Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, in official statements, denied the existence of any open negotiation channels with the United States at present. Araghchi considered American claims about ongoing negotiations to be merely an attempt to cover up their failure to impose unconditional surrender on Tehran.

The Iranian minister clarified that his country's supreme leadership is currently reviewing a set of proposals received through international mediators, but he stressed that there is no intention to hold direct meetings. He indicated that Washington continues to send messages through multiple parties in an attempt to break the current stalemate.

Araghchi affirmed that any future solution must be based on a permanent and comprehensive end to the war, with Iran receiving fair compensation for the damages and destruction it has suffered. He added that his country does not seek military escalation but insists on ending the conflict with real guarantees that preserve its rights.

In a message addressed to surrounding capitals, the Iranian Foreign Minister called on neighboring countries to distance themselves from American policies in the region. He believed that the United States has completely failed to achieve its strategic goals, whether through a swift military victory or attempts at regime change.

Meanwhile, international media sources, quoting a senior Iranian official, revealed that Pakistan has indeed delivered an American proposal to Tehran aimed at ending the conflict. The sources explained that discussions are still ongoing regarding the venue for any potential talks, given Iran's undecided final position.

Reports indicate that Turkey is playing a pivotal role in mediation and in searching for diplomatic ways to end the ongoing war. Currently, both Ankara and Islamabad are emerging as potential venues to host any rounds of negotiations that might begin if the parties agree on the initial conditions.

In contrast, the White House escalated its hostile rhetoric towards Tehran, stating that President Donald Trump is prepared to take harsher military action. The US administration affirmed that the armed forces are capable of delivering strikes more powerful than anything seen before if Iran refuses to acknowledge the reality on the ground.

Washington claimed that it has already succeeded in curbing Iran's nuclear capabilities and preventing it from threatening American interests in the region. Vice President J.D. Vance participated in a series of intensive security meetings to discuss available options for dealing with the Iranian file in the coming phase.

The White House warned the Iranian leadership against making 'miscalculations,' emphasizing that President Trump will not hesitate to make decisive decisions. The administration clarified that Iran's rejection of the reality of defeat will necessarily lead to punitive and military measures more severe than ever before.

For her part, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt stated that reports of a 15-point American plan contain 'elements of truth.' She indicated that these points include specific demands that Tehran must implement to ensure a cessation of military operations and the restoration of stability.

Regarding international navigation, Leavitt affirmed that Washington has not set a specific timetable for resuming the movement of oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. She concluded by saying that President Trump's threats are very serious, and he is ready to 'open the gates of hell' if Iran continues its current approach.

President Trump does not threaten idly, and he is ready to open the gates of hell, and Iran should not miscalculate again.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, issued a warning cry to the international community, stressing that the model of destruction witnessed in the Gaza Strip must not be repeated in Lebanese territories. Guterres explained in press statements that the conflict in the Middle East has spiraled out of control, especially with the regional military confrontation entering its fourth week, threatening the stability of the entire region.

The UN official pointed out that civilians are paying the heaviest price for this escalation, as residents live in a state of deep insecurity. Guterres recalled his field observations during his recent visit to Lebanon, describing the humanitarian repercussions as severe and requiring immediate intervention to prevent a slide towards a comprehensive catastrophe.

On the ground, media sources reported that Israeli warplanes carried out two airstrikes targeting the town of Taybeh in southern Lebanon. These raids come in the context of an intensive air campaign launched by the occupation forces on border villages and towns, leading to widespread destruction of property and infrastructure.

In contrast, Hezbollah announced the execution of a series of qualitative military operations against gatherings of occupation forces and their vehicles. The party explained in successive statements that it used suicide drones to target occupation soldiers near the pond of the town of Dibel, achieving direct hits among the infiltrating force.

The resistance in Lebanon also confirmed targeting the vicinity of the Khiam detention center for the fourth consecutive time using intensive rocket barrages. These attacks come in response to continuous Israeli attempts to advance terrestrially and establish military points within Lebanese territories, amidst fierce clashes on more than one front.

On the humanitarian front, the Lebanese Ministry of Health revealed shocking statistics of victims of the ongoing aggression since the beginning of March. The ministry stated that the number of martyrs has risen to 1094 people, while the number of injured has exceeded 3119, with the continuous recovery of victims from under the rubble in the targeted areas.

Politically, Hezbollah's Secretary-General, Naim Qassem, stressed the resistance's position rejecting any negotiations conducted under the pressure of Israeli fire. Qassem considered in an official statement that accepting negotiations under aggression is tantamount to surrender and a deprivation of Lebanon's sovereignty and defensive capabilities, stressing that the utmost priority is to stop the aggression first.

Qassem explained that what is happening is not 'others' war' on Lebanese soil, but a direct confrontation led by the United States and Israel against the Lebanese people. He called for comprehensive national unity aimed at liberating the land and its people, noting that the party has made the necessary preparations for a long-term confrontation and has proven its worth in the field.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that his army is currently working to expand what he described as a 'buffer zone' in southern Lebanon. Netanyahu claimed that the establishment of this zone aims to prevent infiltration operations towards the Galilee and protect northern settlements from the threat of anti-tank missiles.

Netanyahu affirmed that Israel's strategic goal remains the dismantling of Hezbollah's military capabilities, linking this to the broader confrontation his country is waging with Iran. He stressed that his government is determined to bring about a radical change in the security reality on the Lebanese border, whatever the military cost.

In a further escalation, Israeli Security Minister Yisrael Katz threatened to impose full military control over large areas in the south up to the Litani River. These statements reflect an Israeli tendency to expand ground operations and turn southern Lebanon into a closed military zone under occupation control.

This escalation coincided with the occupation army shelling vital bridges over the Litani River, in a clear attempt to separate the southern regions from the rest of Lebanese territories. This military tactic aims to cut supply lines and isolate border villages in preparation for imposing a new field reality that serves the Israeli agenda.

In the Gaza Strip, the bloodshed continues, with 5 Palestinians, including a child, martyred in raids targeting the central and southern parts of the Strip. Medical sources reported the martyrdom of 4 people due to an Israeli drone shelling a gathering of citizens near the Al-Sawarah cemetery in Al-Nuseirat camp, in a new crime added to the series of daily massacres.

The total toll of the aggression on Gaza since October 2023 has reached catastrophic figures, with the Ministry of Health recording 72,263 martyrs and over 171,000 injured. These developments come at a time when occupation forces continue to target displaced persons' tents in Al-Mawasi, leading to the martyrdom of child Khaled Arada by sniper fire.

The Gaza model must not be replicated in Lebanon, and civilians across the region are suffering severe damage and living in deep insecurity.

Six Arab states, including Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and Jordan, issued a joint final statement today, Wednesday, in which they reiterated their explicit condemnation of what they described as blatant Iranian aggressions. The condemnation included military movements and attacks launched by armed factions loyal to Tehran against facilities and countries in the region, directly threatening regional stability.

The signatory states of the statement directed an official call to the Iraqi government, emphasizing the necessity of assuming its responsibilities and taking the necessary security and political measures to stop attacks originating from its territory. The statement stressed the importance of preventing the use of Iraqi geography as a launching pad for any hostile operations targeting neighboring countries, within the framework of preserving fraternal relations and avoiding the region sliding into further military escalation.

In a related context, the six states affirmed in their statement their full and inherent right to defend their security, sovereignty, and citizens against any external threats. They clarified that attacks carried out by armed groups linked to Iran originating from Iraq necessitate a firm response to protect national interests and civilian targets that have been repeatedly targeted during the past period.

Field reports indicate that eight Arab countries, including Oman and Iraq itself, have been directly affected by attacks attributed to Iran or its proxies in the region. Despite Tehran's claims that these operations exclusively target American interests in response to ongoing tensions, the reality indicates civilian casualties and severe damage to infrastructure in several Arab capitals and cities.

This collective diplomatic move comes at a time when the region is witnessing escalating security tensions, with Iraqi armed factions claiming responsibility for targeting vital bases and facilities. The joint Arab statement seeks to put an end to these violations through political pressure on Baghdad to control its borders, and to affirm to the international community the seriousness of the continuation of these cross-border attacks.

The six states affirm their full and inherent right to self-defense against attacks carried out by armed groups loyal to Iran originating from Iraq.

The Israeli Knesset, on Wednesday, voted against a bill proposed by opposition leader Yair Lapid aimed at including Qatar on the list of 'enemy states' to Israel. The vote resulted in 45 members rejecting the proposal versus only 28 supporting it, reflecting a state of divergence within Israeli political circles regarding Qatar's role in the region.

The session saw a notable boycott by the 'Blue and White' party led by Benny Gantz, with the party justifying its stance by stating that the current time, coinciding with war conditions, is not suitable for raising contentious political issues. Media sources indicated that this position contributed to weakening the front of supporters for the law, through which Lapid sought to intensify pressure on Doha.

Following the failure of the vote, Yair Lapid launched a sharp attack on the government, considering that there is no logical justification for not classifying Qatar as an enemy state, especially since it hosts Hamas leaders. Lapid claimed in his statements that anyone who provides assistance to those he described as 'enemies' should be treated as a direct enemy, accusing the ruling coalition of failing to take a firm stance.

The opposition leader directly accused Jonathan Urich, a senior aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, of being behind the failure to pass the law. Lapid claimed that Urich received huge sums of money from Qatari entities, pointing out that the presence of employees in the Prime Minister's office receiving money from external parties is unacceptable and warrants investigation.

These accusations are linked to what is known as the 'Qatargate scandal' within Israel, where Urich and former Ministry of Security spokesman Eli Feldstein faced accusations of receiving bribes. According to investigations, the accused worked with American lobbying groups to spread narratives aimed at distorting the Egyptian mediation role, in exchange for promoting the Qatari narrative in the prisoner exchange and ceasefire file.

For its part, Doha continues to deny these allegations entirely, with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani affirming on previous occasions that these accusations are nothing but political 'propaganda'. Qatar stressed that its role as an international mediator aims to achieve stability, away from the political squabbles that some Israeli parties are trying to export.

It is worth noting that relations witnessed dangerous field tension in September 2025, when occupation forces targeted headquarters in Doha, leading to the martyrdom of a Qatari security officer and five Palestinians. Despite these tensions, Qatari efforts, in cooperation with Egypt and the United States, succeeded in reaching an agreement earlier this year that led to a halt in the genocide war launched by the occupation on the Gaza Strip.

I have no logical explanation for not classifying Qatar as an enemy state of Israel, for anyone who helps our enemies is our enemy.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez launched a scathing attack on the military policies pursued by the United States and the occupying state in the region, describing the ongoing aggression against Iran as an 'unjust and illegal' act. Sanchez affirmed in a speech before the Spanish Congress that these moves undermined the foundations of international law and reignited conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon in a way that threatens international peace and security.

The Spanish leader accused the head of the occupying government, Benjamin Netanyahu, of systematically seeking to inflict widespread destruction on Lebanon, similar to the genocide and destruction suffered by the Gaza Strip. These warnings came after statements by Israeli ministers revealing clear intentions to fully control southern Lebanon, reflecting a desire to expand the geographical scope of the conflict.

Sanchez warned that the current scenario in the Middle East carries risks 'much worse' than the repercussions of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, indicating that the impacts would be deeper and more comprehensive globally. He explained that the failure that accompanied the American invasion of Iraq is being repeated today, as civilians in Europe and the world are paying the price for these reckless military decisions.

On the economic front, the Spanish Prime Minister revealed that companies in his country incurred huge losses estimated at about 100 billion euros (116 billion dollars) within less than a month of the outbreak of the conflict. He stressed that the continuation of attacks on Iran would lead to unprecedented global inflation, as every increase in oil prices is linked to a direct rise in inflation rates that burden families.

Economic reports indicate that Iran, which produces about 3.2 million barrels of oil per day, represents a key pillar in the global energy market, and any disruption to its supplies will lead to a jump in prices. Experts expect barrel prices to range between 120 and 200 dollars if the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of global oil trade and a quarter of liquefied gas trade passes, is closed.

In a move reflecting diplomatic tension, Sanchez announced his categorical rejection of Washington's request to use Spanish military bases to launch attacks against Iranian targets. The Spanish Prime Minister did not succumb to US President Donald Trump's threats to cut trade relations, affirming his country's commitment to an ethical and legal stance that rejects involvement in illegal wars.

Coinciding with these positions, the Spanish government approved an emergency aid package worth 5 billion euros to support the local economy and alleviate the burden of rising fuel prices on citizens. This step comes amid growing European opposition to the war, with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier describing the conflict as a 'catastrophic political mistake' that could have been avoided through diplomacy.

The US administration faces increasing internal pressure, as opinion polls showed a decline in Donald Trump's popularity to 36%, while 61% of Americans oppose the military strikes that began last February. This decline reflects a state of public concern about the economic and political consequences of engaging in an open regional conflict with no end in sight.

On the humanitarian level, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that the ongoing conflict threatens a global hunger catastrophe that could affect 700 million people due to the disruption of supply chains. Concerns are growing about Iran's ability to close the Strait of Hormuz using its arsenal of coastal missiles, which could cut off Qatari gas supplies exceeding 77 million tons annually.

Sanchez concluded his speech by emphasizing that 'every bomb that falls in the Middle East hits our families' wallets,' referring to the close link between political stability in the region and global economic well-being. He stressed the need to return to the negotiating table and respect the sovereignty of states to prevent the world from sliding into an uncontrollable economic and humanitarian crisis.

Every bomb that falls in the Middle East hits our families' wallets and destabilizes the entire world.

The international humanitarian scene witnessed a significant shift with the announcement by UNICEF Sweden that it had received exceptional financial support earmarked for the Gaza Strip, totaling approximately $120 million. This move comes amid increasing European interest in the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Strip, with governmental and private entities contributing to this historic support that strengthens the resilience of international relief organizations.

Prominently featured in this support is the generous donation from the foundation of Swedish billionaire Roger Akelius, valued at $85 million (800 million kronor), which is the largest individual donation UNICEF Sweden has received since its establishment. According to press sources, this amount will be primarily allocated to restoring the collapsed educational process in the Strip and providing a safe environment for children who have lost their schools due to the ongoing war.

For his part, Roger Akelius expressed his deep distress at the scenes coming from Gaza, emphasizing that the suffering of children there exceeds what the media conveys or what press reports describe. Akelius clarified in his statements that he is aware of the extent of criticism he might face because of this stance, but he stressed the necessity of human resilience in the face of what he described as 'genocide' and blatant violations against childhood.

Swedish support was not limited to private initiatives, as the Swedish government announced an additional $40 million for UNICEF, along with a contribution of $2 million from the Swedish Postcode Lottery. With these figures, Sweden ranks second globally as the largest donor to the Gaza Strip in the current phase, coming directly after the United Arab Emirates, which topped the lists of humanitarian support.

In a related context, Sweden's Minister for International Development Cooperation, Benjamin Dousa, revealed the allocation of additional funds for other UN programs operating in the Palestinian field, including 100 million kronor for the World Food Programme. Dousa indicated that the goal of announcing this aid early is to encourage other European donors to act, fearing that other international conflicts might marginalize the tragedy of Gaza's children.

Jonathan Veitch, UNICEF's Special Representative in the State of Palestine, welcomed this support, describing it as 'exceptional,' emphasizing that it will serve as a fundamental pillar in attempts to restore hope for Palestinian children. Veitch explained that the allocated amounts will effectively contribute to resuming educational activities and providing psychological and social support to thousands of children suffering from the severe traumas of war.

Sweden's government aid distribution plan includes allocating significant amounts to support healthcare, especially neonatal care in hospitals suffering from a severe shortage of resources. Multi-service educational centers will also be funded to provide recreational activities and psychological support, in an attempt to compensate children for what they missed during months of forced disconnection from normal life.

Regarding shelter and food security, the United Nations Development Programme will benefit from Swedish funding to relocate about a thousand Palestinian families to temporary emergency housing to improve their living conditions. The World Food Programme will also work to enhance the provision of school meals and fresh food, with a focus on supporting local production to ensure the sustainability of food supplies under the imposed blockade.

These massive financial movements come within Sweden's aid budget for 2026, reflecting an internal struggle in Swedish politics between international humanitarian orientations and local policies. Despite Akelius's criticisms of the government on other issues, he considered providing these funds to Gaza a 'strong stance' that expresses an awareness of the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe facing the residents of the Strip.

Even an orphaned Palestinian child is a normal child, sleepless, with crying, longing, and stomach aches... The situation in Gaza is much worse than what is seen on television.

Book Review

By: Said Arikat - Washington

March 25, 2026

“Enemy of the Sun: Palestinian Resistance Poetry,” by academics Naseer Aruri and Edmund Ghareeb, is one of the most prominent works at the intersection of literature and politics, presenting poetry not merely as an aesthetic expression, but as a living tool of resistance, a means of preserving identity, and a platform for expressing the continuous aspiration for freedom. Since its first publication in 1970, and its expansion in subsequent editions, this work has established its place as a comprehensive anthology of multiple Palestinian poetic voices, united by the experience of occupation and exile, and bound by a steadfast insistence on dignity and the right to self-determination.

The book's title derives its symbolic meaning from the poem “Enemy of the Sun,” also known as “Speech in the Unemployment Market,” by the great Palestinian poet Samih al-Qasim, which is considered one of the most prominent texts of resistance poetry in the 1970s. This poem has become a literary and political icon, with its tone of defiance and absolute rejection of compromise, and a deep embodiment of the idea of steadfastness in the face of occupation. It is enough to recall al-Qasim's words: “O enemy of the sun… but… I will not compromise / And until the last pulse in my veins… I will resist,” to realize how the book's title intersects with its general spirit, where poetry becomes an existential declaration of adherence to land and identity.

The book does not present Palestinian suffering as a state of attrition or defeat, but rather rephrases it within a resistant cultural horizon, transforming pain into an expressive energy capable of endurance. Poetry here is not a linguistic luxury, but an act of survival, and a means of confronting attempts at symbolic and cultural erasure. Through this perspective, the anthology transcends the boundaries of documentation, becoming a living testimony to the power of the word to resist annihilation.

The importance of the work is evident in its historical scope, as it places the Palestinian experience within a broader global context of liberation movements, of which the 1970s was one of the most prominent stages. From this perspective, Palestinian poetry does not appear isolated, but rather engaged in a universal human discourse calling for justice and freedom. Furthermore, the additions in subsequent editions reflect the continuity of this voice across generations, where new generations inherit the traditions of resistance, and rephrase them to suit the transformations of reality, without losing their connection to their roots.

At the content level, resistance occupies the heart of most texts, yet it does not appear in a single form, but varies between quiet contemplation and direct expression. There are poems that internalize and deconstruct pain, and others that declare it clearly and boldly. In both cases, the human presence remains dominant, where the individual's experience intersects with the fate of the group, in a cohesive emotional unity.

The vocabulary of land, identity, memory, and return emerge as essential semantic keys in this poetry, but they are not used as mere indicators of loss, but rather transform into expressions of belonging and continuity. The land, for example, is not just a place, but a symbolic entity that transcends geography, becoming synonymous with existence itself. Hence, its evocation in poetic texts becomes an act of resistance in itself, confronting attempts at cancellation and uprooting.

One of the striking features of this anthology is its focus on the collective voice, where the editors reduce the presence of individuality in favor of highlighting a shared experience. This choice does not negate the specificity of each poet, as much as it emphasizes that what unites these voices is greater than what divides them. Resistance, in this context, is not an isolated personal experience, but a collective act extending through time, inherited by poets as it is inherited by generations.

Stylistically, the poems are characterized by a degree of clarity and directness, which makes them accessible to a wide audience, without losing their artistic value. This characteristic suggests an urgent sense of the necessity of speaking, and the desire for poetry to remain accessible and influential at the same time. At the same time, the texts are not devoid of rhetorical figures and metaphors that reflect a deep aesthetic sense, where artistic expression intersects with the political dimension in a striking harmony.

Recent additions have enriched this work, reflecting the transformations of Palestinian reality, while maintaining a close connection to the pivotal issues that formed the essence of this poetry. These texts confirm that resistance poetry is not a static discourse, but a living entity capable of renewal and absorbing new experiences, without compromising its fundamental vision.

Although the intensity of the political and emotional dimension may pose a challenge to some readers, it is at the same time a source of strength for this work, as it encourages an interactive reading that goes beyond superficial reception, towards a deeper understanding of both historical and human contexts. From this perspective, the book becomes a bridge for communication, opening a wider horizon for empathy and understanding.

In conclusion, “Enemy of the Sun: Palestinian Resistance Poetry” presents a living example of poetry's ability to transcend the boundaries of language, becoming an act of survival. It reminds us that the word, no matter how difficult the circumstances, remains capable of preserving identity, keeping hope alive, and formulating a collective vision for freedom. Thus, poetry transforms from a mere record of suffering into an active force in confronting it, and from a memory of pain into an open horizon of hope.

The US Army has announced a strategic move to enhance its defensive capabilities in the Middle East, by deploying 10,000 advanced 'Merops' system drones. This move aims to counter the increasing threat of drones and change the balance of power in the ongoing conflict by adopting lower-cost technological solutions.

Through this system, the United States seeks to reduce its excessive reliance on traditional air defense systems such as 'Patriot' and 'THAAD'. This need arises due to the enormous cost disparity, where a Patriot missile costs approximately $4 million, while being used to counter drones worth only a few thousand dollars.

The 'Merops' system is known as a drone killer, specifically designed to be both highly efficient and low-cost. The system consists of the 'Surveyor' interceptor drone, a fixed-wing aircraft characterized by its small size and high maneuverability in complex airspace.

The interceptor drone reaches a speed of approximately 282 km/h and is equipped with a flexible launch platform that can be mounted on small pickup trucks. This design gives US forces superior capability for rapid deployment and movement across various terrains to pursue hostile aerial targets.

The 'Merops' technology primarily relies on artificial intelligence software and advanced thermal and radar sensors. The drone independently tracks its target, either by directly colliding with it or detonating a small warhead near it to ensure its complete neutralization.

One of the most prominent features of this system is its ability to reduce financial waste. If the drone fails to hit its target, it can deploy a special parachute and land safely. This feature allows technical teams to reuse the drone after inspection, enhancing the sustainability of defensive operations.

The system can independently search for targets by tracking the thermal signature or radar waves of hostile drones. When the 'Surveyor' approaches the target within one mile, the artificial intelligence completely locks onto the target to ensure accuracy of impact and prevent evasion.

Behind this military innovation is Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, who funds the project through his 'Project Eagle' initiative. This initiative aims to develop smart weapons capable of operating in intense electronic jamming environments without the need for satellite communication.

The 'Merops' system has demonstrated remarkable field effectiveness during its use in Ukraine, with reports indicating its success in destroying over 1,900 'Shahed' drones. The recorded interception success rate reached approximately 95%, making it a preferred option for countering Iranian military technology.

Financial cost is the trump card of this system, as the interceptor drone currently costs only about $15,000. This cost is expected to decrease with the start of mass production to between $3,000 and $5,000, making defense cheaper than offense for the first time.

Military sources reported that Iran has launched more than 2,100 'Shahed' drones since the escalation began, at a total cost not exceeding $105 million. In contrast, traditional interception operations would have cost the US treasury and partners approximately $8 billion if 'THAAD' and Patriot missiles had been used.

This vast difference in costs creates a burdensome economic equation for the Iranian side, where every failed targeting attempt becomes a financial burden on the attacker instead of the defender. 'Merops' represents a decisive technological response to the 'wars of attrition' strategy adopted by regional powers through cheap drones.

In a related context, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed widespread international interest in Ukrainian expertise in countering drones. Zelensky affirmed that his country has received 11 official requests from countries in the Middle East and Europe, in addition to the United States, to transfer field knowledge in this area.

It appears that the Middle East will be the main arena for testing this new technology in confronting Iranian influence. With the deployment of these thousands of interceptor drones, the region enters a new phase of technological conflict based on artificial intelligence and innovative economic solutions.

The Merops system seeks to transform the drone interception equation from expensive financial attrition to low-cost defense that is economically superior to offense.

The Jerusalem Governorate announced, at dawn on Wednesday, the death of 21-year-old Qassem Amjad Shuqairat, who was shot by Israeli occupation forces in the town of Jabal Al-Mukaber, south of the occupied city. Shuqairat's martyrdom occurred during a raid carried out by special units to attempt to arrest him, where he was directly shot, resulting in fatal injuries from which he later died.

While the occupation police claimed that the young man tried to disarm one of the 'Border Police Unit' members, the martyr's family completely denied this narrative. The family confirmed that the occupation soldiers shot their son in cold blood inside his home and in front of his family, in a clear field execution operation lacking any security justification.

Coinciding with Shuqairat's martyrdom, occupation forces launched an arrest campaign in the town of Jabal Al-Mukaber, targeting three other young men on suspicion of involvement in hostile activities. The detainees were transferred to Israeli intelligence interrogation centers, amidst a state of extreme tension that prevailed in the town after the news of the martyrdom spread.

In a dangerous escalation of settlement activities, large forces of the occupation army stormed the Batn al-Hawa neighborhood in Silwan, south of Al-Aqsa Mosque, to carry out extensive forced eviction operations. The operation targeted 13 residential apartments inhabited by dozens of Jerusalemites, to hand them over to settlement associations that claim ownership of the land in that area.

The eviction operations included 11 apartments belonging to the Rajabi family and two apartments belonging to the Basbous family, leading to the displacement of about 65 individuals, including children, women, and the elderly, who are now homeless in the open. Occupation forces used police dogs and excessive force to remove residents from their homes, amidst the screams of children and protests from residents who tried to resist the unjust decision.

After taking control of the residential buildings, dozens of settlers ascended the roofs of the evacuated homes and began organizing noisy celebrations that included provocative dancing and singing. This step comes as a continuation of the plan of settlement associations, such as 'Ateret Cohanim,' which seeks to gain full control over the Batn al-Hawa neighborhood with false historical claims rejected by residents with Ottoman property documents.

Regarding night raids, occupation forces stormed the town of Kafr Aqab, north of Jerusalem, and arrested a young man, and also pressured the released prisoner Mahmoud Abu Sbeih to surrender himself by detaining his father as a hostage. This systematic policy reflects the extent of pressure exerted by the occupation authorities on Jerusalemite families to break their will and push them to leave.

In northeast Jerusalem, violent confrontations erupted in the villages of Biddu and Beit Ijza after occupation vehicles stormed the two areas, firing tear gas canisters and live bullets. These confrontations resulted in the injury of young Muhammad Rayyan, while occupation forces continued search and sabotage operations in citizens' properties before withdrawing.

In the town of Anata, occupation forces targeted commercial establishments, forcing the owner of a restaurant named 'October 8' to immediately close his shop and change its name under threat of arms. Raids also targeted citizens' homes in the town, as part of a wide intimidation campaign aimed at obliterating any national or symbolic manifestations in the area.

National symbols were not spared from aggression, as occupation soldiers destroyed and demolished the 'Shafat Camp Martyrs' Monument' after provocatively photographing themselves at the site. These simultaneous attacks confirm the escalating pace of Israeli targeting of the city of Jerusalem and its neighborhoods, in an attempt to change the demographic and geographic reality of the holy city.

The neighborhood is going through an unprecedented storm, and forced displacement threatens about 250 Palestinians in Batn al-Hawa.

The war waged by the American-Israeli coalition against Iran has entered its fourth week, leaving an unprecedented state of panic in global energy markets. The repercussions of this escalation extend beyond the direct military dimension to strike at the heart of the global economic system, given Iran's weight as a major oil producer and its geopolitical position controlling the Strait of Hormuz, the most important artery for international trade.

Field data indicate that Iran pumps about 3.2 million barrels per day and actually exports 1.5 million barrels despite the blockade, while the region as a whole remains responsible for one-third of global supplies. With ongoing military operations, the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world's oil and 25% of liquefied natural gas passes, is under threat of effective closure, which could lead to an economic catastrophe.

Economic sources reported that oil prices have already seen sharp jumps of over 15% within a few days of the aggression's start. International expert houses are outlining grim scenarios indicating that any partial disruption of supplies could push prices to range between $120 and $150 per barrel, while the price could break the $200 barrier in the event of a full-scale confrontation that completely halts navigation.

On the political front, recent opinion polls showed a sharp decline in US President Donald Trump's popularity to 36%, his lowest level since returning to the White House. Analysts attribute this decline to widespread public rejection of the war, with 61% of Americans opposing military strikes, in addition to dissatisfaction with the insane rise in domestic fuel prices.

Domestically in the US, gasoline prices approached $4 per gallon, prompting the administration to take exceptional measures including suspending some taxes to ease the burden on families. Reports confirm that only 25% of voters support the current administration's handling of living costs, amid accusations against Trump and Netanyahu of being drawn into an ill-considered war.

For his part, former intelligence general Uri Halperin warned that the war began with insufficient planning and reliance on the adversary's capabilities. Halperin explained that Iran is pursuing an 'asymmetric warfare' strategy aimed at prolonging the conflict and exhausting the attackers, emphasizing Tehran's ability to paralyze navigation in the Gulf through its arsenal of advanced coastal missiles.

The crisis is not limited to oil but extends to the liquefied natural gas sector, as Qatar relies primarily on the Strait of Hormuz to export over 77 million tons annually. Any targeting of gas facilities or obstruction of passage would bring back memories of the European energy crisis, with expectations of record increases that could exceed 300% in global gas prices.

In a desperate attempt to contain the price explosion, Washington resorted to a dual policy of partially easing pressure on the flow of Iranian oil heading to Asian markets, especially China. This implicit step aims to maintain market balance and prevent the collapse of major economies, despite ongoing military operations and declared political pressures against Tehran.

Globally, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that the conflict threatens to plunge 700 million people into hunger. This warning is linked to the expected rise in transportation and fertilizer costs, as every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil directly leads to a 0.3 percentage point increase in global inflation rates.

Energy-importing countries, such as Egypt and Turkey, have begun to feel the danger through harsh austerity measures; in Cairo, policies emerged to rationalize electricity consumption and reduce public lighting. Every one-dollar increase in oil prices costs the Egyptian budget hundreds of millions of dollars, placing immense pressure on foreign exchange reserves and citizens' purchasing power.

As for Turkey, which imports more than 90% of its energy needs, it found itself facing an annual bill exceeding $90 billion. The Turkish government resorted to tax cuts on fuel to try to curb inflation related to transportation costs, but the continuation of the war threatens to collapse these fragile financial balances and widen the trade deficit.

In Europe, which relies 90% on imported oil, energy rationing policies have returned to the forefront with electricity bills rising by 50%. European leaders fear a repeat of previous crisis scenarios that led to economic recession and social unrest, especially with the absence of immediate alternatives to supplies coming from the Gulf region.

Military experts believe that controlling the situation requires complex ground operations to deprive Iran of its economic leverage, which seems far-fetched under current circumstances. The Iranian strategy of 'preventing the adversary from winning' remains the biggest obstacle to the ambitions of the American-Israeli coalition to change the regime or control energy resources.

In conclusion, the world faces a zero-sum equation where geopolitics intertwines with energy security in a highly complex scene. Military escalation in the Gulf not only threatens political systems but also extends its impact to every factory and home in the world, making the cessation of aggression a global economic necessity before the international economy slides into a comprehensive recession whose end cannot be predicted.

Iran is capable of closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz via advanced coastal missiles, even if its naval fleet is completely destroyed, putting global energy supplies at risk.

A unique linguistic phenomenon stands out in the public speeches of former US President Donald Trump, where he radically deviates from traditional, sober political language. Trump relies on a very limited vocabulary and constant repetition of certain phrases in his communication with the public, within rhetorical rhythms characterized by speed and high spontaneity.

Academic analyses from the Paris Institute of Political Studies indicate that this style is not merely spontaneous, but a specific communication pattern. This pattern relies on extreme simplification and recycling of words in different contexts, with an emphasis on tone of voice and facial expressions to convey the desired messages.

According to a study conducted by researcher Frédérique Sandretto, Trump uses only about 200 words in most of his public speeches. This finding was based on 'logometria' techniques, which perform a precise quantitative analysis of the vocabulary used in contemporary political discourse.

This low number reflects a high level of linguistic simplification, which experts believe is equivalent to the linguistic comprehension level of an 18-month-old child. This extreme simplification aims to make the political message quickly consumable without requiring significant mental effort from the recipient.

When comparing this performance with other American presidents, a wide gap in linguistic richness and expressive variety emerges. While Trump settles for this limited dictionary, President Joe Biden uses between 1200 and 2000 words in his speeches, which represents ten times Trump's linguistic output.

The comparison becomes sharper when recalling Barack Obama's style, who was known for his high eloquence and ability to adapt complex language. These differences place Trump's discourse in a completely separate category from the rhetorical traditions that characterized the White House for many decades, where the average citizen's vocabulary ranges between 5000 and 10000 words.

Analysts believe that this apparent linguistic deficiency may be a carefully considered communication strategy to target broad electoral bases. Using direct and simple language is easily understood by all social groups, away from the complexities of the political elites in Washington.

This pattern is classified as 'populist discourse,' which relies on dividing the world into sharp and clear binaries such as 'good guys' and 'bad guys.' In this context, Trump uses harsh descriptions of his political opponents, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, to solidify these divisions in the minds of his supporters.

Interpretations of the nature of this style vary, with debate oscillating between it being a clever tactic for mass influence or an indicator of cognitive limitations. Some hypotheses also link this decline in vocabulary diversity to possibilities related to cognitive decline associated with aging.

On social media platforms, the public is divided on the effectiveness of this style; while some see it as one of the secrets of his success in reaching people, others consider it a lack of political maturity. Ultimately, Trump's style remains a clear departure from traditional rules, relying on repetition as a primary tool for dominating public discourse.

The range of vocabulary used in Trump's speeches is equivalent to the linguistic comprehension level of a child around 18 months old, reflecting extreme and excessive simplification.

Medical and field sources reported the martyrdom of two Palestinians and the injury of four others, including children, as a result of targeting carried out by Israeli occupation forces on Wednesday in various areas in the central and southern Gaza Strip. The sources stated that an occupation drone targeted a group of citizens near the Al-Sawarah cemetery in Nuseirat camp, leading to the martyrdom of two who were immediately transferred to Al-Awda Hospital for necessary procedures.

In a related context, the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza announced a new update on casualty statistics, confirming that the past twenty-four hours witnessed an escalation in Israeli violations of the existing ceasefire agreement. The ministry stated in an official statement that the number of martyrs who fell as a result of these violations since October has risen to 689 martyrs, in addition to the injury of about 1860 people with various injuries.

Official data also revealed the total toll of victims of the genocide war waged by the occupation, reaching 77,265 martyrs, while the number of injured exceeded 171,959. These figures come amid ongoing field attacks that undermine de-escalation efforts and increase the suffering of the besieged population who face extremely harsh humanitarian and health conditions as a result of direct targeting of civilians.

It is worth noting that the current ceasefire agreement came after two years of intensive military operations that received widespread American support and resulted in the destruction of nearly 90% of the infrastructure and civilian facilities in the sector. According to United Nations estimates, the enormous scale of destruction requires tremendous international efforts for reconstruction, with an initial financial cost estimated at about 70 billion dollars, amid a complete disruption of basic services and public life.

The toll of victims of Israeli violations of the agreement has risen to 689 martyrs and 1860 injured since last October.

International concerns are escalating regarding the current aggression turning into an unprecedented global energy crisis, especially with the possibilities of regional conflict remaining open to all scenarios. Observers believe that targeting Iranian energy facilities could be met with reactions affecting vital interests in Gulf countries, thereby achieving strategic goals for some parties seeking to change the map of the Middle East.

Attention is drawn to the necessity of confining the confrontation to external powers and avoiding targeting facilities that directly or indirectly affect the lives of Gulf peoples. Foiling plans aimed at tearing the region apart requires awareness of the need to preserve the social ties of the nation, away from the volatile political tensions between regimes.

A real danger emerges in the attempt to isolate Iran from its geographical surroundings and portray it as a permanent enemy of the Arab peoples, a path that has begun to resonate in some circles. Analysts warn against being drawn into claims of targeting civilian objectives, pointing to previous incidents where regional parties were blamed for deepening popular division.

Maintaining positive popular trends among the components of the region is a top priority, as changing people's convictions requires many years of hard work. Hence, the importance of not sliding into historical animosity between neighbors emerges, especially since the sole beneficiary is the colonial powers that feed on ethnic and sectarian conflicts.

Historically, most former colonial areas have turned into continuous hotbeds of tension, as is the case in the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and Africa. In our region, the presence of occupation is the main driver of unrest, as it always seeks to stir up sectarian and doctrinal strife to dismantle the cultural fabric that connects the peoples of the region.

The Middle East possesses enormous wealth and strategic trade routes capable of decisively influencing the global economy and international communication networks. This geopolitical weight has made the region a target for continuous dismantling operations under national or sectarian pretexts, which facilitates control over its resources and independent political decision.

Amidst the ongoing aggression, there is an urgent need to review the economic cost of war and avoid targeting the strategic facilities of neighboring countries. Although some reports indicate limited human losses in regional operations, the loss of any human life leaves a deep impact on the popular psyche and turns into general discontent.

On the diplomatic front, official Gulf statements reflect a state of increasing tension, as Saudi sources confirmed that restoring trust with Tehran is linked to stopping aggressions. Officials in the Kingdom believe that building a strategic partnership requires abandoning ideas of regional hegemony and the use of force in resolving disputes.

For its part, the language of official statements in some Gulf countries has begun to take a sharper turn through the use of political descriptions that reflect alignment with the international vision of some powers. The absence of these descriptions when talking about crimes committed in the Gaza Strip is noted, indicating political connotations that go beyond the nature of field attacks.

The diplomatic arena witnessed escalatory steps including the expulsion of ambassadors and the withdrawal of missions, which could deepen internal division in countries like Lebanon. Expectations are increasing that other Arab countries will join these measures, which could turn political disagreement into full official and popular animosity that will be difficult to remedy in the near future.

Analysts recall lessons from history, specifically the period before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when international powers gave misleading signals that led to changing the face of the region. The spread of foreign military bases was a direct result of those mistakes, which calls for caution against repeating scenarios that place Arab decision-making in foreign hands.

Today, the countries of the region face two choices; either relying on external protection, which experience has proven aims to protect the interests and expansion of the occupation, or building a common security system. The occupation does not hide its expansionist ambitions targeting vast Arab territories, which represents the real existential threat that must be addressed.

Prominent political figures, including high-ranking Qatari sources, have called for a reassessment of the feasibility of American protection and the resulting depletion of sovereign wealth. Investing in self-strength and enhancing internal military and political capabilities is the only guarantee for achieving independent national decision-making away from international blackmail.

The current stage represents a historic opportunity to establish strong Gulf and Arab alliances based on common economic and security integration. Directing funds spent as the price of external protection towards internal development and enhancing popular welfare will strengthen governance stability and increase people's satisfaction with their leaders' directions.

The basis of the external axis's victory lies in deepening Iran's isolation from its surroundings and describing it as an entity hostile to the Arab peoples.

The giant German car company 'Volkswagen' is moving towards reclaiming its historical role as a manufacturer of military equipment, through an anticipated strategic partnership with the Israeli defense industries company 'Rafael'. This step aims to involve German factories in the production of vital components for the air defense system known as the 'Iron Dome', a shift that raises many questions about industrial ethics and the repetition of historical scenarios.

Leaked plans indicate that the cooperation will include the manufacturing of heavy trucks designed to carry missiles, in addition to launch platforms and power generators needed to operate the batteries. This trend comes at a time when the company is facing severe economic pressures, which has prompted management to seek profitable alternatives in the defense sector to compensate for losses recorded in the civilian car market.

Observers believe that this decision represents a return of the company to its 'first biography' in the manufacture of war engines, as Volkswagen's name was historically associated with the Nazi army during World War II. While it was previously accused of supporting the 'Wehrmacht' in crimes of genocide, today it finds itself facing criticism for supporting a military system belonging to a state facing international accusations of committing genocide in Gaza.

Economic motivation appears to be the primary driver of this transformation, as the German automotive industry is suffering from a sharp decline in profits due to fierce competition from Chinese companies and the global shift towards electric cars. Accordingly, the company seeks to enter the military industries sector, which is experiencing increasing demand, considering it a lifeline to maintain the continuity of its factories and protect jobs.

Returning to its historical roots, Volkswagen was founded in 1937 by direct order from Adolf Hitler to produce the inexpensive 'people's car', but it quickly transformed into a military arsenal with the outbreak of war in 1939. During that era, the company produced the famous military 'Jeep' vehicles and 'V-1' missiles that targeted the British capital London, relying on the famous 'Beetle' engine technologies.

The company's historical record is also burdened with the issue of 'forced labor', as documents indicate that thousands of prisoners of war and detainees in Nazi camps were forced to work on its production lines. These forced laborers constituted about 60% of the company's workforce at the time, which later prompted it in 1998 to acknowledge these violations and pay huge financial compensation to the victims.

According to international press reports, the timeline for the start of this military transformation may range from 12 to 18 months, provided that the company's labor unions approve. This transition requires the rehabilitation of production lines and the training of human resources to deal with weapons technology instead of the mechanical components of traditional cars.

Volkswagen's involvement in the production of the 'Iron Dome' once again places it under the scrutiny of human rights organizations and political forces that oppose the export of weapons to the Israeli occupation. These pressures are exacerbated by the company's historical symbolism, which is trying to wash away its Nazi past by engaging in contemporary conflicts that provoke widespread controversy in international circles.

In conclusion, the question remains about the company's ability to balance its financial needs and its stated ethical obligations, especially since the shift towards military manufacturing may change the brand's identity forever. If the company proceeds on this path, it will confirm that the language of economic interests ultimately outweighs the lessons learned from history.

The German company plans to work on producing components for the Iron Dome air defense system, including heavy trucks and launch platforms.

The ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip is facing a rapid collapse on the ground, having been reduced to a mere symbolic title emptied of its content by Israeli shells. Field data confirms that air raids and artillery shelling have not ceased, causing civilians to pay the highest price under a declared calm that finds no resonance on the ground.

Medical and governmental sources reported that the number of Israeli violations since the agreement came into effect on January 19, 2026, has exceeded 2000. These continuous aggressions have resulted in the martyrdom of approximately 690 Palestinians and the injury of hundreds, most of whom are women and children, placing the dilapidated health system under immense pressure that doctors are unable to cope with.

Violations take multiple forms, ranging from direct targeting of residential areas to pursuing police officers and civilian cars on the roads. Residents describe the situation as a continuous war under different names, where not a day passes without recording killings and targeting operations, coinciding with the closure of crossings which has caused a severe shortage of food supplies and an insane rise in prices.

For his part, Tayseer Muhaysen, advisor to the Government Media Office, revealed that the occupation is deliberately moving what is known as the 'Yellow Line' towards populated areas to reduce the remaining safe spaces. He explained that these movements are accompanied by the occupation deploying local collaborators tasked with carrying out precise assassinations within cities, in an attempt to destabilize internal security and deny any actual calm.

Field reports indicate that these collaborating groups act as an alternative tool for Israeli special units, such as the 'Mista'arvim,' which find it difficult to move in areas under resistance control. These elements undertake tasks ranging from intelligence gathering to creating security chaos, further complicating the maintenance of security in the Strip.

The role of these militias was not limited to the military aspect but extended to include sensitive administrative and organizational roles under the direct supervision of the occupation army. Sources indicate that these elements participate in managing the Rafah crossing and control the classification of lists of Palestinians entering and exiting, making them a 'shadow government' aimed at weakening the existing local authority.

These groups' movements are concentrated in the 'Yellow Areas,' which are the most security-sensitive, where they move freely to carry out preemptive strikes against specific targets. This intensive security presence of collaborators has forced resistance factions to change their field priorities and increased the difficulty of securing the internal front amid continuous aerial bombardment.

In light of this grim scene, international and local bodies warn of the catastrophic repercussions of the continuation of these violations on the already deteriorating humanitarian situation. With continued displacement and living in tents, Palestinians believe that the war has not actually ended, as long as the Israeli killing machine continues to claim lives under the guise of a fragile calm that protects no one.

There is no ceasefire... The car is moving and is being shelled, and those inside and around it are killed. Where is the calm?

General Uri Halperin, who spent more than three decades in the corridors of the Israeli security establishment, confirmed that the military confrontation between Tel Aviv and Washington against Iran has entered a critical phase, having exceeded its fourth week. Halperin explained that this war fundamentally differs from previous combat rounds the Israeli army was accustomed to, characterized by increasing field and political complexity.

Halperin, who previously served as the military attaché to NATO, indicated that military operations were launched based on intelligence assessments and planning that were not up to the required standard. He considered that underestimating Iran's capabilities and methods of operation led to the necessity for military planners in Washington and Tel Aviv to review the basic war objectives and their feasibility on the ground.

The Israeli general stressed that Iran has proven its seriousness in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons by raising uranium enrichment levels to 60%. He believed that this shift was not merely a threat of a race towards the bomb, but an actual intention to arm itself with it, placing the region before a new and highly dangerous security reality if the regime there acquires these capabilities.

In his reading of the internal Iranian scene, Halperin mentioned that the Revolutionary Guard's control over decision-making centers pushes towards an open war of attrition with no time limits. He added that this trend reflects the magnitude of the existential threat posed by the regime if coupled with nuclear capability, making planning to confront it require clear objectives that go beyond mere fleeting airstrikes.

Halperin warned of Tehran's ability to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz, emphasizing that this scenario should not surprise military circles in the Pentagon or Tel Aviv. He explained that Iran possesses the most advanced coastal missile systems in the world, positioned in rugged geographical areas that make it difficult to neutralize them completely through aerial bombardment alone.

The former general suggested that controlling shipping lanes and depriving Iran of its economic influence might require extensive ground operations to control areas dominating the Gulf. He considered that the focus on ground forces at this stage reflects how far the course of battles has deviated from the original plans laid out before the outbreak of the confrontation.

According to the analysis published by Halperin, targeting energy facilities in countries neighboring Iran is a reasonable scenario in Tehran's calculations and not an extreme step. He affirmed that planners should have taken into account the necessity of stocking huge quantities of interceptor missiles to counter a long-term war of attrition that the entire region might be drawn into.

Halperin explained that the comprehensive Iranian strategy relies on the principle of asymmetric warfare, which does not necessarily aim to militarily defeat the opponent as much as it aims to prevent them from achieving victory. Through this approach, Tehran seeks to make the conflict costly and unpredictable, ensuring the regime's survival and its freedom in strategic maneuvering away from international pressures.

The general touched upon the role of the previous US administration, indicating that Trump's moves, encouraged by Netanyahu, ostensibly aimed to address the nuclear file. However, Halperin believes that the hidden objectives were to attempt to change the Iranian regime and seize energy reserves to control global oil prices and their flows towards China.

Halperin considered that the gap between declared and hidden objectives is often the main reason behind the failure of major military campaigns, citing the US experiences in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. He stressed that attempting to achieve multiple and disparate objectives simultaneously disperses resources and prevents reaching decisive results in confronting the adversary.

Regarding future scenarios, Halperin predicted that US Marine forces would resort to targeted landing operations to control strategic islands such as 'Kharg' Island. This move aims to cripple the Iranian regime's ability to exert economic pressure on the West, which might force Tehran to seek a ceasefire agreement.

The general believes that Washington and Tel Aviv's success in crippling the leadership in Tehran's ability to drag the region into a war of attrition is key to ending the campaign in a reasonable time. He added that weakening the influence of the Revolutionary Guard, as the main driver of the decision-making process, might open the door for internal changes led by the Iranian people as a result of deteriorating conditions.

Halperin concluded that the field reality compels military and political leadership to acknowledge the gap between aspirations and the results achieved so far. He stressed that continuing the war without a clear strategy to deal with Iranian missile and ground capabilities will lead to a long-term attrition that ultimately serves Tehran's interests.

In conclusion, Halperin affirmed that the current confrontation is one of the most important wars in recent decades due to its repercussions on global power balances. He stressed that the lessons learned from the first four weeks necessitate a shift towards militarily achievable goals instead of drifting behind political dreams that may not resonate on the battlefronts.

The current war with Iran and Hezbollah is not a short round as we are accustomed to, but a conflict of a different kind that began with insufficient planning and a clear underestimation of the opponent's capabilities.

US President Donald Trump's popularity has sharply declined in recent days, reaching its lowest levels since his re-election and return to the White House. Informed sources, based on a recent opinion poll, reported that this drop is driven by growing public discontent with the current administration's foreign and economic policies.

The results of the four-day poll, which concluded early this week, showed that approval for Trump's performance in office settled at just 36%. This figure represents a significant decrease compared to the 40% recorded in last week's poll, indicating a gradual erosion of the president's support base.

Analysts attribute this decline primarily to the skyrocketing fuel prices that have recently hit American markets. The energy crisis began to worsen since the United States, in cooperation with Israel, launched coordinated military strikes targeting sites in Iran on February 28th.

The pressures were not limited to gasoline prices but extended to the cost of living in general, an issue that was a cornerstone of Trump's election campaign. Only 25% of poll participants expressed satisfaction with how the White House is managing inflation and the financial burdens of living.

Although Trump's standing remains relatively strong within the Republican Party, signs of unease have begun to clearly emerge among his supporters. The percentage of Republicans who disapprove of his handling of living costs has risen to 34%, compared to about 27% earlier this month.

The current war with Iran represents a fundamental turning point in the presidency's trajectory, especially since Trump came to power with explicit promises to end foreign military interventions. Engagement in a new armed conflict appears to have shaken the confidence of a segment of voters who had hoped to avoid what the president previously described as 'stupid wars'.

According to statistical data, 61% of Americans now oppose military strikes against Iran, a significant increase from last week. In contrast, the percentage of supporters of these military operations has fallen to 35%, reflecting a widening gap in public rejection of the escalatory policy in the Middle East.

Regarding the congressional midterm elections scheduled for next November, the picture remains complex for both major parties. Despite the president's declining popularity, 38% of registered voters still believe that Republicans are better equipped to manage the economy than Democrats.

This poll was conducted online with the participation of over 1,200 American citizens from various states and political affiliations. Experts confirm that the three-percentage-point margin of error strongly indicates the accuracy of the results, which reflect a general mood of concern about the economic and security future.

The biggest challenge facing the Trump administration is how to balance its military ambitions in the region with domestic stability threatened by rising prices. If energy costs continue to climb, Republican allies may face significant difficulties in maintaining their parliamentary majority in the upcoming elections.

The war in Iran changes the situation for a president who took office promising to avoid stupid wars.

Washington – Said Arikat – 25/3/2026

News Analysis

Recent Iranian statements regarding American calls to resume negotiations reflect an unprecedented level of distrust, based on what Tehran considers a repeated record of "deception" in American behavior. The assertion by Iranian officials that they were "deceived twice" by US President Donald Trump is not presented as a casual accusation, but as the culmination of an experience in which Tehran believes Washington used negotiation as a cover for military actions and unilateral pressures.

In this context, the American call for direct talks, despite its apparent diplomatic nature, is surrounded by deep skepticism, especially as it coincides with military reinforcements and field movements. Iran has informed regional mediators, including Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey, that this timing reinforces the hypothesis that negotiation may again be used as a tool of deception, rather than as a serious path to conflict resolution.

This Iranian approach is based on a pivotal experience, namely the American withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in 2018, a step that is still considered in Tehran as stark evidence of the fragility of American commitments. From an Iranian perspective, it was not limited to violating an international agreement, but also included the re-imposition of harsh sanctions under the slogan of "maximum pressure," which solidified the conviction that Washington does not hesitate to use agreements as temporary tools, subject to reversal when political calculations change.

This legacy makes it difficult for Tehran to treat any new initiative as a genuine opportunity, as American behavior is viewed as based on systematic duplicity: diplomatic rhetoric on the one hand, and escalatory measures on the other. In this context, current military movements are not read merely as a means of negotiating pressure, but as an extension of a previous pattern that Iran considers closer to "strategic deception" than to traditional diplomacy.

In contrast, the US administration continues to promote the concept of "negotiating from a position of strength," where military buildup is seen as a tool to impose better terms at the negotiating table. A statement by one of Trump's advisors that the President "extends a hand for an agreement, while the other hand is a fist ready to strike" clearly reflects this approach. However, this approach, which falls under coercive diplomacy, appears in the Iranian case to be a double-edged sword, as it deepens suspicions rather than reducing them.

Indeed, this method, from a critical perspective, not only weakens the chances of understanding but undermines the very basis of the negotiation process. When negotiation is seen as a tool of pressure or a tactical trick, it loses its meaning as a path based on mutual trust and stable commitments. In the Iranian case, it seems that this perception has become so entrenched that any American initiative is subject to interpretation as a new attempt to reproduce the same method.

Despite attempts at de-escalation, including the possibility of Vice President J.D. Vance's participation, these steps are still insufficient to dispel doubts. Reports of continued military preparations and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's directives to continue pressure reinforce the impression that Washington has not changed the essence of its approach, but is re-presenting it in a different form.

These developments coincide with the continuation of military operations since late February, alongside the presentation of a 15-point American plan that includes sensitive issues such as Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missiles, in addition to vital maritime corridors, especially the Strait of Hormuz. However, this initiative, instead of being seen as a gesture of breakthrough, is met with extreme caution in Tehran, amid a conviction that the American "points" may be merely a fragile negotiating framework, subject to change or withdrawal at the first political test.

In conclusion, the current crisis does not appear to be merely a dispute over agreement terms or security arrangements, but an expression of a deep-rooted crisis of trust. For Iran, the problem is no longer in the content of American proposals as much as it is in the credibility of the party presenting them. With this perception persisting, any negotiating path will remain threatened with collapse, unless Washington shows a real shift in its behavior, going beyond what Tehran considers a long record of maneuvering and deception.

The Iraqi Ministry of Defense announced today, Wednesday, an aerial attack targeting military and medical facilities in the Anbar province, located in the west of the country. The raid resulted in the death of seven armed forces personnel and the injury of thirteen others with varying degrees of wounds, while rescue teams continue search and sweep operations at the incident site.

In an official statement, the ministry confirmed that the bombing hit the Habbaniyah military clinic and an administrative site belonging to it, considering this act a dangerous escalation that crosses all red lines. The authorities stressed that targeting medical facilities is a violation of international conventions that protect health workers and humanitarian facilities in conflict zones.

For its part, security sources reported that the attacking aircraft targeted a vital headquarters inside Al-Habbaniyah Air Base, located east of Ramadi city. The targeted site includes joint units from the Iraqi army and the Popular Mobilization Forces, which led to severe human and material losses among the two parties present there.

According to sources, civil defense teams rushed to the scene of the explosions to control the widespread fires that erupted as a result of the concentrated aerial bombardment. The military hospital inside the base suffered significant structural damage, which hampered the provision of first aid to the injured in the first moments of the attack.

Iraqi airspace is witnessing a state of severe tension, with intense military aircraft activity observed over Anbar province, and the sound of sonic booms heard over the capital Baghdad. This attack comes just two days after Al-Habbaniyah Air Base was subjected to similar raids, indicating a continuous wave of escalation in the region.

In the context of official responses, the spokesperson for the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces affirmed that all security formations, including the Popular Mobilization Forces, are authorized to respond to any external aggression. He clarified that the principle of self-defense has become the primary driver for upcoming military movements to ensure the protection of national sovereignty and armed forces headquarters.

It is worth noting that the Ministerial Council for National Security, headed by Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al-Sudani, had issued a decision granting security forces broad powers to respond to attacks. These developments follow previous strikes that led to the killing of prominent Popular Mobilization Forces leaders, placing Iraq at the heart of regional and international tensions.

This targeting is a blatant and dangerous violation of all international laws and norms that prohibit targeting medical facilities and their staff.

The early hours of Wednesday morning witnessed a new field escalation in the Gaza Strip, as two Palestinian citizens were martyred by Israeli army fire in the Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Strip. Medical sources at Al-Awda Hospital reported the arrival of the bodies of the two martyrs after they were directly targeted in the vicinity of the Al-Sawarah cemetery area, amid continued military operations despite existing understandings.

In the city of Khan Yunis, south of the Strip, Israeli forces launched an attack targeting tents sheltering displaced people in the western part of the city, resulting in injuries among civilians. The assault resulted in the injury of four citizens, including three children, who were rushed to nearby hospitals for treatment amid a state of panic among displaced families.

Medical reports from the field indicated that the health condition of the injured varied, with one child's injuries described as serious, while two girls suffered moderate injuries. A man also sustained various injuries from shrapnel, raising the death toll amid continued repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement that came into effect last October.

Field data indicates that the recent targeting occurred in areas outside the direct military control of the occupation army, which still dominates large areas of the Strip. These developments come at a time when residents are suffering from a severe blockade and a sharp deterioration in humanitarian conditions as a result of the massive destruction that has affected infrastructure and vital facilities.

On the political and diplomatic front, Nikolay Mladenov, coordinator of the Peace Council of the US administration, called on member states of the UN Security Council to take firm stances towards Palestinian factions. Mladenov demanded effective pressure on Hamas to force it to surrender its weapons, considering this step necessary to achieve stability in the region.

The Bulgarian diplomat stressed in his briefing the need to use all available tools to push the factions towards accepting disarmament without any further delay. These calls come amid political complexities surrounding the negotiation process and efforts to end the ongoing conflict since October 2023, which has left tens of thousands of victims.

On the other hand, British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper expressed London's grave concern about the possibility of the conflict expanding in the Middle East region. Cooper warned during a session in the British Parliament that regional escalation could marginalize the proposed peace plan for the Gaza Strip and divert attention from fundamental issues related to a political solution.

The British minister also expressed her deep concern about the escalating violence in the West Bank, especially the attacks carried out by settlers against Palestinian citizens. She affirmed that these developments constitute a major obstacle to diplomatic efforts, pointing to the need to protect the political path from collapse under the weight of continuous military operations.

We urge Security Council members to use all available means to push Palestinian factions to accept disarmament without delay.

Israeli occupation forces committed new aggressions in the Gaza Strip, resulting in the martyrdom of 5 Palestinian citizens, including a child, in various areas in the central and southern parts of the Strip. These attacks come amidst the occupation's continued violations of the ceasefire agreement that came into effect on October 11th, escalating the rising field tension.

Field sources reported that an occupation drone targeted a gathering of citizens near the Al-Sawarah cemetery, south of the Nuseirat camp, leading to the martyrdom of 4 and injuring others with varying degrees of wounds. In another development in Khan Yunis, the martyrdom of 13-year-old child Khaled Saif El-Din Arada was announced, succumbing to his injuries from Israeli army gunfire that targeted him inside his tent in the densely populated Al-Mawasi area.

In a related context, occupation vehicles and soldiers continued to target civilians in the Sheikh Nasser neighborhood, east of Khan Yunis, where a citizen was shot with live ammunition while in the area. Official statistics indicate that the number of martyrs since the actual start of the truce has exceeded 687, while the number of injured has surpassed 1800, amidst catastrophic health and humanitarian conditions experienced by the residents of the Strip.

On the Lebanese front, occupation forces escalated their military operations, with 33 people martyred and 90 others injured in the past twenty-four hours, raising the total toll since early March to 1072 martyrs. The raids included targeting a residential apartment in the Sahel Alma area in the Keserwan district for the first time, in addition to a series of violent raids that struck the city of Tyre and gas stations in Nabatieh and Kafrtibnit.

For its part, Hezbollah responded by carrying out 34 rocket and drone attacks targeting barracks and gatherings of the occupation army, with fierce ground confrontations erupting in the Al-Qawzah area during an Israeli infiltration attempt. These developments come at a time when the total toll of the aggression on Gaza since October 7, 2023, has reached over 72,000 martyrs and more than 171,000 injured, in one of the largest humanitarian disasters in modern history.

The number of martyrs since the actual start of the truce has reached approximately 687 martyrs and over 1800 injured due to continuous violations.

The Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was not created, neither in the consciousness of its founders nor in the hearts of its people, as an administrative body to manage the details of daily life; rather, it was conceived as a political lever for the national liberation project, a crossing point from the geography of refuge to the horizon of a state. The idea was for this authority to be a solid nucleus for an independent political entity, whose features were shaped by the blood of martyrs, the steadfastness of prisoners, and the pain of the wounded who redefined national meaning on their bodies. However, this vision gradually eroded, almost turning into its opposite.

The Illusion of Statehood and the Squandering of Power Elements Under the burden of relying on a sterile negotiation path, the Authority treated agreements as fate, not choice, excessively committing while gradually losing its tools of power. The Authority ceased to be a pressing political actor; instead, it transformed – due to international and regional pressures – into a service structure that alleviates the occupation's burdens, rather than increasing its costs. This transformation not only weakened its negotiating position but also deepened the trust gap between it and the street, and eroded the core of the national project.

From Potential Partner to “Greater Enemy” In contrast, the occupation did not reward this functional slippage; instead, it escalated its aggression. Far-right figures like Smotrich and Ben Gvir no longer see the Authority as a weak partner, but as a “greater enemy” that must be dismantled. The incitement discourse that links it to scenarios of an upcoming security explosion and another October 7th, which will be undermined by security apparatus commandos, is merely a political prelude to overthrowing the Palestinian entity and replacing it with fragile structures: local administrations or tribal frameworks stripped of their national dimension. This plan has already begun to be officially implemented, with significant successes for settler gangs in this regard, and there are a number of decisions taken by the Israeli government to implement it, including the decision taken today to grant tax exemptions to settlements. Here, the danger becomes existential: either a silent, gradual disintegration, or a confrontation that forces self-redefinition.

The Solid Nucleus: The Last Chance for Salvation Despite this bleak picture, the window for salvation remains open—but it is narrowing. Its key lies not in reproducing the same elites, but in forming a new “historical bloc,” or what can be called the “solid nucleus,” based on the convergence of three streams:

* Released prisoners: with the legitimacy of their struggle and credibility deeply rooted in the people's consciousness. * Palestinian youth: as untamed energy, capable of breaking patterns of helplessness and innovating tools of confrontation. * Civil society: with its institutional expertise and ability to formulate modern programs that move beyond slogans to policies.

This is not a theoretical call, but an objective condition for rebuilding national action on more solid foundations.

Fatah Conference: The Test of the Last Chance The upcoming pivotal moment is embodied in the Fatah movement's conference, which could turn into a turning point—or another station for reproducing the crisis. Its success depends on its ability to produce a leadership that combines the experience of the past with the pulse of the field, a leadership that restores dignity to the competencies that were marginalized, and integrates them with a new generation of actors, with released prisoners at their heart.

The pivotal role of leaders inside prisons, foremost among them Marwan Barghouti, cannot be overlooked, as he is a unifying figure with the ability to re-unite the national mood, bridge the gaps between the street and its institutions, and redefine the Authority and the Organization as instruments of struggle, not merely functional frameworks.

Conclusion: The Moment of Decision In existential moments, neutrality is not a stance, but a disguised withdrawal. The response to Israeli right-wing incitement is not by relying on external forces, but by repositioning internally: by uniting with the street, and building a national salvation program led by a solid nucleus that possesses both legitimacy and capability.

History does not wait for the hesitant, and entities that do not redefine themselves are reshaped by their adversaries. Between annihilation and renewal, the "secret key" remains in the hands of those who paid the price for freedom—if they succeed in transforming sacrifices into a project.

British analyst Gideon Rachman, in an article published by the 'Financial Times', considered that the military orientations of the occupation prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu are putting Israel's long-term security at risk. He pointed out that the decision to wage war on Iran, despite enjoying widespread support within Israeli society, exceeding 80%, lacks the required popularity in the United States, creating a dangerous strategic gap.

Rachman explained that Netanyahu has invested decades of his political life in portraying Tehran as an existential threat, considering the recent raids as the fulfillment of an ambition he pursued for forty years. However, the analyst believes that these wars have not brought the desired security, but rather contributed to weakening bipartisan support from both the Democratic and Republican parties, support that historically represented the primary pillar of Israel's survival.

The article touched upon the course of confrontation with Iran, emphasizing that it is heading in unexpected directions, far from the promises of 'quick victory' promoted by Netanyahu and Donald Trump. This was evident in the field escalation, which included Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, affecting navigation and the global economy, and increasing the complexities of the regional conflict.

The writer cited the recent Iranian missile attacks on areas in the southern occupied territories as evidence that a long war has become a direct threat to both Israeli civilians and soldiers. He warned that the continuation of this military bleeding would deepen the crisis with the American ally, which has begun to feel the burden of being dragged into costly conflicts that do not serve its direct interests.

Citing Danny Citrinowicz, a former official in the occupation intelligence, the article conveyed his skepticism about the official narrative regarding the 'imminent nuclear threat'. Citrinowicz indicated that the Iranian leadership had shown flexibility in negotiations to reduce uranium stockpiles, but the desire for military escalation overshadowed possible diplomatic solutions.

Strategic analysts believe that the real danger to Israel lies not only in Iran's military capabilities but also in the radical shift in American public opinion. Gallup Institute data showed that sympathy for Palestinians surpassed that for Israelis for the first time, as a result of scenes from the Gaza Strip and the fall of thousands of civilian casualties.

This popular shift has begun to translate into firm political stances within the Democratic Party, where voices have emerged describing Israel as an 'apartheid state'. Rachman points out that potential candidates for the 2028 presidential elections, such as Gavin Newsom, are now adopting more critical language towards the occupation's policies, signaling a change in the nature of the future relationship.

On the Republican side, the alliance with the 'MAGA' movement led by Trump is no longer fully guaranteed, as feelings of isolationism and rejection of foreign wars are escalating. This was evident in the resignation of prominent officials in the former Trump administration, such as Joe Kent, who explicitly accused Tel Aviv of trying to drag Washington into a wide regional war.

Although Trump responded to Netanyahu's pressures at certain stages, the failure to achieve a quick military decisive victory could turn the tables. Involvement in a long and costly war, both humanly and economically, will inevitably lead to negative reactions within the American electoral base, which has begun to reject the policy of 'blank checks' for foreign wars.

The article predicted that the 2028 elections would see explicit calls from both parties to reduce military and political aid provided to the occupation. This shift would be a 'strategic catastrophe', especially since Israel has received more than $16 billion in direct aid since the start of the war in October 2023 to secure its defensive and offensive needs.

Rachman criticized Netanyahu's narrative that security is achieved only through pure military force, pointing out that facts prove the opposite. Despite assassinations and airstrikes, Hamas still exists, and Hezbollah has regained its ability to engage in confrontation, meaning that the declared 'historical victories' are merely temporary palliatives.

In conclusion, the British analyst stressed that political and diplomatic solutions with Palestinians and regional powers are the only sustainable path. He considered that Netanyahu's insistence on prioritizing the language of war, amid the erosion of international legitimacy and American support, represents a sure recipe for a comprehensive strategic collapse that threatens the entity's future.

The war Netanyahu sought has not made the occupation state more secure, but rather endangered its long-term security as a result of losing American support.

The foreign policy of the US administration, led by President Donald Trump, has witnessed a dramatic shift regarding the Iranian issue in recent days. After a period of rigidity and ruling out any chance of an agreement, Trump showed a surprising openness to dialogue, indicating that the Iranian leadership is now looking for a way out of the current crisis.

Informed sources reported that this change was not accidental, but rather the result of a series of indirect contacts and intense pressure exerted by Washington's allies in the Gulf region. These allies warned that continuing the military escalation approach could lead to dire consequences affecting the stability of the entire region.

In a speech delivered to a crowd in Memphis, Tennessee, Trump affirmed that Tehran has shown a genuine desire to reach a political settlement. The US President said confidently: 'They want a settlement, and we will get it done,' signaling the beginning of a new phase of active diplomacy.

Before leaving the White House on Friday, Trump reinforced this direction with striking statements emphasizing the need to preserve the other party to ensure the success of any agreement. He clarified that a sustainable ceasefire cannot be achieved under a policy of complete annihilation of the adversary, reflecting a change in the administration's negotiating philosophy.

Leaked information indicates that the US administration is currently working through multilateral diplomatic channels to ensure its messages are accurately conveyed to Tehran. Names of countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Oman emerge as key mediators in this complex process aimed at de-escalation.

US proposals circulated behind the scenes include a list of 15 basic points aimed at addressing the security concerns of Washington and its allies. These points include strict restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, an end to support for pro-Tehran factions in the region, and recognition of Israel's right to exist.

Despite this diplomatic openness, US field movements still reflect a state of extreme caution and anticipation. Washington continued to send additional Marine units to the Middle East, as a precautionary measure to confront any potential escalation that might occur during the negotiation period.

For its part, Tehran maintained a cautious stance, officially denying any direct negotiations with the US side at present. However, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf did not deny the possibility of exploring negotiation paths through mediators, which opens the door to possibilities of de-escalation.

Observers believe that economic pressures played a decisive role in pushing Trump towards this new diplomatic path. The announcement of potential talks led to an immediate rebound in the Wall Street stock market and a significant drop in global oil prices, which serves the administration's economic agenda.

US allies in the Gulf warned that any targeting of Iranian energy facilities would lead to catastrophic reactions affecting civilian infrastructure in the region. These warnings prompted Trump's advisors to re-evaluate the strategic risks of a direct military option against Tehran.

As part of international coordination, senior officials in the Trump administration, led by Vice President J.D. Vance, were keen to keep Israel informed of developments. High-level contacts also took place with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to ensure a unified international front towards the new proposals.

Regional mediation efforts aim to secure international navigation lanes, especially in the Strait of Hormuz, as part of confidence-building measures. Washington considers ensuring the safe passage of ships a top priority that cannot be compromised in any future agreement with the Iranian side.

Trump stressed in his recent statements that his long experience in the world of negotiations makes him capable of assessing the seriousness of the other party. He affirmed that the Iranians this time appear 'serious' in their desire to end international isolation, provided a formula is reached that preserves the interests of all concerned parties.

Questions remain about the extent to which the two sides can overcome decades of hostility and mutual suspicion to reach a comprehensive agreement. Although the path is still fraught with risks, the current shift represents a rare opportunity for diplomacy to avoid a widespread regional conflict in the Middle East.

A ceasefire cannot be achieved when you are completely annihilating the other side.

These are five decisive days according to Trump's timing, and the decisive days that come in March are characterized by volatile weather mixed with strong winds and severe cold. They were called decisive because they separate the cold of winter from the moderation of spring. And in the Holy Quran, it is "seven nights and eight decisive days" of strong winds that God Almighty singled out the people of Aad for, and no one else.

However, Trump's five days raise more questions than they provide convincing answers; such as: Why five, and not three? which has long been circulated in the literature of deadlines given to resolve disputes or conclude reconciliations. Trump's days seem like a strange and wondrous tradition, resembling his saying of one thing and its opposite, and his changing face in the skies of crises that plague the universe, just as his call to Americans during the pandemic to drink chlorine instead of getting vaccinated.

Certainty is absent, and clouds of doubt hang over everything that spills from the mouth of the White House master, whether it be timings, or promises and threats, as his hours become days, and his days become months, and his six months that he set for forming the peace council and deploying forces in Gaza during them have become in the realm of the unseen, while between six and ten patients die daily due to the closure of the crossing that he said would be opened in both directions.

What Trump offers Tehran in terms of conditions according to the fifteen-point list seems to be with the intention of rejection, so that the five-day negotiations become merely a smoke screen covering the arrival of thousands of Marine forces, which are now at the same distance from Hormuz.

No one can be certain of what is going on in the mind of the man with the volatile moods, as there are expectations that the man of surprises will initiate the occupation of soft areas, or the stray oil island in the geography of the vast Persian plateau, driven by the same erroneous calculations that led him into war by deceit… We have nothing but anticipation and waiting before "he who has not been supplied brings you news".. And here the popular proverb comes to mind: "He who is covered by the days is naked"!

The Israeli Ambassador to Washington, Yehiel Leiter, expressed serious concerns about the negative consequences of what he described as the 'rise of national crime' in the occupied West Bank. Leiter indicated that the continuation of these attacks by settlers contributes to alienating Israel's true friends in the United States, thereby weakening the state's diplomatic position at a sensitive time.

These statements come at a time when media sources have revealed growing anger within the American administration over the state of security chaos in the Palestinian territories. According to Hebrew reports, Washington believes that Israel is acting as a failed state in confronting settler chaos, and has demanded an immediate end to these practices that occur under the guise of war.

In a related context, sources revealed that US Vice President J.D. Vance contacted the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, inquiring about the reasons for allowing these attacks to continue. Vance questioned how the government could overlook these actions at the height of ongoing military operations, reflecting the extent of American concern over the deteriorating field conditions.

Domestically, Israeli academic circles launched a sharp attack on the government's policies towards settlers, with the academic organization 'Sha'ar' condemning the escalation of 'Jewish terrorism'. In public statements, the organization described what is happening in the West Bank as acts of killing, looting, and plunder aimed at achieving ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of the Palestinian population.

The academic organization affirmed that these practices blatantly contradict international law and local Israeli laws, holding the government fully responsible for protecting all residents. The organization called on security forces and the judiciary to use all available means to combat these criminal phenomena that tarnish Israel's reputation as a responsible state.

Academics stressed that even in times of war, human values and human rights, which represent the essence of a liberal democratic entity, cannot be compromised. They called on all educational institutions in Israel to take clear and courageous ethical stances, similar to the position recently announced by Tel Aviv University in the face of extremist violence.

For its part, Tel Aviv University published an official announcement expressing its deep shame at the manifestations of rampant Jewish terrorism against Palestinian civilians. The university affirmed that these attacks, which include intimidation, humiliation, and horrific killings, have significantly worsened over the past month under the cover of regional tensions and the ongoing war.

The university strongly criticized what it described as the 'government's helplessness' and the security forces' insufficient action to stop this dangerous phenomenon. It clarified in its statement that terrorism remains terrorism regardless of the identity of the perpetrator or the victim, and that the state's moral and legal duty requires it to protect the safety of everyone without discrimination.

The academic statement warned against sliding into a 'racist abyss', reminding that history teaches us that marginalizing human rights in the name of emergency leads to moral catastrophes. The university added that Israel's true immunity is not measured solely by the strength of its weapons, but by the purity of the values the state adopts in its dealings with civilians under its control.

Amidst these warnings, field violations continue in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with systematic destruction and displacement operations ongoing. Recent press reports also revealed the martyrdom of a Palestinian prisoner inside 'Megiddo' prison as a result of the starvation policy, reflecting the deterioration of humanitarian conditions inside Israeli detention centers.

In a striking paradox, a parliamentary committee in the Knesset is preparing to approve a bill to execute Palestinian prisoners, a project led by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. This legislative move comes at a time when international and local criticism of government policies, which some see as inciting further violence and extremism, is escalating.

Jewish terrorism serves no legitimate purpose; rather, it erodes the foundations of our being, and silence towards it is a moral stain that will not be erased.

The acquittal of Karim Khan, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, from accusations described as unproven or politicized, marks a pivotal moment in the history of contemporary international justice. The issue is not about a person or a position, but rather represents a real test of the international legal system's ability to maintain its independence in the face of political pressures, especially when justice intersects with the world's most sensitive conflicts, foremost among them the situation in Palestine, particularly in Gaza.International Justice Between Text and PoliticizationThe international criminal law system is based on a fundamental principle of non-impunity, as stipulated by the Rome Statute, which affirms the Court's jurisdiction to prosecute the most serious crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity.However, the practical application of this principle has always been subject to political balances. Herein lies the danger of targeting the Prosecutor himself, as directing accusations against him—even if unproven—could turn into an indirect tool to influence the course of justice, or to weaken public trust in the judicial institution.Gaza: Where the Credibility of Justice is TestedIn the Gaza Strip, the crisis of international justice is most clearly manifested. The repeated reports of targeting health and educational infrastructure, universities, roads, and attacks on health workers, journalists, and academics, and the high rates of civilian casualties, especially children and women, who constitute 70% of the deliberate aggression and the near-complete collapse of the health and educational system, raise urgent questions about the extent of respect for the rules of international humanitarian law, especially regarding the protection of medical facilities and health workers. A prime example of this is the reports of Ms. Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.Any shake in the credibility of the Prosecutor's office at the Court, whether through accusations or smear campaigns, directly reflects on the trust of victims and the international community in the possibility of achieving justice. For Palestinians in general and for the residents of Gaza in particular, the Court represents not just a legal institution, but a last hope for international accountability in the absence of effective redress mechanisms at the international level.Between Accountability and Protection: The Dilemma of International LawKarim Khan's acquittal—if carried out according to transparent and independent procedures—reinforces the principle of the rule of law, but at the same time reveals a structural gap in the international system: the absence of adequate mechanisms to protect judicial officials from political pressures and defamation, without immunizing them from accountability.Here arises the need to develop a legal framework that balances:• Ensuring the independence of international prosecution• Enhancing accountability and transparency mechanisms• Protecting officials from the political instrumentalization of accusationsWider Implications for the International SystemThe repercussions of this issue are not limited to the Court but extend to the future of international justice as a whole. If the system fails to protect itself from politicization, it risks losing its legitimacy, especially in the eyes of communities affected by conflicts.However, if it succeeds in passing this test, it could be an opportunity to rebuild trust, not only in the Court but in the very idea of international justice.Conclusion: Gaza as a Mirror of Global JusticeIn the end, Gaza remains a mirror reflecting the reality of the international system: Is it capable of doing justice to the weakest, or does it remain governed by power balances? Karim Khan's acquittal may be a step towards strengthening the independence of justice, but at the same time, it is a stark reminder that this justice is still under continuous test.Between legal texts and political reality, the victims remain the ultimate judge of this system's credibility.

By: Said Arikat

March 25, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- The question may appear provocative, but it reflects a growing concern in strategic circles: is the United States drifting into another prolonged and costly conflict, this time alongside Israel against Iran, where success is elusive and the burden is measured in endurance, disruption, and global consequences rather than decisive victories?

Since February 28, when U.S. and Israeli forces launched coordinated strikes on Iranian targets, what began as a direct military campaign has rapidly evolved into a broader and more dangerous confrontation. Iran’s response was immediate and expansive, targeting not only Israeli positions but also American assets and allied infrastructure across the Gulf. Within hours, missile and drone strikes reached multiple Gulf Cooperation Council states, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, effectively transforming the conflict into a regional war with far-reaching implications. 

At first glance, comparisons to the war in Ukraine remain compelling. In both cases, warfare extends beyond conventional battlefields into the economic systems that sustain modern states. In Ukraine, the conflict evolved into a sustained campaign against infrastructure—power grids, fuel depots, and logistics networks—aimed at weakening the country’s capacity to function. Similarly, in the current war with Iran, energy infrastructure has become a central target rather than a secondary objective.

This emphasis is not incidental. Iran occupies a critical position in the global energy system, and its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz gives it significant leverage over the flow of oil and gas. As the conflict has intensified, retaliatory strikes have increasingly focused on energy facilities and shipping routes across the Gulf, amplifying the economic stakes. Iranian attacks on key energy sites in the region have already disrupted supply chains and driven up global prices, underscoring how quickly localized conflict can trigger worldwide consequences. 

Yet the analogy to Ukraine begins to break down under closer examination. The war in Ukraine is fundamentally indirect for the United States, which provides military and financial support without engaging directly in combat against Russia. By contrast, the conflict with Iran involves direct participation. American forces are not operating from a distance but are embedded in an active and highly volatile theater, where escalation can occur rapidly and unpredictably.

This distinction significantly raises the stakes. Direct engagement compresses decision-making timelines and increases the likelihood of miscalculation. In Ukraine, escalation has been managed, however imperfectly, through careful calibration. In the case of Iran, the margin for error is much narrower, particularly given the speed and scale of retaliatory actions that have already unfolded across multiple fronts.

Geography further compounds the risk. Ukraine’s war, despite its devastation, has remained largely confined within its borders. In contrast, Iran’s influence extends across a network of regional actors and strategic partnerships. The events since February 28 demonstrate how quickly a bilateral confrontation can expand into a multi-front conflict. Iranian strikes across GCC nations illustrate both the reach of its capabilities and the vulnerability of a region densely packed with critical infrastructure and foreign military assets.

What most closely links the two conflicts, however, is the shift toward attritional warfare. This form of conflict prioritizes endurance over speed and resilience over decisive force. Success depends on the ability to absorb damage, adapt, and continue operating under sustained pressure. Iran has spent decades preparing for precisely this kind of confrontation, developing asymmetric capabilities such as drones, ballistic-missiles, and decentralized networks designed to offset conventional military disadvantages.

For the United States and its allies, this presents a strategic dilemma. Superior military power does not necessarily translate into decisive outcomes in an attritional environment. Strikes on infrastructure may yield temporary gains, but they rarely produce lasting results. Facilities can be rebuilt, supply routes rerouted, and tactics adjusted. Meanwhile, the cumulative costs—financial, political, and strategic—continue to mount.

This dynamic raises the specter of a quagmire. History offers numerous examples of conflicts where initial objectives were clear but became increasingly ambiguous over time, leading to prolonged engagements without resolution. The danger in the current war is not a sudden defeat but a gradual erosion of position—a slow drain on resources, attention, and credibility.

The centrality of energy further amplifies these risks. Unlike Ukraine, where economic consequences have been significant but regionally concentrated, the war involving Iran directly affects the global energy system. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on Gulf infrastructure have already demonstrated the potential for systemic shocks. Rising oil and gas prices, strained supply chains, and broader economic instability are no longer hypothetical risks but emerging realities.

None of this suggests that the situation is identical to Ukraine. The differences are substantial and must be acknowledged. However, the comparison serves as a warning. It highlights a pattern in modern conflict: a drift toward wars that are difficult to win, costly to sustain, and prone to expansion beyond their original scope.

The more pressing question, therefore, is not whether Iran is becoming America’s Ukraine. It is whether the United States is allowing itself to be drawn into a familiar strategic trap—one defined by unclear objectives, insufficient tools for decisive victory, and an open-ended timeline that invites escalation.

Avoiding such an outcome requires clarity: clear goals, defined limits, and a realistic understanding of consequences. It requires recognizing that military force alone cannot resolve a conflict embedded in complex regional dynamics and global economic interdependence.

Without that clarity, the risk is not simply another prolonged war. It is a broader and more destabilizing crisis—one in which the lessons of recent conflicts are not applied, but repeated on a far more dangerous and interconnected stage.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/25/2026

Republican Congressman Andy Ogles of Tennessee sparked widespread criticism after posting an AI-generated video depicting him alongside allies of US President Donald Trump as medieval warriors, in a scene evoking the symbolism of the Crusades.

The video, which quickly spread on social media platforms, featured a dramatic portrayal mimicking historical religious battles. Ogles accompanied it with a message asserting that the United States is "a nation founded on Christian principles." This proposition brought back to the forefront an old debate in American political and intellectual circles about the nature of the country's constitutional identity, and whether it has religious or civil roots based on the separation of religion and state.

The use of Crusades symbolism, in particular, drew sharp criticism from human rights and religious organizations, which considered this discourse to carry exclusionary connotations and potentially be understood as directed against Muslims. This comes in the context of Congressman Ogles' previous record, where he faced accusations of making statements described as anti-Islam, which intensified the reaction to the latest video.

In contrast, Ogles' supporters defended the move, considering it part of political freedom of expression, and that referring to the "Christian heritage" of the United States reflects an intellectual conviction among a segment of conservatives. Some also saw the criticisms directed at the congressman as political in nature, falling within the sharp polarization between the Republican and Democratic parties.

The incident also raises broader questions about the use of artificial intelligence technologies in political discourse, especially with the increasing ability of these technologies to produce impactful visual content that can amplify political messages or reframe them in a powerful symbolic way. Experts warn that this type of content could contribute to deepening societal divisions if not used cautiously and responsibly.

For their part, civil society organizations called for elected officials to adhere to inclusive discourse that does not fuel religious or cultural tensions, emphasizing that religious diversity in the United States represents one of its pillars of strength, not a source of division.

This incident reflects the escalating use of religious symbols in American political discourse, especially within the conservative movement that seeks to redefine national identity on cultural and religious foundations. However, evoking the symbolism of the Crusades goes beyond merely affirming religious roots, reaching to the invocation of historical conflicts of a bloody nature. This use could reinforce feelings of polarization and make religious minorities feel marginalized, threatening the social fabric and undermining the pluralistic discourse upon which the United States was founded.

The use of artificial intelligence in this context raises fundamental questions about the ethics of political communication in the digital age. These technologies do not merely convey messages, but visually and emotionally amplify them, increasing their impact on the audience. In the absence of clear regulatory frameworks, it becomes easy to use these tools to reproduce historical narratives in a way that may be misleading or biased, which requires a serious discussion about the controls and standards governing their use in the public sphere.

The varied reactions to the video reveal the depth of political division in the United States, where issues related to religion and identity have become a fundamental part of partisan conflict. While some see these messages as expressing legitimate convictions, others consider them a threat to the values of pluralism and equal citizenship. This disparity reflects the difficulty of reaching common ground amid escalating sharp symbolic discourse, and raises questions about the future of coexistence in a multicultural and multi-religious society.

The Israeli occupation authorities have taken an advanced step towards legalizing the execution of Palestinian prisoners, as the Knesset's National Security Committee approved the draft bill after introducing substantial amendments. The bill is scheduled to be presented to the Knesset's General Assembly next week for a vote in the second and third readings, which are the final stages for it to become an enforceable law.

Sources reported that National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir is the primary driver of this legislation through his 'Otzma Yehudit' party. Ben-Gvir affirmed that the current formulation of the law ensures the withdrawal of powers from the government's legal advisor, which will accelerate its implementation against prisoners accused of carrying out operations against Israeli targets.

The bill carries a clear discriminatory character, as its application is limited to Palestinians accused of murder for motives described as 'national or security'. In contrast, the law exempts Jewish prisoners who may commit murder against Palestinians, which reinforces international and local criticisms describing it as racist legislation.

Reports revealed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office directly intervened to introduce amendments to the original draft to ostensibly soften its severity. This intervention came out of fear that Israel would face legal or diplomatic repercussions in international forums, especially since previous standards were more severe than the death penalty laws in force in the United States.

Under the new text, judges have the authority to issue a death sentence by a majority only, without the need for a full consensus of the judicial body. The law also grants the court the right to impose the penalty even in cases where the public prosecution does not formally request the death penalty for the prisoner.

The law specified the method of execution to be 'hanging', with the task to be carried out by a warden chosen directly by the Commissioner of the Prison Service. To ensure the protection of those carrying out the executions, the legislation stipulated that their identities remain completely confidential and granted them full legal and criminal immunity protecting them from any future prosecution.

The provisions of the law include strict procedures related to the detention conditions of those sentenced, as they will be isolated in special facilities separate from other prisoners. They will also be deprived of direct meetings with their lawyers, as legal consultations will be limited to visual communication 'remotely', with visits restricted to specific and authorized parties only.

Regarding the timeline, the law stipulates that the death sentence must be carried out within a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of its final issuance. The execution process must take place in the presence of the prison director and official observers, in addition to a representative of the judicial authority and a representative of the condemned's family.

The proposed legislation differentiates in application mechanisms between different regions, where the penalty will be mandatory in military courts in the occupied West Bank. In this case, the prisoner is allowed to appeal the conviction itself, but does not have the right to appeal the death penalty if the charges are proven against him.

In other areas, the law allows courts the option of imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment, which prohibits the release of the prisoner in any future exchange deals. This clause aims to close the door on the possibility of Palestinian prisoners being released within the framework of political understandings or exchange operations.

It is worth noting that Israel has not resorted to the death penalty through its civil judiciary since its establishment except in one case in 1962 against Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann. This legislative move comes amid harsh conditions experienced by Palestinian prisoners, with human rights reports documenting the escalation of torture and systematic abuse inside prisons.

The new law does not leave the decision-making authority in the hands of the government's legal advisor, and will proceed towards final approval.