maarouf fears that the occupation seeks to return to the plans of temporal and spatial division more strictly, by allocating specific times for Muslims and others for settlers equally.

Maarouf affirmed that any announcement by the occupation to open the mosque under its own conditions cannot be considered an achievement, but rather an attempt to legitimize Israeli intervention in matters of worship. He stressed the necessity of intense and unprecedented Palestinian presence in the mosque to thwart these plans and prove the pure Islamic identity of the place away from the dictates of the occupation.

In conclusion, Al-Aqsa Mosque remains an arena for intense legal and political conflict, where extremist organizations, supported by judicial and governmental cover, seek to impose a new reality. Attention is now turning to Palestinian and Jordanian popular and diplomatic movements to confront these challenges that threaten the status quo in one of the holiest Islamic sites in the world.

The Israeli Supreme Court's acceptance to consider the petition practically means that Al-Aqsa Mosque is subject to full Israeli sovereignty in the eyes of the occupation authorities.

Contemporary political reality is witnessing a profound epistemological shift, where religious and redemptive concepts infiltrate the heart of major military conflicts, especially in the context of the persistent tension between the United States and Iran. This transformation moves the conflict from the horizon of rational politics based on interests to the horizon of functional metaphysics that invokes the sacred to immunize political action from human accountability.

Invoking religious discourse in the context of war does not aim to establish values of peace; rather, it functions as a justificatory discursive structure that turns strategic decisions into prophecies or miracles. When war is cloaked in this divine character, it loses its nature as a human act subject to criticism and becomes a tool that empties the political mind of its ability for objective review and evaluation.

This trend reactivates the logic of the 'existential enemy' as theorized by Carl Schmitt, where the adversary is no longer a party in a conflict that can be resolved through negotiation and diplomacy. Instead, the adversary takes on the image of an absolute and comprehensive threat that must be eradicated, raising the level of confrontation from a political dispute to an existential theological conflict that accepts no compromise.

The ultimate danger lies in transforming war into a 'redemptive ritual,' where the language of politics is suspended and redefined from within a closed religious horizon that views negotiation as a betrayal of divine will. At this moment, authority transforms from a political actor required to justify itself before the public into an intermediary speaking on behalf of heaven, granting it absolute immunity against any objection.

This war theology leads to a reshaping of political time itself. Instead of history open to possibilities and change, the conflict is inserted into a closed 'eschatological' time. The conflict here is read as an inevitable chapter of the grand finale, transforming the future from a realm of free human action into a predetermined realization of prophecies.

The transition from history to mythology not only eliminates opportunities for peace but also disables the condition of human freedom in shaping political paths. The political actor in this framework becomes merely an executor of a predetermined destiny, closing the door to any diplomatic initiatives that might seek to change the course of events or avoid bloody confrontations.

This discursive mechanism relies on a dual strategy: dehumanizing the adversary and elevating the political actor to the status of a sacred agent. When the other party is portrayed as the embodiment of pure evil, it disappears as a historical entity with interests and contexts, becoming an object of annihilation or forced subjugation without any ethical considerations.

In this context, the universal ethics championed by philosophers like Immanuel Kant collapse, replaced by narrow, sectarian ethics that see right only in the self and annihilation in the other. This logic legitimizes the use of excessive force as long as it serves the 'absolute good' that authority claims to represent in the face of the 'absolute evil' embodied by the enemy.

This tendency was clearly manifested in previous American political statements, where official sources described military operations against Iranian targets as an 'Easter miracle.' This link between Christian salvation and pure military action gives war an exceptional character, stripping it of its realistic political nature to make it part of a divine plan.

Using religiously charged phrases such as 'Thank God' in the context of direct military threats reflects a desire to frame the conflict within an absolute dichotomy between good and evil. This framing elevates political decisions from the realm of rational justification to a horizon beyond criticism, transforming war into a confrontation with a redemptive meaning that transcends the boundaries of interests.

Criticism of this war theology should not slip into the illusion of absolute 'political purity,' for the problem is not the existence of cultural or religious values behind political action. The real danger lies in these values transforming into a 'closure mechanism' that prevents democratic deliberation and disables critical tools, claiming for itself a transcendent authority that accepts no debate.

This overlap between religion and politics reveals a dual crisis: a crisis in religion when it is emptied of its ethical dimensions to become fuel for mobilization, and a crisis in politics when it fails to justify itself rationally. This mutual colonization between the two domains does not produce real strength but rather expresses an internal fragility that each side tries to compensate for by resorting to the other.

Restoring the political mind requires redefining the position of religion as an inspiring ethical horizon, not a sovereign tool to justify violence. Politics, to remain possible and effective, needs a common space that recognizes difference and negotiability, far from the monopolization of absolute truth imposed by war theological discourses.

In conclusion, deconstructing this type of discourse remains an essential condition for opening the way for a politics that recognizes its human limits and is subject to continuous review. Protecting the public sphere from 'a heaven tailored to power' is the only way to ensure that political conflicts do not turn into holy wars of annihilation that leave nothing behind.

When war becomes a divine mission, what happens is not an elevation of religion, but its reduction to a justificatory tool that empties the political mind of its critical condition.

A leading source in Hezbollah announced that the party decided to cease fire from its side since the early hours of dawn, in a step aimed at paving the way for ongoing political consultations to reach a truce. The source clarified that the party is closely monitoring the results of diplomatic contacts, emphasizing that this position is not open indefinitely, especially in light of continued Israeli aggressions on Lebanese territories.

Regarding coordination with state institutions, the source indicated the absence of any direct official communication so far to coordinate positions with the Lebanese government, despite the party and President Nabih Berri being informed that Lebanon is included in ceasefire understandings. The leader affirmed that the party does not see the possibility of repeating previous scenarios for truce agreements, explaining that the field and political contacts will determine the next steps.

For its part, the Lebanese Republic's presidency settled the debate about the negotiation authority, as official sources confirmed that the Lebanese state is the sole party responsible for negotiation tasks on behalf of the country. The presidency stressed that any official position must be issued exclusively through legitimate state channels, while at the same time expressing the Lebanese President's welcome of any efforts that lead to achieving a sustainable truce that ends the suffering of citizens.

On the governmental level, Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati affirmed that the government places ending the imposed war on Lebanon at the forefront of its priorities, and is working to intensify its international and diplomatic contacts to achieve this goal. Mikati indicated that efforts are currently focused on stopping the bloodshed and protecting Lebanese sovereignty through available political channels, considering that the country's stability requires full commitment to ceasing hostilities.

On the ground, field sources in southern Lebanon reported that the Israeli occupation army has escalated its targeting since dawn today, with raids hitting civilian cars, motorcycles, and points belonging to the Islamic Health Authority. The attacks focused on the Marjayoun district and eastern areas, resulting in a number of martyrs and wounded, in addition to directly targeting an ambulance in a clear challenge to international norms.

Israeli escalation included intensive airstrikes on residential buildings in the Shibriha and Tyre areas, coinciding with evacuation warnings issued for several villages in southern Lebanon. Despite this heavy shelling, field sources confirmed that no rocket launches by Hezbollah towards Israeli sites have been detected since the party's ceasefire decision came into effect, indicating its fighters' adherence to recent leadership instructions.

The party ceased fire from its side since dawn today to pave the way for truce consultations, and we will not wait long if Israeli violations continue.

The Lebanese capital Beirut and several areas in Beqaa and the South witnessed a dangerous Israeli military escalation, as occupation aircraft launched a series of intense and widespread airstrikes. This sudden attack came without any prior warnings to civilians, causing a state of panic and confusion in the targeted areas directly hit by missiles.

Field sources reported that the Israeli shelling focused on densely populated residential neighborhoods in the heart of the capital Beirut and the southern suburbs, in addition to targeting scattered locations in Central and Western Beqaa and the city of Tyre in the south of the country. Thick columns of smoke were seen covering the sky of the targeted areas, while ambulances and rescue teams rushed to try to reach the affected sites and provide assistance to the victims.

For its part, the Israeli occupation army claimed that the operation targeted about 100 headquarters and military infrastructure belonging to Hezbollah across Lebanese territories. The army command claimed that the raids focused on elite units, advanced missile systems, and drone launch platforms, based on accurate intelligence information and plans that had been prepared over many weeks.

Reports from the field indicate that this wave of shelling is considered the most violent and widespread carried out by the Israeli air force in a long time, given the geography and timing of the targets. The shelling caused widespread destruction of property and infrastructure, especially in densely populated areas, increasing the likelihood of significant human casualties among civilians.

Amidst the continued intensive overflights of warplanes and reconnaissance aircraft, a state of cautious anticipation prevails in Lebanese circles, fearing an expansion of the aggression to include other areas. Civil defense teams continue search operations under the rubble in the destroyed sites in Beirut, facing extreme difficulties in movement due to the debris and the size of the explosions that rocked the capital.

The attack is the largest wave of raids carried out by the Israeli army recently and targeted densely populated residential areas.

The extremist Israeli National Security Minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, launched a scathing attack on the famous Turkish actor Gorkem Sevindik, known for his character 'Kadir Baba' in the series 'Eşref Reya'. This attack came after the Turkish artist publicly expressed his criticism of the Israeli Knesset's approval of a law allowing the execution of Palestinian prisoners in occupation prisons, which provoked the ire of right-wing circles in Tel Aviv.

Ben Gvir appeared in a circulating video on social media platforms addressing Sevindik in a sarcastic tone, considering that the Turkish actor is detached from reality and lives in a dramatic atmosphere. The Israeli minister affirmed in his statements his intention to proceed with implementing execution policies against those he described as 'terrorists', stressing that the conflict in the region does not accept compromises from his extremist point of view.

For his part, the Turkish actor Gorkem Sevindik did not back down from his position, as media sources quoted him as confirming that what he published represents 'a purely humanitarian reaction' to a moral issue that emotionally moved him. Sevindik explained that his sympathy for people sentenced to death stems from his principles that reject injustice anywhere in the world, noting that threats to boycott his artistic works are of no importance to him when it comes to speaking the truth.

This confrontation comes amid escalating legal tension within the Israeli Knesset, which approved by a majority of 62 members the prisoner execution bill submitted by the 'Jewish Power' party. This controversial law aims to tighten the grip on Palestinian detainees, whose number currently exceeds 9,600 prisoners, including hundreds of children and women who suffer harsh conditions inside detention centers.

Ben Gvir's attack on Sevindik is not an isolated incident, but rather comes within a series of attacks that have targeted international and Arab celebrities, the latest of whom was the Moroccan star Hakim Ziyech. Ziyech was subjected to a similar Israeli incitement campaign after his explicit declaration of support for the Palestinian cause and his criticism of unjust laws, which prompted Moroccan political forces to declare their official solidarity with him in the face of Israeli threats.

These debates reflect the Israeli concern about the growing international solidarity with the rights of the Palestinian people, especially among influential figures in Arab and Islamic societies. While the Israeli government continues to push its extremist legislation, global voices condemning these measures are increasing, considering them a blatant violation of international conventions and fundamental human rights.

Perhaps you live in a Turkish series, but we live here in Israel. Either us, or death to the terrorists.

Hebrew press sources reported that the Israeli home front has suffered severe blows since the outbreak of direct military confrontation with Iran on February 28th. Reports indicated that over five thousand buildings and facilities were completely or partially destroyed as a result of intense missile barrages and drone attacks launched from multiple fronts, including Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen.

The Israeli security establishment faces accusations of imposing strict censorship and widespread obfuscation regarding the actual toll of casualties and material damage, in an attempt to maintain morale and prevent the leakage of images of destruction. Nevertheless, estimates suggest that the Israeli economy has entered a state of near-complete paralysis due to repeated closures and the cessation of commercial activity in large areas affected by the aerial targeting.

Regarding the details of military operations, media sources revealed that Iran launched approximately 670 ballistic missiles and 765 suicide drones towards strategic and vital targets inside Israel. These attacks forced nearly 6,350 settlers to flee their homes, while the Ministry of Health recorded more than 7,183 people suffering various injuries since the start of what is known as 'Operation Lion's Roar'.

On the military field level, the occupation army admitted that 411 soldiers were injured in recent battles, with dozens described as being in serious condition, especially in ground confrontations at the northern border. Additionally, 11 soldiers were killed in southern Lebanon in recent days, bringing the total military fatalities since October 2023 to 936 officers and soldiers, nearly half of whom fell in the battles of the Gaza Strip.

These field developments come as the war enters its sixth week, amidst reports of a 'shock' strategy adopted by US and Israeli forces to target the Iranian supreme leadership. Despite the escalation, field complexities emerged, represented by the failure of attempts to open border breaches by mobilizing separatist groups, which kept the stalemate dominant on the ground battlefronts.

Economically, Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz caused a global energy crisis, with shipping traffic declining by 90% after insurance companies withdrew their coverage for passing vessels. Tehran exempted Chinese and Indian ships from these restrictions, increasing international pressure on Washington to seek a political solution to the crisis, which has driven gold and metal prices to record levels.

In the political sphere, informed sources indicate that US President Donald Trump has given preliminary approval for a truce to cease fighting, after considering extreme military options to break the stalemate. The Iranian leadership, represented by Mojtaba Khamenei and Mohsen Rezaei, is demanding massive financial compensation and a complete lifting of sanctions imposed on the country as a fundamental condition for halting military operations and withdrawing from a state of alert.

Military censorship imposes widespread obfuscation on the true extent of losses resulting from Iranian missiles and drones.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif officially announced that the capital, Islamabad, will host a round of direct negotiations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America next Friday. This invitation comes after an agreement was reached for a two-week ceasefire, amidst international aspirations that this step will lead to a comprehensive de-escalation and an end to the raging conflict between the two parties.

For his part, the office of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian confirmed Tehran's response to this invitation and participation in the anticipated talks, emphasizing that the primary goal is to find a political solution to the current conflict. Sharif expressed his optimism about the possibility of achieving sustainable peace in the region, noting that the coming days may bring positive news regarding the path of de-escalation and the consolidation of a cessation of hostilities.

In a remarkable development at the diplomatic representation level, informed sources revealed that US Vice President J.D. Vance will lead his country's delegation in these direct negotiations. This shift represents a transition from the negotiation phase previously led by US envoy Steve Whitkoff during the war, reflecting Washington's seriousness in reaching high-level political understandings with the Iranian side.

On the other hand, media reports suggested that the Iranian delegation would be headed by a sovereign figure parallel to the American level, with expectations pointing to the assignment of Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf to this task. Observers believe that raising the level of representation to vice presidents and heads of legislative authorities gives this round significant political weight not seen in bilateral relations for many years, especially as it is the first direct confrontation since the outbreak of military confrontation.

Field sources and those following Iranian affairs reported that Tehran is entering these negotiations adhering to a ten-point basic working paper presented as a framework for a solution. The Iranian leadership considers that achieving these demands represents a culmination of its position in the forty-day war, affirming that any agreement must guarantee its sovereign and security rights included in its vision for a comprehensive solution.

The international community awaits the results of Friday's round in Islamabad, where it is seen as a pivotal station that could change the map of alliances and conflicts in the Middle East. If both parties succeed in overcoming fundamental obstacles, this could establish a new phase of regional stability and end one of the most violent rounds of direct confrontation between Washington and Tehran in modern history.

We hope that the Islamabad talks succeed in achieving sustainable peace, and that we can share additional positive news in the coming days.

Hebrew press reports revealed today, Wednesday, the extent of the severe damage inflicted on infrastructure and buildings inside Israel since the outbreak of military confrontation with Iran on February 28th. Sources confirmed that more than five thousand buildings were completely or partially destroyed as a result of missile barrages and drones targeting various locations.

These admissions come amidst a policy of media blackout and strict military censorship imposed by the occupation on its real losses resulting from attacks coming from multiple fronts, including Iran, Lebanon, and Yemen. Sources indicated that estimates point to dozens of deaths among soldiers and settlers, in addition to hundreds of injuries that have not been fully documented in independent reports.

In details of the military operations, press statements mentioned that Iran launched approximately 670 missiles and 765 suicide drones towards Israeli targets since the escalation began. These intensive attacks led to a state of confusion in air defense systems, causing a large number of projectiles to reach their vital targets within cities and settlements.

Regarding human losses, medical authorities recorded more than 7,183 Israelis suffering from varying injuries and panic attacks since the outbreak of the war. Authorities were also forced to evacuate more than 6,300 settlers from their homes in threatened areas, transferring them to temporary shelters amidst ongoing cross-border missile threats.

Economically, the Israeli entity faces a severe crisis described by sources as a heavy price due to the near-total shutdown that paralyzed commercial and industrial activity. The state of constant alert and disruption of supply chains led to a sharp decline in economic indicators, increasing internal pressure on the government to seek political solutions to the current crisis.

In a surprising political development, US President Donald Trump announced early Wednesday a decision to halt military strikes against Iran for two weeks. Trump conditioned the continuation of this decision on the full and immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, emphasizing the necessity for the ceasefire to be mutual and binding on both parties to ensure regional stability.

Trump's announcement came shortly before the expiration of a deadline he had given Tehran to accept a new agreement or face comprehensive destruction of what he described as 'civilization'. The US move aims to de-escalate military tensions that threatened to ignite a widespread regional war, with a focus on securing vital waterways for global energy.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly announced his full support for the US administration's move, considering it to be in the interest of regional security. Netanyahu indicated that Tel Aviv supports all efforts aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear or missile capabilities that threaten the security of Israel and its Arab neighbors, and international interests in the region.

In contrast, the Iranian government expressed cautious willingness to utilize the proposed truce period to reach final understandings through ongoing negotiations in Pakistan. Official sources in Tehran stated that the goal is to reach a formula that ends the state of war with the United States and Israel during the fifteen-day period specified by the American announcement.

International circles are awaiting the results of these intensive diplomatic moves, at a time when the field fronts are still experiencing cautious tension awaiting the implementation of the truce terms. The Strait of Hormuz issue and mutual security guarantees remain the cornerstone of the success or failure of this initiative, which could change the course of the conflict in the Middle East.

Tel Aviv supports US efforts to ensure Iran does not pose a nuclear, missile, or terrorist threat to the world.

Informed sources revealed complex diplomatic details that preceded the announcement of a temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran, at a time when the region was preparing for a comprehensive military confrontation. Reports confirmed that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, was directly and unprecedentedly involved in managing the negotiation process, with his personal approval considered the cornerstone of reaching this agreement.

The dramatic shifts began last Monday when Khamenei instructed his negotiators to seriously pursue an agreement, for the first time since the escalation of tensions. This directive coincided with the expiration of an ultimatum issued by US President Donald Trump, who openly hinted at harsh military options against Tehran.

Despite the escalatory rhetoric adopted by Trump and his threat of 'total destruction,' back channels witnessed intense activity that even circles close to the US administration did not anticipate. Sources indicated that an atmosphere of ambiguity prevailed until the last moments before the official truce was announced.

Meanwhile, US forces in the Middle East had completed their preparations to carry out extensive airstrikes targeting vital infrastructure in Iran. Sources stated that coordination between the White House and the Pentagon reached its peak, amidst regional anticipation of an Iranian reaction that could affect Washington's and its allies' interests.

Regional capitals witnessed a state of alert, with reports of civilians evacuating some Iranian areas in anticipation of imminent bombing. In contrast, Washington's allies cautiously monitored the stalled negotiations, which some parties initially described as 'chaotic.'

US envoy Steve Witkoff led a series of intensive contacts from inside the White House, initially expressing his rejection of Iranian proposals he described as catastrophic. However, the entry of Pakistani mediators helped overcome obstacles and convey mutual messages between Washington and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Egypt and Turkey played supporting roles in bridging the views between the two sides, while China exerted quiet pressure on Tehran to choose the diplomatic path. By Monday evening, a preliminary draft for a two-week ceasefire had materialized and received initial acceptance from the American side.

Due to security concerns, communications with the Iranian leader were conducted through intermediaries to convey sensitive messages and ensure his safety. Observers described Khamenei's green light to the negotiators as the 'biggest breakthrough' that spared the region a devastating conflict, especially with the Foreign Minister's role in convincing the military establishment to de-escalate.

On Tuesday morning, Trump returned to verbal escalation, warning of 'erasing an entire civilization,' which raised doubts about the collapse of talks. But participating sources confirmed that the negotiating momentum continued behind the scenes, away from the sharp media statements aimed at domestic consumption and political pressure.

US Vice President JD Vance entered the crisis by making contacts from Hungary with the Pakistani side to ensure the stability of the truce terms. At the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pressuring Washington to ensure no concessions were made that would affect Tel Aviv's security or grant Tehran strategic gains.

By Tuesday midday, the outlines of the agreement began to emerge publicly with Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif publishing details of the proposed offer. Despite pressure from the hardline wing in Washington to reject the agreement, Trump decided to proceed after phone consultations with Netanyahu and regional leaders.

Military orders were issued to US forces to halt offensive preparations immediately upon the approval of the truce, leading to an immediate de-escalation of field tensions. The Iranian Foreign Minister later announced his country's full commitment to the agreement, declaring a symbolic step of opening the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.

Despite this temporary diplomatic success, the future remains fraught with risks, with core issues such as the nuclear program and ballistic missiles remaining unresolved. Analysts believe that the current truce is merely a 'warrior's rest' to test intentions before entering into more complex negotiations.

US Vice President is expected to lead his country's delegation in upcoming negotiation rounds to solidify the de-escalation and transform it into a permanent agreement. The coming days will be the real test of the parties' ability to adhere to the truce terms and avoid any provocations that could return the region to square one.

The Iranian Supreme Leader's approval to give the green light to the negotiators represented a fundamental breakthrough in the course of the crisis that almost turned into a comprehensive confrontation.