The national movement, led by Fatah, is going through a critical moment that requires combining loyalty to its origins with the ability to innovate and adapt to the transformations of contemporary Palestinian reality. Fatah was not merely an organizational framework, but a deeply rooted struggle experience within a specific historical context, where the idea was linked to identity, action to struggle, and its legitimacy derived from representing the collective Palestinian consciousness at home and abroad. This historical legitimacy is not just a testament to the past, but a political and moral asset that can be utilized today to restore public trust, which constitutes a strategic priority at this stage.

Restoring the trust of the Palestinian people represents the true basis of the movement's strength, as it enables effective mobilization when needed, on clear national foundations based on understanding reality as it is, not as it is desired to be. However, this trust is not restored through slogans, but through the movement's ability to produce unified national policies, concepts, and culture regarding various issues, ensuring clarity of vision and cohesion of the national project, and restoring the movement's role as a leader of national opinion.

In this context, reviving the intellectual foundations of the movement is an essential step, as these foundations were not fleeting slogans, but a foundational spirit based on the independence of national decision, alignment with the masses, and an active spirit of initiative. Restoring these principles does not mean returning to the past in its rigid form, but rather restoring the intellectual compass that guides action in the present, in line with social and political transformations, internal division, and the rise of new generations who did not experience the founding phase.

However, despite this historical legacy, the movement faced a structural challenge represented by its incomplete understanding of the shift in the struggle context from outside to inside after the Oslo Accords. The center of gravity shifted from working in the diaspora to direct action on the homeland, which necessitated a radical change in the organizational and intellectual structure of the movement, commensurate with the requirements of the new stage.

This transformation was not merely a geographical shift, but a shift in the nature of national work itself; from a liberation movement operating in a relatively open external space, to a movement operating within a complex reality subject to the constraints of occupation, the entanglements of authority, and the pressures of daily life for Palestinian society. This was supposed to lead to a redefinition of struggle tools and the development of political and organizational mechanisms that enhance field presence and reconnect the movement with the public in the details of their daily lives.

However, the absence of this profound transformation led to a gap between the traditional structure of the movement and the requirements of the new reality, which reflected on its ability to mobilize and influence. Therefore, any real restoration process today cannot bypass this point; rather, it must start from it, by rebuilding the movement as an effective framework on the ground, capable of managing the conflict within its current conditions, directly interacting with society, and transforming its presence within the homeland into a source of strength, not an organizational or political burden.

Understanding this lesson represents a fundamental entry point for reproducing the movement, so that field action becomes the basis, and organizational structures and political discourses are built upon it, thereby restoring the balance between history and the present, and giving the movement the ability to regain its leadership role in the national project.

Amidst this transformation and the accumulated challenges, a popular question emerges that cannot be ignored: Where is Fatah today in people's lives? I, along with a wide segment of the Palestinian people, do not encounter Fatah as we should, nor do we feel its active presence in the details of daily reality as would be expected for a movement of its historical size and role. This absence does not necessarily reflect a lack of organizational existence, as much as it indicates a decline in field presence and direct interaction with the masses, which raises a real problem concerning the nature of the relationship between the movement and its popular base.

This gap between the movement and society is a dangerous indicator, as it affects the essence of the legitimacy that Fatah historically derived from representing the people and being attached to them. Therefore, restoring this relationship must be at the core of any reform process, by rebuilding real communication channels, enhancing field presence, and engaging in people's daily concerns, so that the movement returns to being a living part of the social fabric, not just a separate organizational framework.

In this context, the importance of benefiting from the experiences of global liberation movements emerges, which have shown that the success of any movement is not only linked to its history, but to its continuous ability to adapt and renew. These experiences have proven that clarity of purpose is the essential compass for any national project, and that an organic relationship with the people is the true source of legitimacy. They also showed that flexibility in tools and the ability to shift between different forms of struggle are essential conditions for continuity amidst changes.

Likewise, these experiences showed that institution-building precedes personalization, and that investing in cadres and continuous training is the guarantor of the sustainability of national action. Moreover, managing the relationship with the authority, or separating it from the movement, is a crucial factor in maintaining independence and the ability to initiate. No less important is the ability to manage internal differences within healthy organizational frameworks, preventing them from turning into destructive divisions.

Recalling these lessons is not for the purpose of replication, but to extract what is appropriate for the Palestinian situation and employ it in the rebuilding process, thereby enhancing the movement's ability to regain its historical role with a new spirit and more effective tools.

Integrated with this is the re-establishment of the concept of commitment, as a fundamental pillar in the internal structure of the movement. Commitment does not mean formal obedience or personal loyalty, but intellectual and moral belonging to the national project, so that the member becomes a true partner in action, balancing their right to criticism with their duty to work. This restores consideration to the idea that loyalty to the idea precedes loyalty to individuals or positions.

This transformation cannot be achieved without a comprehensive internal restoration of the movement, going beyond organizational restructuring to developing decision-making mechanisms, enhancing grassroots participation, and enabling youth to actively engage in political and intellectual work. It also requires adopting modern democratic party models based on gradually building cadres according to criteria of merit and commitment, away from quotas or formal endorsements that weakened the movement's credibility in previous stages. This is linked to a cumulative training approach that combines historical awareness and practical experience, enabling new leaders to understand reality and produce innovative solutions.

In the same context, the separation between the movement and the Palestinian Authority emerges as a necessary strategic option, ensuring the organizational and intellectual independence of the movement, and allowing it to participate in governance without losing its role as a national oversight and guiding framework. This separation restores to the movement its primary function of producing national principles and policies away from the pressures of the executive authority.

Reproducing the movement in a renewed form means transforming its historical experience into practical tools capable of dealing with current challenges, by formulating a modern political discourse that combines historical depth and responsiveness to contemporary changes, and developing organizational tools capable of efficiently managing crises and divisions. It also means redefining the organizational identity to be based on combining loyalty to its origins with flexibility of adaptation, while solidifying intellectual and national commitment as the basis for membership and promotion.

Ultimately, the effectiveness and continuity of Fatah depend on its ability to achieve a delicate balance between historical legitimacy and internal renewal. The former gives it credibility and national reach, while the latter gives it the ability to adapt and continue. This balance is what transforms the movement from a mere historical legacy into a living force capable of leading the national project, restoring the trust of the people, and making the masses an actual partner in shaping the future, without the movement losing its memory or ceasing to evolve in the face of contemporary challenges.

The closure of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque by the Israeli occupation authorities enters its second consecutive month, amidst escalating warnings of the repercussions of the occupation's unilateral control over holy sites to change the existing historical and legal status. This step comes as part of persistent attempts to Judaize the site and withdraw administrative powers from the Islamic Endowments Department, exploiting current regional circumstances to impose new realities on the ground.

The occupation authorities cite the 'state of emergency' declared since the start of the military attack on Iran on February 28th as justification for the continued closure of the mosque and preventing worshippers from accessing it. Observers believe that this closure, which is the first of its kind for such a duration since the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, aims to establish a new equation for controlling worship and testing local and international reactions.

Legally, international law experts confirm that applying a state of emergency to occupied Jerusalem is a blatant violation, as the city is not subject to the sovereignty of the occupation according to international resolutions. Specialists emphasize that Al-Aqsa Mosque is under the administration of the Jordanian Endowments, and any infringement on the existing 'status quo' represents a breach of laws enacted since the Ottoman era that have preserved the identity of the site.

Reports indicate that the occupation plans to extend the closure until mid-April, which academics and Jerusalemites describe as an 'extremely dangerous' development. This timing, coinciding with the holy month of Ramadan, reflects the occupation's desire to conduct a 'practical test' of its ability to exercise full control and prevent large Palestinian gatherings in the heart of the holy city.

Amidst the ongoing closure, sources revealed significant amendments to how the mosque's affairs are managed, with the number of endowment employees allowed to enter reduced to only 25 people. The occupation police also imposed a strict system requiring prior knowledge of the identity of every entrant and the reason for their presence, forcing employees to leave immediately after completing their specific tasks.

Through these measures, the occupation authorities seek to send a message that they have become the 'sole administrative decision-maker' in Al-Aqsa Mosque, bypassing the Islamic presence and Jordanian custodianship. Sources have observed provocative actions by occupation soldiers within the courtyards, aimed at demonstrating absolute control and solidifying the reality of Israeli sovereignty over the entire 144 dunams.

The Fourth Geneva Convention obliges the occupying power to respect the religious beliefs and practices of the population under occupation, which the current closure violates daily. Preventing access to places of worship and disrupting religious rituals constitutes collective punishment affecting the fundamental rights of Palestinians, and contradicts the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice issued in July 2024.

Researchers in Jerusalem affairs believe that the occupation is now relying on the weakness of official Arab and international responses to push through its Judaization plans without real deterrence. The absolute silence regarding what is happening in Al-Aqsa and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre encourages the Israeli establishment to proceed with dismantling the status quo and replacing it with a direct security and military control system.

Field readings concluded that what is currently required is serious popular and official action to break the siege imposed on Al-Aqsa Mosque, especially given the fragile internal situation the occupation is experiencing due to multiple wars. The continued closure not only threatens freedom of worship but also warns of an explosion of the situation in the holy city with the ongoing provocation of the feelings of millions of Muslims around the world.

The closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque for a continuous month is not a fleeting measure, but a practical test to impose full occupation sovereignty and change the rules of the game in the holiest of holy sites.

The Israeli occupation authorities have taken a new step towards legalizing the liquidation of Palestinian prisoners, as the Knesset's National Security Committee approved the 'execution of prisoners' bill. This approval came after technical amendments were introduced to the original draft, in preparation for its presentation for second and third readings before the parliament goes on Passover holiday in early April.

This legislative move is led by the extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, leader of the 'Jewish Power' party, who enjoys direct support from the ruling 'Likud' party headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. The opposition 'Yisrael Beiteinu' party also joined the list of supporters of the law, reflecting a broad right-wing consensus on targeting Palestinian prisoners with unprecedented punitive measures.

The text of the bill reveals a clear discriminatory nature, as it exclusively targets Palestinians accused of killing Israelis for nationalistic motives, while exempting Israelis who commit murders against Palestinians. Observers believe that this legislation is not a judicial tool to achieve justice, but rather a retaliatory measure directed against the Palestinian people under legal cover.

The death penalty is a rare precedent in the history of Israeli judiciary, having been carried out only once in 1962 against the Nazi official Adolf Eichmann. The new bill aims to withdraw discretionary powers from judges, by making the death penalty mandatory upon conviction, while preventing the commutation or replacement of the sentence after its final issuance.

Sources reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office intervened to make amendments to the wording to ensure its alignment with some international standards, fearing diplomatic prosecution. Despite these amendments, the proposed punishment remains execution by hanging, which raises serious concerns about prisons turning into arenas for carrying out unjust sentences that lack the minimum standards of a fair trial.

For its part, Amnesty International warned of the repercussions of this law, describing it as solidifying the apartheid system. The organization stressed that proceeding with this legislation puts Israel in direct confrontation with the global trend to abolish the death penalty, and its implementation could constitute a full-fledged war crime.

On the Palestinian side, forces, factions, and human rights organizations unanimously rejected the law, considering it a bloody escalation that exploits the international community's preoccupation with regional crises. Prisoner institutions issued a joint statement affirming that the occupation seeks to physically liquidate prisoners after failing to break their will inside the cells.

Official statistics indicate the presence of about 9,350 Palestinian prisoners in occupation prisons as of the beginning of this year, including hundreds of children and women, and thousands of administrative detainees. The pace of violations has escalated since last October, with more than a hundred prisoners martyred as a result of torture and deliberate medical negligence, amid a complete Israeli blackout.

This law is closely linked to the rise of the far-right and Ben-Gvir's assumption of the National Security portfolio, as he adopts an openly incitement rhetoric against Palestinians. Ben-Gvir has been known for his provocative practices inside prisons, including reducing food rations and closing bakeries, in an attempt to impose a bitter living reality on detainees.

Detained political leaders were not spared from this incitement, as the leader Marwan Barghouti was subjected to a series of documented physical assaults. Ben-Gvir appeared in videos threatening Barghouti inside his cell, in a clear message aimed at undermining Palestinian national symbols who have been detained for many years.

Human rights reports confirm that the assaults on Barghouti reached the point of severe beating that led to broken ribs and loss of consciousness on one occasion. These practices come in the context of the 'systematic humiliation' policy pursued by the occupation against prisoners, which the execution law aims to crown by officially and legally ending their lives.

The international inability to curb Israeli policies has provided cover for the Knesset to proceed with legislation that flagrantly violates the right to life. Human rights activists believe that the silence of the international community encourages the occupation authorities to turn the judiciary into a military tool that implements extremist political agendas serving the ruling right-wing.

In light of these developments, Palestinians are demanding urgent international action in international courts to stop this law before it comes into actual effect. Prisoner institutions emphasize the need to activate international protection mechanisms for detainees who today face the risk of death by a political decision wrapped in a false legislative cover.

The execution bill remains a real test for the international system and its ability to protect human rights in the occupied territories. As the Knesset prepares for the final vote, thousands of prisoners and their families await an unknown fate under a government that does not hesitate to use all means to solidify its occupation and suppress any voice demanding freedom.

The approval of the bill represents an unprecedented escalation and an absolute mandate to carry out death sentences against Palestinians, which may amount to war crimes.

At least two Palestinian citizens were martyred and a third was seriously injured, at dawn on Monday, as a result of an airstrike launched by the Israeli occupation forces on Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, located south of Gaza City. Field sources reported that a drone belonging to the occupation army directly targeted a group of citizens while they were near the vital Asqoula intersection in the aforementioned neighborhood.

Medical sources at Al-Ma'madani Hospital confirmed the arrival of the bodies of two martyrs and one injured person in critical condition as a result of the missile targeting, noting that medical teams are trying to deal with the serious injury given the available capabilities. This raid comes in the context of the continued aerial targeting of civilian gatherings in various areas of Gaza City and its north.

In a simultaneous field development, local sources stated that the Israeli occupation army carried out widespread destruction and demolition operations of buildings and residential facilities in the eastern areas of Al-Tuffah neighborhood in Gaza City. The demolition operations were concentrated within the occupation's control areas, known as the 'Yellow Line', where huge explosions were heard resulting from the booby-trapping of residential blocks in that area.

Regarding artillery shelling, the occupation artillery continued to target the eastern areas of Deir al-Balah and Khan Yunis cities in the central and southern Gaza Strip, causing panic among the displaced. Sources explained that the shells fell in open areas and others close to tent gatherings, which increases the suffering of citizens who face harsh humanitarian conditions amid the ongoing military operations.

According to updated medical data, the number of Palestinian martyrs as a result of scattered Israeli attacks in the Strip since dawn on Sunday has risen to 11 martyrs. The largest share of victims was in the Mawasi Khan Yunis area, where 8 citizens were martyred in two raids that targeted two gatherings near Bir 19 area, which is an area crowded with displaced people who fled previous military operations.

In another incident, a Palestinian was martyred by Israeli occupation army bullets near Bani Suhaila roundabout, east of Khan Yunis city, at a time when the occupation forces continue to impose strict restrictions on the movement of citizens in the eastern areas of the city. These developments come amid an escalation of Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement in effect since last October, with 694 Palestinians martyred since the agreement began.

It is worth noting that the ongoing Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip since October 2023, supported by American funding and cover, has caused massive destruction affecting about 90% of the infrastructure and vital facilities. According to the latest official statistics, the number of martyrs has exceeded 72,000, while the number of injured has exceeded 172,000, amid an unprecedented humanitarian and health crisis experienced by the residents of the besieged Strip.

The shelling resulted in the martyrdom of two Palestinians and the serious injury of a third, and they were transferred to Al-Ma'madani Hospital in Gaza City.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/30/2026

News Analysis

The situation in southern Lebanon is witnessing an accelerating military escalation, whose nature transcends limited operations towards a pattern closer to reshaping the geography of the conflict. With the destruction of vital bridges and residential homes, and the displacement of more than a million people, indicators point to an attempt to impose a new security reality by establishing an Israeli "security zone" extending over vast areas, for an indefinite period. This trend raises increasing fears of a repeat of the Gaza Strip scenario, where military operations turned into a long-term policy to redraw field control.

Satellite images (as published by the American network NBC News) clearly show the Israeli military presence inside southern Lebanon, including the reinforcement of existing bases and the deployment of tanks at strategic points. Moreover, targeting bridges, especially on the Litani River, does not appear to be merely a military tactic, but a step aimed at isolating the south from the rest of the country, which deepens the humanitarian crisis and complicates relief efforts. In this context, field data intersects with official Israeli statements confirming the intention of military presence, which puts Lebanon in front of the possibility of facing a new occupation reality.

The humanitarian deterioration also accompanies this escalation at an alarming pace. Testimonies from relief workers indicate repeated displacement of residents amid unexpected strikes, which reinforces the feeling of complete insecurity. UN officials have expressed their fear that southern Lebanon will turn into another version of Gaza, especially with the increasing number of casualties and the widening scope of destruction. These warnings reflect international concern about the situation sliding into an open humanitarian catastrophe.

In contrast, Israel justifies its operations by targeting "Hezbollah," within the framework of protecting its national security, especially after the escalation of regional tension related to the American-Israeli war on Iran. However, this justification faces sharp criticism from human rights organizations, which believe that the pattern of operations goes beyond military objectives to include widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, which may amount to violations of international humanitarian law. Moreover, talk of the use of white phosphorus increases the intensity of the debate about the legitimacy of these operations.

Historically, what is happening today cannot be separated from the context of the long conflict in southern Lebanon, where Israel previously occupied the region until 2000, and the borders have witnessed repeated confrontations since then. However, what distinguishes the current phase is its overlap with broader regional conflicts, which raises the possibilities of it turning into an open multi-party conflict, especially with the continued tension between Israel and Iran.

In light of this scene, Lebanon appears to be at a critical crossroads; between internal pressures to disarm "Hezbollah" and external challenges represented by Israeli military operations, the state's ability to impose its full sovereignty is eroding. With the absence of a clear political horizon, fears of the conflict's continuation and expansion remain, which portends long-term repercussions for regional stability.

The Israeli strategy in southern Lebanon goes beyond mere military response to an attempt to impose a new deterrence equation based on "land for security." The creation of a permanent security zone reflects a shift from a policy of containment to a policy of direct control, which may reproduce the previous occupation experience but with different tools. This approach carries the risks of permanent escalation, as it may push local parties, especially Hezbollah, to adopt more aggressive strategies, creating a vicious cycle of violence that is difficult to break.

On the other hand, the humanitarian dimension stands out as one of the most complex aspects of the crisis. The systematic destruction of infrastructure, along with mass displacement, not only leads to immediate suffering but also threatens to cause long-term demographic changes. With the absence of clear reconstruction plans, affected areas may turn into demographic voids, which opens the door for reshaping the geography of the south to serve long-term strategic goals.

At the international level, reactions so far appear to have limited impact, despite explicit warnings from the United Nations. This reflects a state of impotence or hesitation in dealing with a conflict in which the local, regional, and international are intertwined. If this approach continues, the international community may find itself facing a new reality imposed by force, where "security zones" become a fait accompli, with all the serious repercussions that entails for the rules of international law and the future of stability in the Middle East.

A recent report by 'Foreign Policy' magazine highlighted the accelerating erosion of American credibility, considering that President Donald Trump's threats towards Iran have become strategically worthless. The report explained that the US administration's retreat from its military threats regarding foreign policy has turned into something akin to a 'circus of chaos,' weakening Washington's prestige in front of its adversaries who now refuse to adhere to traditional rules.

The magazine recalled in its analysis the era of former President Barack Obama, noting that the 'red line' he set regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria was considered a major blunder at the time. Although Trump and his senior aides like Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham described Obama's retreat as a disaster that squandered Washington's standing, the current vacillation in dealing with the Iranian file appears more dangerous and impactful in the long run.

In the details of the recent escalation, Trump threatened via social media platforms to wipe out Iranian power stations, starting with major facilities, if Tehran did not fully open the Strait of Hormuz within a 48-hour deadline. However, these threats were met with a categorical Iranian rejection and a continuation of military operations and the closure of the strait, putting the US administration in an embarrassing position before the international community.

The White House's reaction was swift, retracting the direct threat, as Trump announced a five-day postponement of any military action against energy infrastructure, claiming 'fruitful talks' with Tehran to reach a comprehensive solution. This claim was met with a complete Iranian denial, which prompted Trump to extend the unilaterally declared 'truce' for an additional week and a half without achieving any tangible gains.

Observers believe that Trump's statements are no longer taken seriously in international forums, whether it concerns threatening to raise tariffs to record levels or blowing up gas fields. Official positions change overnight, as the President can declare the end of a war in the morning, then return in the evening to confirm that victory is not complete and he will not back down until the decisive defeat of the enemy.

Supporters of the 'MAGA' movement justify this stark contradiction as 'strategic genius' aimed at keeping adversaries in a constant state of anticipation, but the reality indicates that policies change based on stock market fluctuations or personal interests. The irony lies in the ability of Trump's popular base to accept these shifts, as former opponents of Middle East wars have turned into enthusiastic supporters of the current escalation.

The US administration faces a real dilemma, as Trump's desire to end hostilities clashes with the reality that Iran also has a 'vote' in the course of the war, and it is currently choosing to continue fighting. Tehran is betting on its military capability to inflict severe damage on the global economy and the United States, exploiting the state of confusion in decision-making within Washington and the contradiction of presidential statements.

The report concluded that the world now views American power as part of a 'reality show' in which the protagonist maneuvers to get out of crises he created himself through his previous statements. While Trump claims to be considering reducing military operations, he returns to assert that he does not need the help of any other country, thus squandering strategic credibility built over decades for short-term political or commercial gains.

The world no longer sees anything called American credibility, but merely a strange reality show in which the protagonist maneuvers to get out of crises caused by his words yesterday.

The Israeli occupation forces committed a new massacre in the town of Shaqra, in the Bint Jbeil district of southern Lebanon, where an airstrike resulted in the martyrdom of 5 citizens and the injury of two others with varying degrees of wounds. This raid comes in the context of an ongoing military escalation that has led, according to Lebanese Ministry of Health data, to an increase in the total number of casualties from the aggression since the beginning of March to 1238 martyrs and more than 3500 injured.

On the ground, Lebanese Hezbollah announced the implementation of an intense day of combat that included 74 military operations targeting Israeli army positions and movements along the border and deep inside. Hezbollah clarified in its statements that these attacks varied between missile strikes and the use of drones, confirming that 55 operations took place within Lebanese territory to counter infiltration attempts, while 19 other operations targeted positions within the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israeli aggressions were not limited to civilians but also affected international peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL), as the UN force announced the killing of one of its soldiers and the injury of another after a shell fell on a military position in the south of the country. Field sources indicated that Israeli artillery shelling directly targeted the headquarters of the Indonesian unit in the town of Adsheet Al-Qusayr, which raises the level of international tension regarding the repeated targeting of UN missions.

In details of Hezbollah's military harvest, the statement revealed the targeting of 5 strategic Israeli military bases, including the Ein Shemer, Raghavim, and Mishar bases, in addition to shelling 7 cities and settlements in various areas. Hezbollah confirmed its use of qualitative weapons, including 59 missiles and 6 suicide drones, which led to the destruction and damage of 16 Merkava tanks and the destruction of 15 bunkers and military fortifications of the Israeli army.

On the Israeli side, the occupation army admitted the killing of soldier Moshe Yitzhak Hakohen Katz and the injury of 15 other soldiers in the ongoing battles at the first line of border villages. These losses coincide with Hebrew reports indicating the occupation's intention to control a wide border strip, amidst extremist statements from Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich calling for the acquisition of vast areas of Lebanese land.

Humanitarianly, the violent raids and forced evacuation orders issued by the occupation army for the areas of Tyre, Maashouq, and Burj Al-Shamali caused a major wave of displacement, with estimates indicating that more than one million people have fled their homes. The targeted areas are experiencing harsh conditions amidst continuous artillery and aerial bombardment that does not differentiate between shelters or densely populated residential neighborhoods.

In the diplomatic context, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan warned of the consequences of Benjamin Netanyahu's continued policies, pointing to the possibility of committing genocide in Lebanon similar to what is happening in the Gaza Strip. These warnings come at a time when Israeli planes continue to launch their raids on the towns of Al-Haniyeh and Jouaiya, steadily increasing the number of victims daily.

Field sources also reported that the Lebanese resistance managed to repel 53 ground advance attempts by the occupation forces, using guided missiles, artillery shells, and attack drones. These confrontations focused on the towns of Al-Qantara, Dibel, and Al-Bayada, where military vehicles of the Hummer type and Merkava tanks were directly targeted, forcing the attacking forces to retreat on several fronts.

In conclusion, the situation in southern Lebanon remains prone to further escalation amidst the occupation's insistence on expanding the scope of its ground and air operations, alongside a remarkable field steadfastness of the resistance, which continues to shell sensitive military bases such as the 'Dado' and 'Nashrim' bases. Human suffering continues with the increasing numbers of martyrs and injured, amidst international inability to curb the aggression that has been ongoing for weeks.

Our operations come in defense of Lebanon and its people, and have included targeting military bases, cities, and settlements deep within the occupied territories.

Israeli occupation forces escalated their field attacks on the Gaza Strip at dawn on Monday, as an airstrike targeted a gathering of citizens in the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, south of Gaza City. Medical and field sources reported that the shelling, which occurred near the Askoula intersection, led to the martyrdom of two Palestinians and the injury of a third with varying degrees of wounds. The victims were transferred to nearby hospitals amidst difficult humanitarian conditions.

In another field development, the occupation army carried out systematic destruction operations of residential facilities and infrastructure in the eastern areas of Gaza City. Local sources stated that Israeli forces demolished a number of buildings and facilities within the areas they control east of what is known as the 'Yellow Line' in the Al-Tuffah neighborhood, leading to rising smoke columns and the sound of massive explosions shaking parts of the city.

The attacks were not limited to Gaza City, as Israeli artillery fire extended to the eastern areas of Deir al-Balah and Khan Yunis in the central and southern parts of the Strip. This intensive artillery shelling caused a state of panic among displaced persons and residents, amidst the continued Israeli military movements along the eastern border of the Strip.

With the fall of new victims in the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, the death toll of martyrs who have fallen by the fire of the occupation army since dawn on Sunday has risen to 11 martyrs in various areas. The most violent of these attacks targeted gatherings of citizens in the Bir 19 area in Mawasi Khan Yunis, where two airstrikes led to the martyrdom of eight Palestinians at once in that area, which is crowded with displaced persons.

In a related context, another Palestinian was martyred by the bullets of occupation forces stationed near the Bani Suhaila roundabout, east of Khan Yunis city, at a time when Israeli forces continue to target everything that moves in the border areas. These developments come amidst repeated Israeli violations of field understandings, exacerbating the suffering of civilians besieged in the Strip.

Official statistics indicate that the occupation has committed hundreds of violations since the ceasefire agreement came into effect last October, with these violations resulting in the martyrdom of 694 Palestinians and the injury of approximately 1896 others. These figures reflect the occupation's insistence on continuing military operations and aerial and artillery shelling despite international demands to de-escalate.

It is worth noting that the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip since October 8, 2023, has left unprecedented massive destruction in modern history, with more than 72,000 Palestinians martyred and approximately 172,000 others injured. The destruction also affected about 90 percent of the infrastructure and vital facilities, making large areas of the Strip uninhabitable due to a severe shortage of all basic necessities.

The death toll of martyrs by the fire of the occupation army in various areas of the Gaza Strip since dawn on Sunday has risen to 11 martyrs.

Recent attention has been drawn to the accelerating American military movements in the Middle East, with reports indicating the possibility of limited ground operations. This buildup does not appear to be a prelude to an all-out war, but rather reflects a strategy based on rapid and precise intervention against specific targets.

At the forefront of these movements is the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), which represents a model of an integrated amphibious force. This unit comprises approximately 2,200 personnel trained to operate from warships without the need for permanent and fixed land bases in the region.

The 31st MEU relies on the USS Tripoli for its operations, giving it a high degree of maneuverability and the ability to launch swift coastal raids. These movements aim to secure ready platforms for launching immediate operations should military orders be issued by Central Command.

Alongside the 31st MEU, the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit is moving with similar capabilities to enhance the joint operational pattern. These two units work in parallel to ensure full control over coastal targets and secure a foothold for subsequent forces in the theater of operations.

Tasks are distributed between the two units, with one undertaking the initial assault and control of the vital objective, while the other establishes military presence. This coordination ensures the expansion of field control and prevents any counterattacks that might target advancing forces in the early stages.

On the aerial front, the 82nd Airborne Division stands out as one of the fastest and most lethal deployment forces in the world. Estimates indicate the deployment of up to 4,000 soldiers from this division to the region, including combat units and logistical and command support elements.

The 82nd Division's combat doctrine relies on heavy parachute drops into enemy territory to seize vital installations. Its primary objective is to secure airports and strategic infrastructure within a record time of no more than 24 hours from the start of the operation.

When these amphibious and airborne forces are combined, what military sources describe as a 'rapid intervention package' is formed. This combat mix combines the flexibility of the Marines at sea with the power of the airborne division to penetrate the geographical depth of targeted areas.

In this operational model, Marine forces conduct coastal assaults to secure vital waterways and ports. Simultaneously, the airborne division advances into strategic depth to ensure the neutralization of the adversary's movement and control of logistical strongpoints.

International media sources reported that this pattern of deployment is usually associated with short-term operations not exceeding several weeks. The goal of these operations is not permanent occupation, but rather to deliver qualitative strikes to specific locations and then withdraw quickly after achieving objectives.

This military buildup comes as part of preparations for military options that may be implemented in the coming weeks, according to intelligence assessments. Washington, in this context, focuses on surprise and integration between different branches of the armed forces to minimize human and material losses.

Regional powers are observing these movements with great caution, especially with escalating tensions that could lead to a limited confrontation. The question remains about the extent to which these 'combat packages' can achieve their objectives without sliding into a widespread regional conflict.

This pattern of deployment is not typically used in large-scale wars, but rather is associated with limited-objective and rapidly executed operations that rely on surprise.

The fundamental dilemma in the Middle East lies in the absence of a governing authority for state actions, where political behavior is not only linked to material power balances but also to the existence of a strategic project that defines direction. The pivotal question that arises today is not what states do, but who holds the authority to direct; is it the state that formulates its project, or is it the project that reshapes the state?

In the Iranian model, the state emerges as an executive tool for an ideological project that preceded its institutional existence and precisely defined its functions. The Iranian Revolution established a governing vision that makes the state a means to achieve cross-border religious and political goals, which was codified in the constitution, granting the state a role beyond its traditional national framework.

This fusion between state and project is evident in the structure of Iranian authority, where there is a supreme decision-making center that dominates all executive and legislative institutions. This structure allows for the existence of parallel bodies such as the Revolutionary Guard, which operates with independent military and economic capabilities aimed at protecting the revolution and its continuity beyond the state's geographical borders.

Tehran's willingness to bear exorbitant economic costs without changing its strategic paths confirms that decisions are not based on narrow state interests. Rather, the Iranian actor moves within a vision aimed at reshaping the entire regional order, making the state move in the orbit of the project, not the other way around.

In contrast, the Israeli model presents a different case. Although the Zionist project preceded the state, it later transformed into an element within a strong institutional system. The Hebrew state succeeded in absorbing the project and redefining it according to the requirements of reality and available capabilities, making the idea subject to institutional control.

Decision-making in Israel relies on precise assessments of cost and benefit, where security and military institutions intertwine with economic and technological sectors. This interconnectedness gives the state high flexibility in adjusting its external behavior to ensure its sustainability, without being carried away by pure ideological motives that might threaten its stability.

In this context, the regional conflict for Israel remains subject to management and is not open to suicidal possibilities. The project has transformed from an absolute supreme authority to a functional tool within the state, enhancing its ability to maneuver within international and regional power balances without compromising its institutional entity.

As for the Arab case, a third pattern emerges, characterized by the absence of an authentic project and operating in a wide conceptual vacuum. Here, the state neither struggles with a project nor leads one; instead, it transforms into a bureaucratic and security apparatus that focuses its maximum energy on a single goal: preserving the survival and continuity of the existing regime.

Political readings indicate that the Arab state, in many of its models, suffers from an inflation of internal control tools versus a sharp weakness in producing strategic decisions. This structural imbalance has made it vulnerable to external penetration and linked its movements to international balances that impose limits on its movement and margins of maneuver.

In this vacuum, decisions are not produced from the womb of supreme national interests but are managed according to pressing circumstances and priorities imposed from outside. The state here does not define its position in the region; rather, its role is defined by other active powers, turning it into an arena for the struggle of foreign projects.

The absence of a governing value framework for the Arab state does not leave a neutral vacuum; instead, it opens the door for its resources to be re-employed within regional arrangements in which it does not participate in their making. In this case, the state loses its ability to initiate and merely reacts, making it a secondary actor in the complex equations of the region.

The analysis concludes that the strength of a state is not measured solely by its military arsenal but by its ability to produce a value framework that guides its movement and protects its sovereignty. A state led by a clear project enters conflicts knowing its goals, while a state that controls its project survives the continuous depletion of its resources.

As for states that lack a governing framework, they find themselves embroiled in conflicts whose timing or location they did not choose, and they pay exorbitant prices without achieving strategic gains. The loss of sovereignty in this perspective is not merely the result of military defeat but a consequence of the inability to define an independent national role.

In conclusion, the fundamental question in the region remains pending regarding the ability to possess political will before paths are imposed. True sovereignty lies in the ability to determine directions and make sovereign decisions, before the state turns into merely a manager of crises imposed upon it by others.

Sovereignty is not seized all at once; rather, it is emptied when the state stops producing its own direction and merely manages what is imposed upon it.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir sparked a wave of widespread controversy after appearing in a recent photo wearing a soldier's uniform during a secret tour he conducted inside a prison. This step aims to directly monitor how severe punishments are implemented against Palestinian prisoners, away from administrative channels and official reports submitted to his office.

Sources reported that Ben Gvir toured the prison corridors in disguise, deliberately checking the performance of the jailers and their adherence to the extremist instructions he issued in recent months. These moves come in the context of his personal desire to ensure that prisoners' lives are turned into an environment of continuous pressure and deprivation of basic rights.

Measures that the extremist minister sought to ensure were applied include reducing family visit periods to a minimum, in addition to reducing the space available to prisoners inside rooms and cells. The instructions also included imposing additional restrictions on all details of daily life, reflecting a clear trend towards tightening security control.

Observers considered this tour to be a field test of what Ben Gvir describes as the 'new doctrine' in the administration of Israeli prisons. This doctrine is based on abolishing all gains achieved by prisoners over decades, and replacing them with a system based on repression and permanent intimidation under security cover.

After his showy tour, Ben Gvir did not hesitate to explicitly declare his goals, describing what is happening within the prison service as a real 'revolution'. He indicated in his statements that prisons have reached a state of 'ideal organization' and high operational readiness to confront any protests that prisoners might undertake.

The far-right minister affirmed that a radical change has already occurred in the policies followed, stressing the continuation of this escalatory approach. These statements reflect his vision that does not recognize the human rights of prisoners, but rather seeks to exploit their suffering as a political tool to enhance his popularity in the Israeli street.

Among the most dangerous measures that Ben Gvir pushed to accelerate is the imposition of humiliating and degrading physical searches on every Palestinian prisoner who is transferred or admitted to prisons. This measure is considered one of the most sensitive issues due to its direct impact on human dignity, and it often acts as a trigger for escalating situations inside detention centers.

Human rights activists believe that the use of strict physical searches is not merely a security measure, but rather a tool for deliberate psychological and physical pressure. This behavior aims to break the will of prisoners and systematically humiliate them, which is consistent with Ben Gvir's previous statements in which he openly called for the liquidation of prisoners.

Ben Gvir had previously sparked international and Palestinian anger when he demanded the application of the death penalty against Palestinian prisoners through video clips. These accumulated positions confirm that the minister adopts a policy aimed at escalating repression and humiliation as an official approach adopted by the current government.

Regarding reactions, social media platforms were flooded with harsh criticism of Ben Gvir's behavior, with activists describing him as seeking a false heroic display. Tweeters indicated that his disguise as a soldier reflects an obsession with pursuing Palestinians and abusing them even when they are behind bars.

Others considered these moves to be an early election campaign aimed at the far-right public in Israel. Comments affirmed that what is happening in the secrecy of prisons under Ben Gvir's supervision represents a blatant violation of all international conventions, and turns prisons into centers of systematic torture away from world oversight.

I came to follow the revolution within the prison service and achieve radical change in the policies applied against prisoners.

The city of Eilat, located in the south of the occupied territories, witnessed an intense aerial attack with drones and missiles. Media sources reported that the area was directly targeted from Yemeni territory. The attack caused a widespread security alert, coinciding with unprecedented aerial movements observed in the skies of the southern region.

For its part, the Israeli occupation army announced the success of its defensive systems in intercepting two drones launched from Yemen towards Eilat within just one hour. This announcement came shortly after air raid sirens were activated in the city, amidst serious concerns about suicide drones infiltrating populated areas.

Field sources confirmed loud explosions in the Eilat Bay area, resulting from aerial interception operations against the attacking missiles and drones. Hebrew media quoted security sources as saying that the attack was coordinated and aimed at striking vital installations in the city, which has become a frequent target for attacks coming from the Red Sea.

In contrast, the Ansar Allah group (Houthis) had earlier announced the execution of qualitative military operations targeting strategic occupation sites in southern occupied Palestine. The group affirmed in its official statements the continuation of these attacks as part of a strategy to support the resistance fronts in Palestine and Lebanon, warning of a greater escalation in the coming days.

On the international level, the UN Special Envoy for Yemen, Hans Grundberg, expressed his grave concern about the Houthis' decision to directly engage in the ongoing regional conflict. Grundberg condemned this approach in an official statement, considering that it threatens to drag Yemen into a wide-ranging war that transcends its geographical borders and further complicates the humanitarian crisis.

The UN mediator indicated that this military escalation would inevitably hinder peace efforts and ongoing mediation in Yemen, prolonging the suffering of civilians and exacerbating economic crises. He stressed that no party has the right to drag the country into regional conflicts that could lead to catastrophic consequences for local and international stability.

Grundberg called on all concerned parties, especially the Houthi group, to exercise maximum restraint and resort to diplomatic channels instead of military options. He affirmed his continued contacts with regional and international powers to prevent the region from sliding into a comprehensive confrontation whose repercussions would be difficult to control.

In a related context, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General, Stéphane Dujarric, warned that the continuation of missile and drone attacks portends a further and dangerous escalation of the conflict. Dujarric called in a press statement for the necessity of refraining from any hostile acts that violate international law and lead to the expansion of violence in the Middle East.

These field developments come at a sensitive time, as the confrontation between Israel and Iran's allies in the region enters its second month of continuous escalation. Armed factions from Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen are participating in this confrontation, placing the region before scenarios open to all military and political possibilities.

Observers believe that the direct involvement of the Yemeni front in targeting Israeli depth represents a strategic shift in the course of the current war. International pressure is increasing to prevent these intermittent attacks from turning into a comprehensive regional war that major international powers might participate in, amid continued tension in the Red Sea and shipping lanes.

This escalation threatens to drag Yemen into the regional war, which will make it more difficult to resolve the conflict and deepen its economic repercussions.

Official Iranian sources reported today, Sunday, that strategic sites in the capital Tehran and the city of Tabriz were subjected to a series of aerial attacks carried out by American and Israeli forces. The targets included Mehrabad International Airport, a vital artery in the capital, as well as a major petrochemical facility in East Azerbaijan Province.

These field developments come within the framework of the open military confrontation that began on February 28th, which has resulted in significant human losses among the Iranian leadership. Among the most prominent victims of this war were the former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, along with an elite group of security and military leaders who perished in previous strikes.

On the political front, US President Donald Trump made what were described as decisive statements, confirming that the United States is actively working to control the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Trump explained in an interview with Hebrew media that this move comes in the context of dealing with increasing regional challenges related to Iranian activity in the region.

Trump emphasized the strength of the alliance between Washington and Tel Aviv, describing it as stronger than ever under the current circumstances. He noted that there is daily and close coordination with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to ensure the achievement of common goals in this confrontation, which has entered its second month.

On the ground in Tabriz, Majid Farshi, Director of Crisis Management in East Azerbaijan Province, confirmed that the attack targeted a sensitive petrochemical facility in the region. He explained that search and rescue teams are continuing their work at the incident site to assess the damage, confirming that the situation is under full control with no detection of any leakage of hazardous chemicals.

In the capital Tehran, a state of anticipation prevailed after Mehrabad Airport was targeted, as authorities have not yet issued a detailed statement regarding the extent of the damage or the impact of the raids on air traffic. These strikes represent a qualitative escalation deep within Iranian territory, targeting economic and military infrastructure alike.

For its part, Tehran continues to respond to these attacks by launching barrages of ballistic missiles and drones towards Israeli targets. Reports also indicate the targeting of what Iran describes as American interests in several Arab countries, leading to casualties and material damage that have prompted widespread international condemnation.

Observers believe that Trump's statement regarding the Strait of Hormuz represents a fundamental shift in the war's objectives, as it goes beyond mere airstrikes to seeking control over the most important global waterways. This step raises concerns about the expansion of the conflict to directly include global energy security and international freedom of navigation.

Despite Trump's earlier announcement of a brief postponement of targeting Iranian energy facilities, the recent raids on the Tabriz facility indicate the resumption of operations against the oil and chemical sectors. This approach reflects a desire to dry up Iranian funding sources and undermine the country's industrial capabilities amid ongoing battles.

Military operations continue in the absence of any horizon for a political solution, with both the American and Israeli sides insisting on continuing military pressure to achieve a radical change in regional power balances. In contrast, Tehran affirms its continued 'resistance' and response to any aggression against its sovereignty or leadership, portending a hot summer in the Middle East region.

We are working to effectively control the Strait of Hormuz, and our coordination with Netanyahu is close, and we have good relations.

International sources and reports indicate that Iran, despite being stripped of large parts of its air and missile defenses, still retains a high capacity to launch missiles and drones that cause significant damage. These facts contradict perceptions that attempted to portray Tehran as a weak adversary whose military capabilities were completely destroyed by intense American and Israeli bombing in recent weeks.

Data from military sources indicates that the number of attacks launched by Iran has decreased by about 90% since the early days of the war, while the Israeli army confirms its interception of the majority of launch platforms. However, the recent series of attacks on Israel and Gulf countries is evidence that Tehran possesses enough weaponry to destabilize the region and inflict heavy losses on its enemies.

Last weekend saw a significant escalation, as Iran launched an airstrike on a US military base in Saudi Arabia, injuring about twenty soldiers. The attacks also targeted vital facilities in the region, including a port in Oman and Kuwait International Airport, in addition to targeting an aluminum factory in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi with missiles and drones.

Inside Israel, millions face a state of general paralysis and constant fear, forced to take refuge in shelters daily to protect themselves from Iranian fire. Medical authorities reported seven people injured in central Israel due to a missile barrage, while one person was killed in Tel Aviv by a small bomb resulting from a missile equipped with a cluster warhead.

Security experts believe that the military campaign against Iran, while effective in targeting leaders and destroying the air and naval forces, has not succeeded in neutralizing the missile threat. The true measure of success from Tehran's perspective is its continued ability to reach sensitive targets deep within Israel and US bases spread across the region.

US officials estimate that Iran may still possess thousands of 'Shahed' drones and hundreds of ballistic missiles ready for launch. Despite the strikes that targeted its facilities for a full month, the lack of accurate intelligence makes it difficult to ascertain the size of the remaining arsenal of the Revolutionary Guard.

Military analysts point out that a decrease in launch rates does not necessarily mean the destruction of capabilities, but may be due to a tactical repositioning process. It appears that Iranian forces are working to integrate new intelligence to improve targeting accuracy, which explains the increased effectiveness of strikes despite their fewer numbers compared to the beginning of the conflict.

Researcher Kelly Grecco confirms that Iran's hit rate on targets has more than doubled since mid-March, indicating an adversary that adapts and learns from the field. She adds that focusing on the percentage decrease in attacks may obscure the reality of a shift in the Iranian approach towards more qualitative and impactful strikes deep within the strategic adversaries.

The attacks were not limited to traditional targets but included attempts to strike highly sensitive locations, such as a missile falling near the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev Desert. This symbolic strike, which occurred only 16 kilometers from the fortified facility, raised significant concern about the ability of defense systems to provide full protection for strategic sites.

A clear loophole also emerged in Israeli air defenses, namely Iran's use of ballistic missiles with cluster warheads that explode above the ground. This technology scatters dozens of small bombs over wide areas, making their complete interception complex and extremely costly, especially since the 'Arrow 3' missiles designated for this are expensive and rare.

Reports indicate that Iran has used past periods to rapidly rebuild its capabilities beyond Israeli expectations, proving its ability to launch between 20 to 30 missiles daily. These missiles vary between those powered by liquid fuel and massive missiles emerging from underground bunkers known as 'missile cities'.

Analysts believe that maintaining the pace of attacks indicates the existence of secret missile bases and tunnels that Western intelligence agencies have not yet succeeded in detecting or destroying. This hidden presence gives Tehran the ability to maneuver and continue to threaten air and sea navigation in vital waterways and international energy facilities.

In a related context, analyst Farzan Thabet believes that Iran has begun to threaten more distant targets and has drawn attention with strikes that reached previously unexpected areas. This development in range and accuracy strengthens Iran's negotiating and military position, and places additional pressure on regional and international air defense systems attempting to contain the situation.

In conclusion, the current conflict appears to have revealed a high degree of resilience in the Iranian missile system despite concentrated air bombardment. With continued threats from allied fronts such as the Houthis, the region remains in a complex security landscape that goes beyond mere calculations of numbers and percentages of executed airstrikes.

Iran's primary measure of success is its ability to continue launching ballistic missiles and drones at Israel, US bases, and Gulf countries, and we know it is still capable of doing so.

Former Israeli Minister of Regional Cooperation, Tzachi Hanegbi, presented his interpretation of the ongoing military confrontation with Iran, one month after its outbreak. Hanegbi noted that the region is awaiting April 6th, the deadline set by US President Donald Trump for his ultimatum to Tehran to comply with American conditions.

Hanegbi explained in an analysis published by the Hebrew newspaper 'Yedioth Ahronoth' that the language of the American ultimatum was decisive and presented the Iranian leadership with two choices: either accept the dictates or face violent military strikes. The former minister leaned towards escalation, considering that the political doctrine of the Iranian regime historically tends towards confrontation rather than direct submission to external demands.

In his assessment of field achievements, Hanegbi affirmed that joint military operations between Israel and the United States succeeded in carrying out a systematic attack targeting Iran's traditional security infrastructure. These strikes included air defense systems, ballistic missile production factories, as well as intelligence, communications, and cyber facilities belonging to Tehran.

The former Israeli official also pointed to severe damage to Iran's internal security structure, directly targeting the regime's powerful arms such as the Revolutionary Guard, the Basij forces, and the police. He considered that these strikes were not limited to the material aspect but also affected the political, military, and intelligence leadership, causing confusion in Iranian decision-making circles.

On the political front, Hanegbi believed that the current war pushed the alliance between Tel Aviv and Washington to unprecedented levels of coordination and rapprochement. He described the current relationship as the strongest in the history of the two countries, pointing to open and direct communication channels with senior officials of the Trump administration, including Vice President Pence and national security ministers.

The article touched upon the secret and sensitive military cooperation that has developed in recent months, considering it a multiplier of the strategic power of both countries. Hanegbi affirmed that this model of joint work could form the basic pillar for any future security alliances in the region to confront common threats.

Regarding air defense, Hanegbi praised the success achieved by Israeli and American systems in intercepting aerial threats, describing the results as record-breaking. He commended the discipline shown by the Israeli public, which effectively contributed to reducing the number of casualties despite the intensity of missile and drone attacks.

Conversely, Hanegbi did not overlook what he described as 'enemy achievements,' noting that the opening strike unexpectedly contributed to solidifying Mojtaba Khamenei's position as the new Supreme Leader. He considered that the assassination of his father Ali Khamenei and the election of the son who survived the attack strengthened the regime's legitimacy at a critical moment, despite previous expectations of internal conflicts.

On the geopolitical level, the former minister believed that Iran succeeded in exploiting its control over the Strait of Hormuz to enhance its image as a regional power capable of challenge and maneuver. He pointed to the failure of adversaries to impose heavy costs on Iranian movements in waterways, which gave Tehran additional leverage in negotiations to end the conflict.

Regarding the Lebanese issue, Hanegbi expressed his surprise at Hezbollah's ability to recover quickly despite the severe blows it suffered in Operation 'Northern Arrows.' He affirmed that the party's continued launching of missiles and drones proves that the ceasefire agreement signed in November 2024 did not achieve the desired security for the northern settlements.

The analysis also pointed to the success of Iranian repressive mechanisms in preventing any internal protests despite immense military and economic pressures. Hanegbi considered that the regime skillfully managed to turn the funerals of its leaders into massive demonstrations to renew loyalty to its policies, which thwarted external attempts to mobilize the Iranian street during the Nowruz holidays.

Hanegbi warned of Tehran's success in establishing what he described as a 'balance of terror' with its neighbors in the Gulf and European countries, where there is a state of hesitation in taking offensive stances against it. He explained that Saudi Arabia and the UAE, despite their implicit desire to weaken Iran, fear direct missile responses on their territories.

The former minister criticized the Trump administration's inability so far to rally a broad international and Arab coalition similar to the alliances led by Presidents Bush and Obama in previous campaigns. He believed that this shortcoming could lead to the international isolation of the United States, especially with increasing concerns about the impact on global energy supplies due to the ongoing conflict.

Hanegbi concluded his vision by emphasizing that the current balance of power remains mixed, and that resolution depends on Washington's determination to fulfill its promises to end the Iranian threat. He stressed that the coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether military achievements will translate into long-term strategic gains or remain just another round of conflict.

The Iranian regime has always preferred vague threats of virtual hell over complete submission to tangible dictates, so it can be assumed that escalation is inevitable.

Israeli occupation police, this Sunday morning, prevented the Latin Patriarch of Occupied Jerusalem, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, from reaching the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Patriarch was scheduled to preside over the 'Palm Sunday' mass, which marks the beginning of Easter celebrations according to the Western calendar, but security restrictions prevented the completion of religious rituals at one of the holiest Christian sites in the world.

Church sources confirmed that this prevention came as a surprise despite prior coordination by the Patriarchate to secure the passage of the Patriarch's convoy through the alleys of the Old City. The sources explained that occupation forces obstructed the convoy at one of the military checkpoints leading to the church, which led to the cancellation of the mass that was scheduled to be held symbolically and very limitedly.

Field sources stated that Patriarch Pizzaballa was accompanied by only three of his assistants, in compliance with the decision to reduce celebratory manifestations and the absence of the public given the current circumstances. These restrictions come in the context of widespread security tightening imposed by the occupation on the occupied city of Jerusalem and its holy sites, coinciding with the ongoing aggression on the Gaza Strip and escalating tensions in the West Bank.

The measure came despite prior coordination announced by the Patriarchate to ensure the Patriarch's convoy reached the heart of the Old City.

Israeli writer Gideon Levy considered the recent statements by US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, regarding 'concern' over the escalation of settler violence in the West Bank, to be nothing more than a boring repetition of old diplomatic rhetoric. Levy explained in an article for Haaretz that this American approach merely condemns verbally while Washington continues to supply Israel with the weapons and money necessary for its policies to continue.

Levy refuted Rubio's claims that the Israeli government shares Washington's concern, emphasizing that reality proves the exact opposite. The current government does not view settler attacks as lawlessness, but rather considers them an effective strategic tool that serves its political goals of imposing facts on the ground and expanding Israeli control.

The writer pointed out that the issue in the West Bank is not about extremist groups running wild, but rather a systematic policy that enjoys widespread security and military encouragement. Levy believes that the ultimate goal of this violence is to exert continuous pressure on Palestinians to force them into involuntary displacement from their lands and homes.

In the context of demonstrating military complicity, Levy drew attention to the role played by the Israeli army in providing cover and protection for settlers during their attacks. He cited international media reports that showed soldiers harassing foreign journalists and preventing them from covering events, while some of these soldiers chanted ideological slogans claiming absolute Jewish ownership of the West Bank.

Levy criticized the absence of accountability within the military establishment, noting that the commander of the Central Command, Avi Bluth, has not taken any legal action or brought soldiers to military trial despite documented repeated attacks. This military silence reflects, according to the article, a general climate of complicity that extends from the lowest soldier to the highest political echelons in Israel.

The writer described the US administration's talk of a 'concerned Israeli government' as reflecting either a deep ignorance of the nature of the current political structure in Tel Aviv, or a conscious attempt at diplomatic cover-up. In both cases, Levy believes that this stance contributes to prolonging Palestinian suffering and grants attackers undeclared immunity.

Levy stressed that settler violence is not random chaos, but a clear-cut means of uprooting the Palestinian presence from areas classified as 'C'. He held the United States directly responsible for these outcomes, considering that its failure to use its real influence and effective pressure tools makes it an actual partner in these crimes.

The article affirmed that Washington possesses all the necessary tools to curb this path immediately if it had the political will, by imposing serious economic and political sanctions. However, the continuation of the 'empty words' policy proves that the US administration prefers to maintain the status quo at the expense of human rights and justice.

Gideon Levy concluded that American 'concern' itself has become part of the problem rather than a path to a solution, because it gives the world a false impression of action while the reality on the ground continues to worsen. He concluded by emphasizing that Palestinians alone pay the price for this international complicity with their blood, their lands, and the future of their children.

American concern does not stop settler violence as long as it is without sanctions and real pressure; rather, it is part of the problem, not a prelude to its solution.

The city of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip, witnessed a bloody escalation today, Sunday, where nine Palestinians, including members of the local police, were martyred as a result of a series of airstrikes and intense gunfire. The attacks focused on various areas of the city, leading to varying injuries among civilians who were in the vicinity of the targets.

In field details, local sources reported that shelling targeting the vicinity of the Bani Suhaila roundabout east of the city resulted in the martyrdom of one person, while the death toll from the shelling that targeted gatherings in the 'Bir 19' area in Mawasi Khan Yunis rose to eight martyrs. Four others were also injured with various wounds due to shrapnel that flew in the densely populated area with displaced people.

The aerial bombardment coincided with intensive ground movements, as Israeli military vehicles fired their machine guns and artillery shells towards the eastern areas of Khan Yunis. These movements come within what is known as the 'Yellow Line' to which the army had previously withdrawn, indicating continuous breaches of field understandings.

On the naval and aerial fronts, Israeli warships participated in the attack by firing towards the Khan Yunis beach, causing panic among fishermen and citizens. At the same time, combat helicopters carried out sweeping operations with fire towards the eastern outskirts of the Bureij camp, coinciding with artillery shelling that targeted the eastern neighborhoods of Gaza City.

Field sources confirmed that the occupation is systematically focusing on targeting security personnel affiliated with the Ministry of Interior, who are tasked with maintaining public order and protecting aid. These attacks have been repeated in recent weeks, especially in areas near the contact lines, hindering efforts to secure the internal front and provide protection for civilians.

Hamas, for its part, considered the targeting of civilian police points in Khan Yunis as an insistence by the occupation government to spread chaos and dismantle the administrative structure in the Strip. The movement called on the international community and the guarantor states of the ceasefire agreements to act immediately to stop these aggressions and hold the occupation leaders accountable for their crimes.

In a related context concerning the humanitarian situation, the Ministry of Health in Gaza issued a strong warning about the risk of the remaining hospitals completely ceasing to operate. The ministry attributed this risk to the severe shortage of operating oils for electricity generators and spare parts necessary for maintenance, in light of the strict siege imposed on the crossings.

During a press conference held at Al-Shifa Hospital, Mazen Al-Araishi, Director General of Engineering and Maintenance, explained that about 90 electricity generators have already gone out of service due to excessive consumption and lack of maintenance. He pointed out that the remaining generators are operating at a minimum and with insufficient quantities of oils, threatening the continuity of work in vital departments.

Al-Araishi indicated that the health system needs about 2500 units of operating oils monthly, which is currently unavailable due to Israeli restrictions on the entry of supplies. He warned that the continuation of this deficit would lead to a gradual halt of medical facilities that have been operating beyond their capacity for more than two years without interruption.

The risks resulting from generator malfunctions include the cessation of intensive care units and incubators for premature babies, in addition to dialysis units that rely entirely on stable power. The power outage also threatens to spoil drug and vaccine stocks and blood bags that require specific temperatures to maintain their validity.

The Ministry of Health concluded its appeal by emphasizing that surgical operations may be limited to very urgent cases only, with the possibility of diagnostic imaging devices and laboratories breaking down. It appealed to international organizations, especially the World Health Organization, to pressure for the opening of crossings and to secure the access of fuel, oils, and medical equipment necessary to save what remains of the health sector.

The targeting of civilian police points by the occupation army is an attempt to impose chaos and a continuation of crimes against our people.

Political and security circles within the occupation state, with the completion of the first month of direct military confrontation with Iran, witnessed a wide debate about the strategic utility of joint air operations with the United States. The general Israeli mood shifted from the euphoria of initial strikes to deep concern about the ability to decisively win the battle or end the existing missile threat.\n\nIn a sharp critical reading, former National Security Advisor, General Giora Eiland, described the current situation as 'Moscow 1812 scenario'. Eiland explained that Israel and Washington fell into a classic error, which is the large gap between declared goals and available means, assuming that aerial bombardment would force Tehran to negotiate.\n\nEiland affirmed that the Iranian leadership adopted a 'long breath' strategy similar to the Russian Tsar against Napoleon, refusing to surrender to American conditions. He considered that the 'aerial hell' unleashed by the coalition did not translate into tangible political results, but rather turned into a destructive act with no clear horizon for ending the conflict.\n\nAnalysis also pointed to 'naivety' in assessing Iran's ability to choke global trade through asymmetric weapons. Despite targeting the conventional fleet, Tehran proved the effectiveness of its naval mines, suicide drones, and 'sea-to-sea' missiles in threatening international waterways.\n\nThe Iranian threat did not stop at the Strait of Hormuz but extended to Bab al-Mandab, placing the international coalition in a position of 'passive defense'. This escalation led to an unprecedented global energy crisis, prompting American strategy to retreat and become confused in the face of the economic war's repercussions.\n\nOn the ground, reports from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) revealed that air strikes did not touch the 'strategic nerve' of Iranian capabilities. Sources confirm that Iranian missiles are stored in fortified bases hundreds of meters deep under mountains, making their destruction from the air almost impossible.\n\nEiland criticized the absence of any ground campaign or the ability to recruit allied forces on the ground due to the 'Iraq shock' that still dominates decision-making in Washington. He believed that merely watching aerial destruction aims only to satisfy the Israeli public, without bringing about a real change in the military balance of power.\n\nIn a related context, the former advisor warned against being drawn into secondary military campaigns such as 'Northern Arrows' against Hezbollah, considering them an 'attrition trap'. While the army focuses its efforts on the Iranian interior, the Galilee regions remain under continuous fire, which refutes promises of 'absolute victory'.\n\nOn the other hand, Tzachi Hanegbi adopts a different view calling for continued military pressure until Iranian capabilities are completely destroyed. Hanegbi believes that the continuation of the American decisive approach is what will change the balance of terror in the region, despite warnings of a prolonged confrontation.\n\nIn a sociological reading, researcher Benny Sabti pointed to potential rifts between the Iranian presidency and the Revolutionary Guard. Sabti attributes this tension to economic pressures resulting from the detention of oil funds in China and Russia, which could lead to internal collapse.\n\nAway from the Iranian front, occupation forces committed a serious breach of the ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip at dawn on Sunday. Medical sources reported the martyrdom of 6 Palestinians, including 3 police officers and a girl, after a raid targeted the Al-Mawasi area west of Khan Yunis.\n\nThis targeting is one in a series of continuous breaches of the agreement signed in October 2025, with the number of martyrs since its entry into force reaching 691. Human suffering continues in the Strip, with the total number of aggression victims since October 2023 exceeding 72,000 martyrs.\n\nRegarding the prisoner file, it was announced on Saturday that prisoner Marwan Fathi Harzallah (54 years old) was martyred inside Megiddo prison due to medical negligence. This incident raises the number of martyrs in the prisoner movement since the start of the war to 89, amid harsh and inhumane detention conditions.\n\nThis coincided with a legal escalation in the Israeli Knesset, where the National Security Committee approved a bill for the execution of Palestinian prisoners. This law, awaiting final vote, aims to tighten penalties against resistors, threatening to ignite the situation inside and outside prisons.\n\n"The current reality resembles the Moscow 1812 scenario; where the attacking axis believed that destroying facilities would lead to negotiations, but the Iranian leadership chose a long-breath strategy.

By: Said Arikat

March 30, 2026

News Analysis

 Washington, D.C-The “No King” rallies on Saturday, March 28, culminating in the high-profile gathering in Washington, D.C., have emerged as a striking manifestation of intra-party dissent under President Donald Trump. More than mere protest, they are a vivid declaration that loyalty to a single leader cannot supersede the principles of American democracy. In a political landscape increasingly defined by personality-driven politics, these rallies serve as a collective assertion that the United States cannot function as a monarchy in all but name. The symbolism of holding such a demonstration at the nation’s political epicenter—the capital itself—underscores both the urgency and the audacity of the message.

The Washington event was meticulously orchestrated to maximize visibility and political impact. Participants ranged from grassroots activists to former Republican officials, all united under a banner rejecting authoritarian impulses and defending institutional norms. The choice of Washington, D.C., is itself an unmistakable statement: the protest does not occur on the periphery but at the very locus of power. By placing dissent literally in the corridors of authority, organizers ensure the movement cannot be ignored by media, legislators, or the public. It is a rally designed to confront the heart of Trump’s presidency and to assert the principle that no individual, however popular, is above democratic norms.

The “No King” movement emerges against a backdrop of heightened Republican tension. President Trump’s continued consolidation of influence—through public statements, endorsements, and policy direction—has created a delicate balance for traditional conservatives, who must reconcile loyalty to a widely supported president with responsibility to democratic norms. The rallies exploit this tension, making explicit the stakes of unquestioning allegiance: the potential erosion of the party’s credibility and the weakening of institutions that underpin the republic. This is a cautionary narrative, a public admonition that unchecked loyalty carries consequences beyond electoral politics.

Immediate effects of the Washington rally have been unmistakable. National media coverage has framed the event as evidence of deepening fractures within the Republican Party, highlighting that opposition to Trump is not confined to abstract criticism but extends to organized, vocal factions willing to challenge his authority publicly. Congressional leaders and state party officials are now navigating intensified pressure to define their positions clearly, a tension that may influence legislative agendas, endorsements, and the dynamics of competitive primaries in 2026. In this sense, the rally functions both as a mirror of dissent and a lever for political recalibration.

The democratic significance extends beyond party politics. In a polarized environment, public demonstrations emphasizing limits on power reaffirm the role of civic engagement as a check on executive authority. By framing opposition not as partisan obstruction but as principled resistance to authoritarianism, participants in the “No King” movement articulate a vision of democracy in which institutional integrity takes precedence over personality politics. The very act of mobilizing in the nation’s capital communicates a deeper truth: the vitality of the republic depends on active citizens willing to confront the concentration of power.

Electoral consequences are potentially profound. In Republican-leaning states with competitive primaries, candidates may now be compelled to publicly navigate Trump’s influence, risking alienation of either the loyalist base or moderate voters. Independents and swing constituencies may interpret the rallies as evidence that principled opposition exists within the GOP, a signal that the party is not monolithic and that personality-driven politics can be challenged. As such, the movement may shape voter behavior in midterms, influencing both turnout and candidate positioning.

Long-term implications for conservatism are equally significant. If sustained, the “No King” rallies could form the nucleus of a structured faction committed to resisting centralization of power and reaffirming core conservative principles: limited government, adherence to constitutional norms, and measured leadership. This emergent faction has the potential to influence candidate selection, legislative priorities, and party platforms well beyond the Trump presidency, serving as a counterweight to the populist, personality-driven impulses that have defined recent cycles. In essence, the rallies may represent the initial stages of an ideological realignment within the Republican Party.

Challenges remain. The movement’s influence will depend on translating symbolic protests into sustained political leverage, combining grassroots energy with organizational sophistication, and articulating a coherent policy agenda. Without these elements, the momentum generated by the Washington rally risks dissipating. Moreover, the movement must navigate perceptions: too aggressive a stance risks alienating moderates, while insufficient clarity may render the protest performative rather than consequential. Success lies in striking a careful balance between moral authority and strategic action.

Ultimately, the “No King” rallies represent more than political dissent—they are a democratic litmus test in the Trump era. By confronting the concentration of power in the executive and asserting the primacy of constitutional norms, these events highlight the fragility of personality-driven politics and the enduring need for civic vigilance. While the immediate electoral effects remain uncertain, the rallies have already reshaped the narrative of Republican politics and injected a potent reminder into national discourse: American democracy flourishes not under the dominion of a single leader, but when power is debated, constrained, and held accountable by engaged citizens. In this sense, the “No King” movement is both a warning and a reaffirmation: the republic endures through principled dissent as much as through popular support.

Washington – Said Erikat – 3/29/2026

In a notable development reflecting a potential escalation in the pace of confrontation, the Washington Post, citing American officials, reported that the U.S. Department of Defense is preparing for a scenario of ground operations inside Iran that could last for weeks. This move represents a qualitative shift from air and naval operations to direct ground engagement.

According to the report, the military plans under consideration include complex raids carried out by special operations forces alongside conventional infantry units, as part of what appears to be an attempt to impose rapid tactical realities on the ground. However, these plans, according to sources, are still contingent on the approval of President Donald Trump, who has not yet made a decision regarding moving to this level of escalation.

This comes as the war enters its fifth week, with Washington having reinforced its military presence in the region by deploying Marine Corps forces, and considering sending thousands of soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the most rapidly deployable units in the U.S. Army. This increasing military buildup reflects preparation for broader options, which may go beyond deterrence to the execution of specific offensive operations.

Informed sources indicate that the debate within the U.S. administration remains heated between those pushing to expand the scope of operations to achieve deeper strategic objectives, and those warning against sliding into a complex ground quagmire in Iran, given the nature of the geography, logistical challenges, and the potential for an asymmetrical Iranian response.

The shift towards considering ground operations inside Iran reveals a growing strategic dilemma in Washington. After weeks of air strikes that have not achieved a clear decisive outcome, the U.S. administration appears to face two difficult choices: either direct military escalation with its inherent risks, or accepting a long war of attrition. This hesitation reflects the absence of a comprehensive vision for the political end of the conflict, where military tools are being dealt with in isolation from a clear diplomatic strategy, increasing the likelihood of miscalculation.

Betting on elite forces such as special operations and airborne units may give Washington the ability to carry out precise strikes, but it does not guarantee control over their repercussions. Iran possesses a complex network of allies and unconventional capabilities, making any limited ground incursion vulnerable to turning into a broader confrontation. Furthermore, American military history in the region, from Iraq to Afghanistan, highlights that rapid operations often turn into long and costly political and military commitments.

Politically, this escalation comes at a sensitive internal moment for President Donald Trump, as pressure is mounting within Congress and within his own political camp regarding the cost and objectives of the war. Any decision to proceed with ground operations could deepen internal divisions, especially if there is no clear exit strategy. Moreover, the American public, which has shown war fatigue, may not easily accept a new involvement in an open conflict in the Middle East.

In conclusion, Washington appears to be at a critical crossroads: either continue to escalate towards a broader confrontation with Iran, or re-evaluate its options within a more cautious approach that takes into account regional and international complexities. In the absence of a clear final decision, all scenarios remain open, from limited operations to a gradual slide towards a broader war, which may exceed current estimations.

A massive wave of popular protests swept across the United States under the slogan 'No Kings,' with millions participating in coordinated marches across all fifty states. These movements aim to express widespread public rejection of President Donald Trump's policies and administration, in one of the largest protest events recorded in modern American history.

The organizers of the popular movement confirmed over 3100 field events, with expectations of total participants exceeding 9 million people. The momentum began to clearly show in the capital, Washington, where tens of thousands flocked from the early morning hours to participate in central marches that paraded through the main streets.

Minnesota leads the national protest scene, with about 100,000 people gathering in St. Paul in front of the Capitol building. This Midwestern state has become a symbol of popular resistance, especially after the bloody events it previously witnessed, which led to the killing of two people by federal agents during immigrant pursuit campaigns.

Protesters directly accuse President Trump of disregarding the fundamental democratic principles upon which the country was founded. Protesters believe that the current administration seeks to concentrate powers in the hands of the president in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, following methods described as mimicking the approach of autocratic rulers in managing state affairs.

The protests were not limited to major cities and liberal areas but extended to rural and conservative areas traditionally known as Republican strongholds. This geographical expansion indicates a state of division or unrest even within the bases that were historically counted in favor of the president, according to field media sources.

On the international front, the spark of solidarity ignited from the French capital, Paris, where hundreds of American residents gathered in the historic Bastille Square. French labor unions and human rights organizations joined the protesters, raising banners condemning what they described as 'wars for profit' and asserting that the armed forces are not a tool for sale or political exploitation.

Ada Shin, one of the organizers of the Paris march, said that the protest comes in response to what she described as the illegal and immoral wars in which the American administration is engaged. She added that the goal of these policies is to blatantly exploit power, noting that the president is abusing the mandate given to him by the American people through 'strongman' practices.

In Minnesota, organizers explained that the choice of their state to be the center of the main national event came in appreciation of the resilience of its residents in the face of violent security campaigns. They pointed out that the number of participants this year exceeded the figures recorded in last June's protests, reflecting the escalating public anger towards the policies adopted in immigration and public freedoms.

For its part, the White House quickly downplayed these million-strong movements, describing them as 'manufactured' and backed by left-wing funding entities. The American administration stated in a brief statement that these demonstrations do not express the true pulse of the street, claiming that public support for these movements remains limited despite the large numbers observed in the squares.

These developments come at a sensitive time for the United States, where political and social polarization is escalating unprecedentedly. Observers believe that the continuation of these protests with such momentum may impose new legal and political pressures on the Trump administration, amid increasing demands for accountability for what is described as abuse of power and endangering global stability.

When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes a duty... We protest the abuse of power practiced by the elected president.

Contemporary wars are no longer limited to direct military confrontations on battlefields but have shifted to invisible spaces managed by the United States with high professionalism. This strategy relies on shaping conflict equations through media tools and psychological warfare, making the battle for influencing perception and forming collective consciousness no less important than the movements of fleets and armies.

The American vision for managing international crises is based on a complex mix that combines hard and soft power, where media is employed as a strategic tool to redefine reality. Through international networks and digital platforms, major narratives are directed to serve political objectives, whether by exaggerating certain events or downplaying others according to supreme interests.

In the digital space, algorithms play a pivotal and hidden role in prioritizing and directing global public opinion. The ability to choose what is displayed first and what is marginalized grants major powers unprecedented authority in shaping international positions, especially during acute moments of crisis in the region.

Psychological warfare emerges as a crucial element in weakening adversaries before any real field confrontation begins, where misleading information or 'half-truths' are used to confuse the other party. These moves aim to sow doubt within hostile societies and weaken their trust in their national institutions, thereby facilitating political penetration later.

This war takes multiple forms, including carefully planned media leaks and organized campaigns via social media. It also includes military displays that are essentially aimed at achieving psychological gains and deterring adversaries, rather than seeking to achieve tangible geographical accomplishments on the ground.

The impact of these strategies is not limited to adversaries but also extends to allies by managing their expectations and adjusting their political stances. Washington always seeks to unify the media narrative and political discourse within its alliances to ensure that independent positions that might hinder the overall strategy are not formed.

On the economic front, the concept of 'war economy' stands out as an effective tool for redistributing global power balances to serve American interests. This is achieved through imposing strict sanctions and controlling vital supply chains, in addition to directly influencing global energy markets.

International crises provide major opportunities for multinational corporations to reposition themselves and open new markets in conflict zones. Thus, war transforms from merely an armed conflict into a means of reshaping the international economic order and imposing new realities that are difficult to reverse in the future.

The logic of the market intertwines with geopolitics in a way that makes it difficult to separate commercial interests from military objectives. Using crises as a means to prioritize international agendas ensures that economic dominance remains linked to the ability to manage conflicts and direct their trajectories.

Despite the apparent effectiveness of these approaches, they carry significant long-term risks and costs. Over-reliance on media as a guiding tool can lead to an erosion of credibility, especially with the rise of alternative information sources that break the monopoly of the official narrative.

Moreover, intensifying psychological warfare can sometimes lead to counterproductive results, as pressure turns into a factor of counter-mobilization among targeted populations. Instead of weakening the adversary, these pressures may contribute to strengthening internal fronts and increasing determination to confront and reject external dictates.

This new reality poses serious challenges to societies that are now required to understand the mechanisms of hidden influence through which international conflicts are managed. It is no longer enough to follow superficial news; one must delve into the backgrounds of narratives to understand how facts are manipulated and minds are directed.

Control over minds in our contemporary world has often become a prerequisite for controlling land and resources. The real battle revolves around who has the ability to define what is 'real' and what is 'fake' amidst the intertwining of facts with systematic propaganda.

In conclusion, the American role in contemporary conflicts transcends the traditional image of military power based solely on weaponry. It is a comprehensive management of psychological, economic, and media spheres of influence, making 'invisible war' the primary driver of international politics in the 21st century.

The battle today is not just about who possesses power, but about who possesses the ability to direct perception and define what is considered reality.

The closure of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque entered its thirtieth consecutive day, as the occupation authorities continue to prevent worshippers from reaching the mosque and performing their religious rituals. Israeli security agencies cite the state of emergency resulting from the ongoing military confrontation since late February as justification for this unprecedented religious siege.

Occupation authorities informed the Islamic Endowments Department in Jerusalem of their decision to keep the mosque closed until April 15, 2026. This closure is the longest and most stringent since the occupation of the holy city in 1967, raising serious concerns about the future of the status quo in the Noble Sanctuary.

Field sources reported that the occupation police imposed a tight security cordon around the Old City and deployed extensive reinforcements at all gates leading to Al-Aqsa Mosque. These measures prevented last Friday's prayer, forcing hundreds of Jerusalemites to spread out in nearby streets and roads to perform prayers amidst security restrictions and harassment.

Video clips documented distress calls from the elderly and Jerusalemites who tried to reach the mosque, warning of the dangers surrounding it in light of this absolute silence. Activists called for the necessity of setting out and acting to break the siege imposed on the first Qibla of Muslims, emphasizing that Al-Aqsa is at a dangerous historical turning point.

The policy of isolation was not limited to Al-Aqsa Mosque alone but extended to include Christian holy sites in the city, as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre remained closed to pilgrims and worshippers. These steps come within a comprehensive Israeli vision aimed at isolating occupied Jerusalem from its geographical and demographic surroundings under the guise of current military circumstances.

On the digital front, social media platforms were abuzz with a wave of anger and condemnation due to the continued silence of the minarets and the absence of the call to prayer and prayers in the mosque. Bloggers considered the continuation of the closure for a full month a stab in the conscience of the nation, especially as these measures coincided with important religious occasions that passed without their usual rituals being performed.

Followers criticized the absence of an effective Arab and Islamic stance towards what is happening in Jerusalem, affirming that this laxity encouraged the occupation to persist in its measures. They pointed out that the pretext of 'state of emergency' seems flimsy, especially since it is applied with extreme selectivity targeting the Islamic and Christian presence in the heart of the holy city exclusively.

Specialists in Jerusalem affairs warned that the occupation seeks to establish a new reality aimed at the complete temporal division of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Leaked plans include attempts to equalize the hours of incursions allocated to settlers with the hours of presence of Muslim worshippers, at nine hours for each party, in a step to end the exclusive Islamic sovereignty over the place.

Reports indicate that the Israeli government is working to permanently re-violate the Dar al-Hadith area and the eastern courtyard of the mosque. Restrictions are also concentrated in the Bab al-Rahma area, with the aim of full control over the eastern section of Al-Aqsa Mosque and transforming it into an area of settlement influence in preparation for broader Judaization operations.

The preparation for imposing temporal and spatial division includes making the Jewish presence a permanent part of the daily program within the courtyards of the Noble Sanctuary. Observers believe that these fundamental changes in the religious and historical function of the place aim to create a new reality that will be difficult to change after the current military conditions end, which requires urgent action to protect the holy sites.

Al-Aqsa calls you, Al-Aqsa is in danger, set out, oh world, to Al-Aqsa, march to Al-Aqsa.

The past few hours have witnessed a dramatic shift in the regional military confrontation, as Iranian authorities announced the success of their defenses or air force in destroying an American early warning and control (AWACS) aircraft. This incident is considered a significant technical and military breach given the strategic importance of this aircraft in managing air operations and radar surveillance.

In a related context, official sources in Tehran confirmed their responsibility for carrying out a series of strikes targeting industrial facilities and factories in both the Kingdom of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. The sources indicated that these attacks come as part of a broader response to what they described as involvement in military operations directed against Iranian territory.

These developments raise international concerns about the region sliding into an uncontrolled, all-out war, especially with the targeting of the geographical depth of Gulf states and the downing of a pride of American military industry. Political circles are currently monitoring the nature of the expected response from Washington and its allies in the region, amidst international calls for de-escalation and avoiding a complete collapse of regional security.

Military operations targeted vital centers in response to hostile movements in the region.

Amidst global power balances typically measured by conventional military arsenals, the Iranian case stands out as an exceptional model that transcends classical notions of victory and defeat. Despite decades of economic sanctions and continuous military pressure, Tehran has managed to maintain its regional positioning without being drawn into a decisive confrontation that could end its political existence.

Iran's vision of conflict is based on considering war as an extended temporal process, not merely a military clash decided on a single battlefield. This perspective makes 'strategic patience' a fundamental pillar, where success is measured by the state's ability to erode the adversary's will and force them to retreat under the weight of continuous attrition.

Tehran applies a golden rule in its military movements: to move battlefields as far away from its national borders as possible. By building a complex network of allies and proxies in the region, it has succeeded in transforming any direct threat to itself into a multi-front war that exhausts adversaries politically and militarily.

This management approach makes Iran a center for decision-making and operations without necessarily being in the direct line of fire. This geographical distribution of risks gives decision-makers in Tehran high flexibility in maneuvering and pressuring adversaries' weaknesses at sensitive times.

Instead of pursuing a 'knockout blow' that might provoke a comprehensive international response, Iranian strategy prefers a policy of 'long breath'. This policy relies on delivering limited strikes and graduated military messages aimed at exhausting the other party's capabilities without reaching the point of total explosion.

'Strategic ambiguity' stands out as one of the most powerful weapons in Iran's unconventional arsenal, where major operations are often left without clear official attribution. This ambiguity confuses the response calculations of major powers and gives Tehran ample room for diplomatic maneuvering and denial when necessary.

Iranian leadership recognizes the gap in conventional military superiority separating it from its international adversaries, and therefore developed the logic of 'raising the cost'. This logic aims to make any thought of launching a comprehensive war an extremely expensive gamble, whether by threatening shipping lanes or expanding the scope of regional engagement.

In this context, the goal is not to achieve military victory in the traditional sense, but to prevent the adversary from becoming convinced of the possibility of an easy victory. It is a defensive-offensive strategy at the same time, relying on transforming military power into a tool to deter existential threats.

Military action in the Iranian strategic mind is not separate from the political and diplomatic path; rather, it is used as powerful leverage at the negotiating table. Calculated field escalation is often a prelude to improving negotiating terms or rebalancing power with major powers.

The ability to balance 'fire and diplomacy' is what has enabled Tehran to survive despite long international isolation. De-escalation, from the Iranian perspective, is not a concession, but a result of a careful re-evaluation of state interests and the cost of continuing direct confrontation.

The secret to the Iranian regime's survival lies in its ability to avoid defeat rather than betting on a quick and costly victory. It does not enter into battles whose consequences it cannot bear, nor does it escalate situations except within limits that ensure its control over the final outcomes.

Iran operates in the international arena with a 'complex networks' mentality characterized by flexibility and adaptability to sudden changes. This distributed structure makes it difficult to target a single center of gravity to end its influence, which enhances its ability to endure long-term.

Ultimately, Iran has redefined the rules of the military game in the Middle East by adopting the 'no defeat' model. In a world where the nature of wars is becoming more complex, the traditional question of who is the victor is no longer the most important, but rather who has the greater capacity for endurance.

The Iranian experience indicates that power lies not only in the number of planes and tanks, but in the ability to confuse the adversary's calculations and force them to accept an uncomfortable status quo. This strategic resilience remains the true measure of the success of its foreign policy in the face of pressure.

Iran does not seek complete control, but to confuse the adversary, and not overwhelming victory, but to redefine the rules of the game.

Hebrew media reports have revealed intensive American movements in the Middle East, indicating a field reality different from political statements about resolving the conflict with Iran. Sources explained that Washington has reinforced its military presence by deploying amphibious warships and advanced aircraft, in addition to thousands of marines and sailors in strategic locations near the Iranian coast.

Strategic assessments indicate that the US administration is seriously considering the option of controlling Kharg Island, which is considered one of the most important economic and vital assets of the Islamic Republic. The importance of this island lies in its being the main center for energy distribution in Iran, as it possesses a huge infrastructure capable of receiving giant oil tankers and storing millions of barrels.

Observers believe that any targeting or control of this island would represent a devastating blow to the Iranian economy, given that about 90% of oil exports pass through its piers and facilities. This total dependence makes the island a strategic target for Washington in its attempt to undermine Tehran's financial capabilities and force it to make major political and military concessions.

In contrast, international media sources have warned that controlling the island does not necessarily guarantee a final strategic resolution to the conflict. There are fundamental questions about whether this step would push Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, or whether it would lead to a counter-reaction that would push the Iranian leadership towards further military escalation in international waterways.

US forces face grave military risks if a decision is made to carry out a ground operation to control Kharg, as this would require crossing the Strait of Hormuz under the threat of ballistic missiles. Iranian drones and naval mines also pose a significant obstacle to achieving complete air and naval superiority around the island, which could inflict heavy human and material losses on attacking forces.

In addition to military challenges, concerns arise regarding the civilians present on the island, the vast majority of whom are oil sector workers and engineers. The transformation of oil facilities into a battlefield will inevitably lead to a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe, as well as the potential depletion of advanced American weapons and missile stockpiles in a long-term confrontation.

For its part, Tehran has not stood idly by in the face of these threats. Field sources reported that the Iranian army has unprecedentedly strengthened its defenses on Kharg Island. These reinforcements included the deployment of additional air defense systems, the planting of mines and improvised explosive devices along the coasts, and the transfer of elite military units to secure vital facilities.

Iranian officials issue repeated warnings that any encroachment on Iranian islands will be met with a harsh and direct response that will affect infrastructure throughout the entire region. These warning messages aim to deter Washington and its regional allies from engaging in a military adventure that could ignite a comprehensive war whose end or repercussions on the global energy market cannot be predicted.

There is a clear division within the US administration on this issue, with one faction pushing for a decisive economic blow by controlling Kharg to end the war quickly. In contrast, another faction warns against sliding into a complex and costly conflict that could last for years, putting decision-makers in Washington before difficult strategic choices that could change the face of the region.

Kharg Island is a vital artery for the Iranian oil industry, with estimates indicating that about 90 percent of exports pass through its vital facilities.

The Al-Araby TV office in the Iranian capital, Tehran, was severely damaged today, Sunday, by a direct missile strike that hit the building housing the headquarters. Field sources confirmed that there were no human casualties among the journalistic and technical staff, despite the intensity of the explosion that shook the residential area.

The explosion occurred at 2:45 PM local time, coinciding with the channel's correspondent being live on air. The shelling caused extensive parts of the studio to collapse and an immediate loss of communication with the staff who were performing their professional duties.

The channel's correspondent, Hazem Kallas, described the first moments of the attack, indicating that the missile directly hit the building while he was inside with fellow cameramen. He explained that divine providence prevented casualties among the employees, despite the destruction that affected the entire office facilities.

Images from the scene showed near-total destruction on the western side of the building, specifically on the second, third, and up to the fifth floors. The targeted building is located in 'Herawi' Square, northeast of Tehran, a crowded area that includes commercial complexes, medical clinics, and civilian facilities.

For its part, the Iranian Red Crescent reported 10 injured in the areas surrounding the building, most of whom were women and children who happened to be present at the scene. Rescue and firefighting teams rushed to the site to remove debris, clear closed roads, and restore vital services to the affected area.

Initial field data indicates that the attack was carried out by a missile launched by a drone that directly targeted the administrative building. This assault is the first of its kind to directly hit the headquarters of an international media outlet in Iran since the recent military escalation in the region began.

In official reactions, the Iranian Ministries of Culture and Foreign Affairs expressed their full solidarity with the work team, condemning this targeting, which they described as a blatant violation of international laws. Authorities affirmed that protecting media institutions is a duty guaranteed by international law under all circumstances.

The Deputy Minister of Culture for Media Affairs, Mohammad Reza Norouzpour, considered what happened to be a clear attempt to restrict media work and prevent the transmission of truth. He pointed out in his statements that the building is entirely civilian and does not contain any military installations, which reinforces the hypothesis of deliberate targeting of the press.

This incident comes after a series of explosions that occurred in the vicinity of offices and homes of journalists working for other international media outlets such as 'Russia Today' and additional news sources. Despite these challenges, the journalistic staff affirmed their continued commitment to performing their professional mission and conveying the picture from the heart of the Iranian capital.

The channel's correspondent concluded by confirming that the damage inside the office was 'very extensive,' with the live broadcast area completely destroyed. However, the team stressed that these targeting attempts would not deter them from continuing journalistic work and covering current events with full objectivity.

Journalism is not a crime, and we will continue to convey reality and the clearest picture, no matter the challenges.

The international system has been undergoing rapid structural transformations since 2022, with the Ukrainian war serving as its initial spark, followed by regional tensions in the Middle East, deepening the division between the Western system led by Washington and the rising parallel system led jointly by Russia and China. The ongoing conflict is no longer merely a regional military dispute but has transformed into a real test of the legitimacy of competing governance models between 'Western liberal rules' and the model of 'absolute sovereignty and multipolarity'.

At the heart of this equation, China stands out as the wisest and most patient actor, avoiding direct military involvement while tightening its economic and diplomatic grip on the key points of international crises. Beijing's strategy relies on drawing future spheres of influence through the digital yuan and massive reconstruction contracts, transforming the region from a traditional sphere of influence into a major economic suburb under its control.

China's role cannot be understood without comprehending Russia's burdened position. Moscow is the player fighting a proxy war on behalf of a carefully formed axis, while Beijing reaps the rewards at a much lower cost. Russia has successfully built a sanctions-resistant war economy, with its energy revenues reaching approximately $320 billion in 2025 thanks to Asian deals, reducing its historical dependence on the European continent.

Despite battlefield gains, Moscow faces losses and structural attrition in the form of a heavy human cost and suffocating financial isolation after exiting the 'SWIFT' system. This situation has transformed Moscow from an equal partner into a necessary subordinate to Beijing, with over 70 percent of Russian energy payments now settled in yuan, granting China an undeclared economic veto right over Russian sovereign decisions.

The entry of Chinese envoys into the Middle East crisis arena is no longer just a familiar diplomatic endeavor; it is an explicit declaration of the end of American unipolarity in the region. What Beijing is practicing today is known as 'silent rough diplomacy,' which involves imposing negotiation terms as a fait accompli using tools ranging from capital markets to control over global supply chains.

China is the world's largest oil importer, exceeding 11 million barrels per day, so any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz poses a direct threat to its factories and economic growth. From this perspective, Beijing uses its influence to impose 'rough negotiation' on Tehran by bartering financial and technical support for tactical concessions that ensure the stability of the Iranian regime as a strategic ally.

In return, Beijing waves the card of restricting rare earth exports to Washington and Tel Aviv, controlling about 90% of their global production, which are vital minerals for American defense industries. The threat of selling US Treasury bonds also represents a financial pressure tool that makes the cost of any military confrontation extremely high for the American economy compared to potential battlefield gains.

Beijing exploits the vacuum left by American policies to market its 'Global Security Initiative' as an institutional alternative to traditional Western alliances. China seeks to move international negotiation platforms to capitals such as Riyadh or Beijing under the umbrella of 'BRICS+', to solidify the idea that major political solutions no longer originate solely from Western capitals.

China's proposed 'Asian Marshall Plan' includes a massive reconstruction package for the region's destroyed infrastructure, but with strict sovereign conditions, including exclusive financing in digital yuan. Beijing also aims to link national networks to Chinese technical standards, including 6G networks and smart governance platforms, delivering a fatal blow to the essence of the 'petrodollar'.

Sovereignty in 2026 is no longer limited to geographical control but has shifted to what is known as 'technological sovereignty' and control over artificial intelligence and semiconductor supply chains. Whoever possesses the ability to operate transoceanic data networks possesses the actual ability to direct the paths of international politics and control the flow of information.

The United States faces an existential challenge to the 'petrodollar' system that has dominated the world since the 1970s, and with the increasing pricing of oil in yuan, Washington is accelerating towards launching the 'digital dollar'. This step aims to maintain the American currency's status as a global reserve and enhance the ability to monitor financial flows and impose sanctions with technical effectiveness.

There is a strategic debate about the nature of Chinese influence, whether it is pragmatic expansion or a new hegemonic project, and the truth is that it combines both within an institutional and normative framework. Despite this rise, there remain vulnerabilities, such as excessive reliance on the stability of some regional systems and the risks of a 'debt trap' that could arouse suspicion among local powers.

The 'Digital Silk Road' strategy makes Beijing the de facto operator of data networks in vast areas of the Middle East and Africa via fiber optic cables. This digital expansion makes geographical borders fragile in the face of Chinese technological influence and redefines the concept of economic dependence in the modern era.

In conclusion, Beijing succeeds in killing two birds with one stone: ending conflicts on terms that ensure energy flow, and establishing itself as the leader of the new international system. While leaving Washington with the bill for destruction and wars, it reserves for itself the contracts for construction and shaping the future, confirming that the yuan is the new language of peace in the region.

China does not ask for peace as a moral wish, but rather 'prices' it and makes it the only option to avoid comprehensive economic collapse for the warring parties.

The world enters a dark tunnel in 2026 as chapters of a large-scale military aggression unfold, with American and Israeli forces launching a series of intense airstrikes targeting Iranian territory. Despite claims that the attacks only target military infrastructure, the reality on the ground indicates a campaign that has caused massive human casualties and destruction to schools and hospitals.

These unjustified strikes have resulted in the deaths of over 500 civilians, including children who fell victim to bombing targeting educational facilities, placing the international community before a difficult moral and legal test. Despite the intensity of the fire, the Iranian domestic front continues to show unexpected resilience in the face of increasing foreign military pressure.

US President Donald Trump now finds himself in a political and military quagmire, as air power has failed to break popular will or achieve stated strategic objectives. This failure has pushed the American administration towards considering the option of ground escalation, which represents a retreat from electoral promises to end long foreign wars.

Observers believe that the justifications put forward for launching this war, primarily stopping the nuclear program, are merely a cover for regional hegemonic ambitions and control over resources. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has played a pivotal role in pushing for this confrontation, ignoring warnings about Iran's advanced defensive capabilities.

Tehran responded to the military escalation by imposing a tight blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, a defensive move that immediately led to global energy market disruption and a frantic rise in oil prices. This blockade plunged the global economy into panic, reflecting the failure of Western estimates that assumed a rapid collapse of the Iranian government.

Instead of surrendering, the Iranian people united behind their leadership to confront what they describe as brutal aggression, with citizens fighting fiercely to protect their country's sovereignty. Field reports confirm that popular resistance has become more organized and stronger with every airstrike targeting residential and civilian areas.

Attention is now turning to Iran's Kharg Island, the main artery for oil exports, where leaked American plans indicate an intention to militarily seize it. This move aims to completely cripple the Iranian economy through direct occupation of natural resource sources, which entrenches imperialistic practices in the region.

Washington has already sent thousands of marines to the region, a move that reflects a state of strategic confusion and contradiction between the White House and military leaders. This deliberate ambiguity aims to intimidate the adversary, but in turn, it increases tension and diminishes the chances of diplomatic solutions, which have become almost non-existent.

Internationally, a sharp division emerges between Washington and its traditional allies in Europe, who refused to join this military endeavor, which they described as destructive. This refusal has led to severe diplomatic tension, reaching the point of public insults from the American administration towards countries that chose the path of wisdom and de-escalation.

Israel remains the sole and enthusiastic partner in this military campaign, deepening the international isolation of the United States and destabilizing the entire Middle East. Operating outside the framework of international legitimacy threatens to dismantle the system of laws governing the sovereignty of independent states and opens the door to comprehensive regional chaos.

Iran's geographical terrain, from towering mountains to vast deserts, presents an enormous logistical challenge for any invading force considering a ground entry. The Iranian army has spent decades developing asymmetric warfare tactics, making any ground invasion a bloody adventure fraught with risks and heavy losses.

In addition to the human cost, the financial burden of this war has become unbearable for American taxpayers, with the first weeks draining billions of dollars. Deploying ground troops into a hostile environment will require massive budgets and complex supply chains, at a time when the global economy is suffering from the consequences of the energy blockade.

Insistence on the military option reflects a moral bankruptcy, as some media outlets try to justify the attacks and portray the aggressor as a victim. The free press must expose the facts related to targeting civilians and violating state sovereignty, and warn against the consequences of returning to the dark colonial eras.

In conclusion, the international community demands an immediate halt to this unjustified violence and respect for Iranian sovereignty to avoid a global catastrophe that cannot be won. A ground invasion will not be a solution, but will lead to another decade of occupation and destruction, which must be prevented before it is too late and more lives are lost.

Deploying ground forces will inevitably ignite a much wider regional conflict, given Washington's underestimation of the deep national spirit of Iranian fighters and their country's rugged terrain.