Field and media sources reported the detection and interception of a series of missiles launched from Iranian territory towards the Dimona nuclear area in the Negev, southern Israel. The sources confirmed that air defense systems attempted to counter the missile barrage, which caused widespread panic in the southern regions.

For its part, the Israeli occupation army acknowledged that the city of Dimona was hit by a direct missile strike, noting that sirens sounded over vast areas including Beersheba and the vicinity of the nuclear reactor. This barrage is the ninth launched from Iran in recent hours, reflecting the intensity of the ongoing aerial attack.

In an initial toll, ambulance services announced that at least 47 people sustained varying injuries due to falling missile shrapnel, with one person's condition described as serious. The injured were transported to nearby hospitals for treatment, while rescue teams continue to search sites where projectiles fell.

On the political front, Iranian state television announced that targeting the vicinity of the Dimona facility comes within the framework of a legitimate response to the bombing of the Natanz nuclear facility, which occurred on Saturday morning. Tehran held both Tel Aviv and Washington fully responsible for the attack that targeted its peaceful nuclear program earlier.

According to the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, the Natanz uranium enrichment facility was subjected to a joint aggression launched by American and Israeli forces. Iranian agencies clarified that this escalation imposes a new field reality that necessitates a direct deterrent response deep within Israeli territory to protect Iran's national capabilities.

In a related context, tensions were not limited to the southern front, as sirens sounded in the city of Nahariya and the Western Galilee region in northern occupied Palestine. Sources reported that missiles launched from southern Lebanon fell in scattered locations, indicating potential coordination in military operations on multiple fronts.

This explosion in the field situation is an extension of a widespread aggression launched by Israel and the United States against Iran since late February. These raids resulted in severe human losses among the Iranian leadership, including the former Supreme Leader and high-ranking security officials, which prompted Tehran to intensify its missile responses.

On the Lebanese front, Hezbollah continues to target Israeli military sites in response to continuous violations of the ceasefire agreement concluded in November 2024. Israel responded with a fierce bombing campaign that affected wide areas in Lebanon, leaving thousands dead and wounded and a million-strong displacement wave, the largest in years.

Reports indicate that the region has entered a stage of open confrontation that transcends traditional rules of engagement, especially with the targeting of vital and nuclear facilities. International powers are cautiously monitoring this accelerating escalation, which threatens to ignite a comprehensive regional war whose repercussions cannot be controlled amid continued mutual shelling.

The missile attack on the city of Dimona came in response to the enemy's bombing of the Natanz nuclear facility earlier.

The military confrontation led by the United States and Israel against Iran entered its third week, reaching the halfway point of the timeline set by President Donald Trump to end operations. While field reports speak of tangible military progress, high human, economic, and political costs are emerging, putting the American strategy under scrutiny.

The US administration holds onto a list of military achievements, with official sources confirming the success of forces in destroying large parts of Iran's air defenses and naval fleet. Data also indicates a sharp decline in missile attacks directed at Israel by over 90%, coinciding with intensive targeting of drone factories and ballistic missiles.

On the other hand, American forces were not immune to losses, as the deaths of at least 13 soldiers were confirmed, some of whom fell to friendly fire according to the official narrative. Around 200 other soldiers were injured, while advanced military equipment suffered severe damage, including F-15 and F-35 aircraft, in addition to the malfunction of vital radar systems in the region.

International press sources reported that satellite images showed a US radar malfunctioning in Jordan and the destruction of at least seven air defense sites in several Arab countries. The cost of a single F-35 aircraft forced to make an emergency landing is estimated at around $100 million, reflecting the extent of material attrition in this confrontation.

Washington is currently facing a severe logistical crisis, with ammunition stockpiles decreasing by up to 25%, prompting the administration to ask arms companies to double their production rate. The government has requested additional funding from Congress worth $200 billion to cover the escalating costs of ongoing military operations in the Middle East.

The confrontation quickly turned into something akin to an 'oil war,' as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz paralyzed 20% of global energy supplies. Oil prices jumped to touch the $114 per barrel mark, amidst dozens of targeting incidents affecting oil facilities and gas fields in nine countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, and Qatar.

The war caused a silent diplomatic crisis with Washington's allies in Asia, particularly South Korea, Japan, and Thailand, which rely vitally on oil from the Strait. Observers believe that the US entering the war without prior coordination led to supply disruptions for these countries, causing widespread discontent in Asian capitals.

India was directly affected by the repercussions of the conflict, as it relies on 40% of its oil needs through the Strait of Hormuz, in addition to the impact on remittances from Indian workers in the Gulf. This crisis is considered a blow to the strategic partnership between Washington and New Delhi, especially given the ongoing American competition with Chinese influence in the region.

On the Western front, President Trump sparked a crisis with European allies by calling them 'cowards' for refusing to participate in securing maritime navigation. The matter did not stop there; he also described NATO as a 'paper tiger,' hinting at the possibility of his country unilaterally withdrawing from the alliance without consulting Congress.

Despite the assassinations of senior leaders in Tehran, including the Supreme Leader, the strategic goal of overthrowing the regime has not yet been achieved. Contrary to American intelligence estimates, Iranian cities did not witness widespread popular protests demanding government change, putting Washington in a complex political predicament.

The United States now finds itself facing the dilemma of withdrawal; ending the war without reopening the Strait of Hormuz would be a harsh strategic defeat. In an attempt to break the stalemate, Washington is preparing to send a force of 2,500 Marines, supported by naval and amphibious units from Asia, towards the Gulf early next month.

Forecasts indicate that the upcoming mission for US forces may include taking control of Kharg Island or parts of the Iranian coast adjacent to the Strait. This military move aims to create a buffer zone to prevent Revolutionary Guard forces from threatening international navigation and to secure the flow of oil to global markets once again.

In his recent statements, President Trump tried to paint an optimistic picture, asserting that American goals are being achieved and that the end of the war is very near. However, he placed the responsibility for protecting the Strait in the future on the countries benefiting from it, indicating that his country would only provide technical assistance when absolutely necessary.

Trump concluded his stance with a striking escalation, issuing a final ultimatum to Tehran to fully open the Strait of Hormuz within just 48 hours. The American president threatened that if there was no response, US forces would begin unprecedented strikes on power stations and vital infrastructure deep within Iran.

Trump describes NATO as a 'paper tiger' and threatens to strike Iranian power plants unless the Strait of Hormuz is opened within 48 hours.

Washington - Said Arikat - 22/3/2026

A report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Francesca Albanese, titled "Torture and Genocide," has recently been released. It offers a sharp and detailed reading of what the report describes as a systematic pattern of grave violations against Palestinians, in the context of what the Rapporteur considers an "ongoing settler-colonial genocide."

The report, issued on March 19, 2026, under the symbol A/HRC/61/71, carries serious accusations regarding the use of physical and psychological torture as a central tool in managing the conflict, not only within detention centers but also in the daily lives of Palestinians in the occupied territories. It argues that these practices constitute part of a "comprehensive torturous environment" aimed at exhausting the Palestinian population and forcing their displacement from their land.

Torture as a Systematic Policy

The report reviews multiple patterns of torture and ill-treatment, including arbitrary arrest, physical violence, psychological humiliation, and deprivation of basic rights. It indicates that these violations are not limited to prisons and interrogation centers but extend to military checkpoints, night raids, and restrictions on movement, making the daily lives of Palestinians, according to the report, surrounded by constant elements of pressure and coercion.

The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that this widespread use of torture cannot be understood in isolation from the broader political context, considering it a "structural pillar" in the system of control, rather than merely individual excesses or exceptions.

"Torturous Environment": Beyond Detention Facilities

One of the most prominent concepts presented by the report is the "torturous environment," where torture is not limited to direct practices within detention facilities but also manifests in policies and procedures that impose continuous suffering on the civilian population. This environment includes, according to the report, restrictions on movement, demolition of homes, settlement expansion, and the use of excessive force, creating a permanent state of fear and instability.

The report believes that this pattern of practices contributes to the "dismantling of the Palestinian social fabric" and aims to undermine the ability to resist and survive, serving, according to its analysis, a broader project to reshape the demographic reality on the ground.

Between Torture and Genocide

The report directly links torture practices to what it describes as genocide, considering that torture is not only used as a punitive or intelligence tool but as a means of inflicting organized collective harm on the population. It indicates that this link is based on definitions of international law, which take into account acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific group.

In this context, the report emphasizes that what is happening goes beyond individual violations to reach the level of "state policies," implemented repeatedly and systematically, which, according to it, raises serious legal questions about international responsibility.

Report Presentation in Geneva

The report is scheduled to be officially presented during an event held at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva on Monday, March 23, at 4:30 PM Central European Time, followed by a press conference the next day, Tuesday, March 24, at 9:30 AM.

These events are part of efforts to highlight the report's findings and open the door for international discussion on its conclusions and recommendations.

Previous Reports and Accumulated Context

This report does not come in isolation from a series of previous reports prepared by the Special Rapporteur, which addressed the development of what she described as the "economy of extermination" and "genocide as colonial erasure." Among these reports are one titled "Gaza: A Collective Crime" and another on the transformation from an "economy of occupation" to an "economy of extermination," all of which, according to Albanese, paint a comprehensive picture of an escalating pattern of violations.

Expected International Controversy

The report is expected to spark widespread controversy in international political and legal circles, given the seriousness of its descriptions, especially concerning the use of the term "genocide" and its legal and political implications.

While international and human rights bodies are expected to rely on the report as a reference for assessing the situation in the Palestinian territories, its conclusions are likely to face rejection from the Israeli side, which has consistently rejected such accusations as biased.

The report transcends its documentary nature to raise a fundamental problem related to the effectiveness of the international system in dealing with prolonged violations. While UN reports accumulate and their descriptions become more severe, the practical impact remains limited, reflecting a clear gap between legal description and implementation mechanisms. This gap raises questions about the ability of international institutions to enforce accountability, especially in conflicts where political and strategic considerations intertwine with the principles of international law and human rights.

The report also reflects a remarkable shift in international human rights discourse, where it is no longer limited to describing violations but tends to frame them within major concepts such as settler colonialism and genocide. This shift carries deep political and legal implications, as it raises the bar for international discussion and increases polarization, but at the same time, it may contribute to reshaping the priorities of the international community and push for a review of traditional frameworks for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has taken an escalating diplomatic step by announcing the expulsion of the military attaché at the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Riyadh, in addition to his assistant and three staff members of the diplomatic mission. This decision comes amidst increasing regional tensions, with Saudi authorities giving the Iranian diplomats no more than 24 hours to immediately leave the Kingdom's territory.

In an official statement, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that it had informed those concerned of the decision to consider them persona non grata, emphasizing that this step comes in response to a series of transgressions. Sources confirmed that the Kingdom is closely monitoring diplomatic and military movements that affect its national security and regional stability under the current circumstances.

This decision comes in the context of ongoing military confrontations since February 28, where Israel and the United States have been conducting military operations against Iranian targets. In response, Tehran has retaliated by launching barrages of missiles and drones that have on several occasions targeted what it describes as American interests within the territories of Arab countries.

Saudi Arabia's Foreign Ministry reiterated its strong condemnation of what it described as blatant Iranian aggressions against the Kingdom and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, as well as other Arab and Islamic nations. The ministry indicated that these attacks have caused casualties and inflicted severe material damage to civilian objects, which the Kingdom rejects entirely.

Riyadh stressed that it would not hesitate to take all necessary measures and procedures to preserve its sovereignty and protect its lands and airspace from any external threat. The statement affirmed that the protection of citizens, residents, and the Kingdom's economic assets is at the top of the Saudi leadership's priorities in confronting any military or security escalation.

Saudi authorities considered the targeting of diplomatic premises and civilian objects a blatant violation of international conventions and the rules of international law governing relations between states. It also noted that these practices disregard the principles of good neighborliness and respect for national sovereignty, further complicating the political landscape in the Middle East.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that the continuation of the Iranian approach of military escalation would have extremely serious repercussions on the future of bilateral relations between the two countries. It clarified that the Kingdom rejects the policy of imposing a fait accompli through force, emphasizing that harming economic interests and vital installations is a red line that cannot be crossed.

In a related context, official sources in Riyadh revealed that the Kingdom had been subjected to further Iranian attacks in recent hours, necessitating a heightened state of alert. These field developments confirm the seriousness of the threats facing the region as a result of the direct conflict between regional and international powers on Arab lands.

Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal bin Farhan, had previously stated that the Kingdom does not rule out resorting to military options to defend itself. In press interviews following a ministerial meeting in Riyadh, he indicated that Tehran is trying to exert political and field pressure on its neighbors through its military proxies and direct attacks.

The Minister concluded his statements by emphasizing that Iranian pressures would lead to counterproductive results for Tehran politically and morally before the international community. He affirmed that the Kingdom retains its full right to military deterrence if the threats targeting its security and stability continue, stressing that Saudi patience has limits imposed by the requirements of national interest.

The Kingdom will not succumb to pressure, and we reserve our right to take military action if necessary to protect our sovereignty.

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced a new humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan, following the targeting of Al-Daein Teaching Hospital in the capital of East Darfur state. The organization confirmed that the attack resulted in dozens of casualties, including dead and injured, amid ongoing military escalation that is hitting vital and medical facilities in the country.

The Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, revealed a heavy toll of at least 64 fatalities. Ghebreyesus clarified that among the dead were 13 children, in addition to two nurses and a doctor, as well as a number of patients who were receiving treatment inside the health facility at the moment of the strike.

For its part, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Sudan expressed its strong dismay over this deadly attack. UN reports indicated that the number of injured reached 89 people, placing immense pressure on the already dilapidated health system in the Darfur region, which suffers from siege and supply shortages.

In the context of documenting the responsible party, the human rights group 'Emergency Lawyers' reported that the airstrike was carried out by drones belonging to the Sudanese Army. The group, which monitors war violations, confirmed that the bombing directly hit vital parts of Al-Daein Teaching Hospital, leading to widespread destruction of medical infrastructure.

Field reports indicate that the attack was described as violent and involved heavy weapons, causing damage to medicine warehouses and medical supplies. Informed sources confirm that targeting health facilities has become a recurring pattern in the ongoing conflict, depriving thousands of civilians of their basic right to access emergency medical care.

Despite the World Health Organization documenting the attack, it adhered to its usual protocol of not directly accusing any party to the conflict. The organization limits itself to verifying the occurrence of attacks and their impact on medical personnel and patients, leaving criminal investigation tasks to other international and human rights bodies.

This escalation comes at a time when Rapid Support Forces (RSF) fighters control large parts of the Darfur region, while the army's influence is concentrated in the eastern and central areas. International concerns are growing about hospitals turning into arenas for military score-settling, exacerbating the suffering of populations facing the specter of famine and forced displacement.

It is worth noting that Sudan has been experiencing a bloody conflict between the army and the Rapid Support Forces since mid-April 2023, which has left tens of thousands dead. The United Nations classifies the current displacement crisis in Sudan, which has affected 11 million people, as the worst and most complex crisis in the world in modern times.

The World Health Organization has verified a new attack on healthcare facilities in Sudan, targeting Al-Daein Teaching Hospital, resulting in the deaths of at least 64 people.

Rapid military developments in the Middle East are painting grim scenarios for the global energy sector, as direct confrontations have led to a sharp drop in supplies. Consumers around the world have found themselves forced to pay exorbitant amounts for fuel, coinciding with international calls to reduce consumption to counter the growing deficit.

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz is the harshest blow to the global economy, as the passage of about 20% of oil and liquefied natural gas supplies has ceased since the start of air raids on February 28. This vital waterway adjacent to the Iranian coast represents the main lifeline for energy flowing from the Gulf to international markets.

The damage was not limited to navigation but extended to essential infrastructure, as mutual strikes targeted gas fields, oil refineries, and vital ports. Sector experts confirm that the extent of the destruction inflicted on facilities in the Middle East will require many years of repair operations to restore production capacity to what it was.

The International Energy Agency described this disruption as the worst in the history of the global energy sector, surpassing the effects of the famous Arab oil embargo of 1973. The global market has so far lost about 400 million barrels of supplies, which is equivalent to the world's entire consumption for four continuous days, creating a huge gap between supply and demand.

This crisis was directly reflected in prices, which jumped by 50%, with the price of a barrel of oil exceeding $110, while crude oil designated for Asian markets recorded record figures approaching $164. These insane increases placed enormous pressure on the transportation and industrial sectors, and their effects began to appear clearly in daily living costs.

In an attempt to contain the situation, many countries resorted to harsh austerity measures to preserve their fuel reserves. Thailand imposed restrictions on employee travel and elevator use. In a related context, Bangladesh closed its universities, while Britain implemented emergency plans that included reducing speed limits on roads to save gasoline and diesel consumption.

On the American front, the price shock turned into a heavy political burden on President Donald Trump, who is trying to justify involvement in the war to domestic public opinion. Trump sharply criticized Washington's NATO allies, describing them as cowards for not providing sufficient support for military operations against Tehran.

The escalation also affected strategic gas facilities, as Iran's South Pars field and Qatar's Ras Laffan complex were subjected to missile strikes that led to a halt in production. Responsible sources in the energy sector stated that the attacks will lead to the loss of millions of tons of liquefied gas annually, which represents a direct threat to energy security in Europe and Asia.

The International Energy Agency warned that spending 400 million barrels from emergency reserves would not be enough, as this amount only covers twenty days of the deficit resulting from the war. Financial analysts believe that forced demand reduction is the only remaining solution for the market in light of the severe shortage of refined petroleum products.

Away from the transportation sector, jet fuel prices in Europe reached record levels of $220 per barrel, threatening a sharp rise in ticket prices and disruption of air traffic. In the United States, gasoline prices at retail stations have risen by more than a dollar per gallon since the start of military operations, exacerbating inflation.

The effects of the war extend to the global agricultural sector, as fertilizer supply chains, one-third of which pass through the Strait of Hormuz, have been disrupted, leading to a 40% increase in urea prices. This severe shortage has forced fertilizer factories in India and Malaysia to reduce production or close completely, threatening a catastrophic agricultural season.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned that the continuation of the conflict for additional weeks would lead to a significant disruption in global grain and feed supplies. Since half of the world's food depends on chemical fertilizers, the rise in their costs will inevitably lead to a jump in the prices of meat, dairy, and basic food products.

The International Gas Union calls for an immediate halt to targeting energy facilities and securing shipping in the Strait of Hormuz to ensure the flow of raw materials necessary for the pharmaceutical and plastic industries. Experts confirm that the current situation is no longer just a price crisis, but has become an existential threat that shakes the foundations of the modern global economy.

In light of these facts, the world remains hostage to field developments in the Middle East, where energy, food, and political issues intertwine in an unprecedented way. With the continuation of mutual strikes, fears are growing of the global economy entering a long-term stagflationary recession, from which it will be difficult to emerge without a comprehensive political settlement that restores stability to the region.

This crisis cannot be overcome by saving; what will happen is that prices will rise to such an extent that people stop consuming.

US President Donald Trump issued a stern warning to the Iranian leadership, threatening to target and destroy the country's energy facilities and power plants. Trump stipulated that for Washington to back down from this step, Tehran must fully open the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation within a period not exceeding 48 hours.

Trump clarified via his 'Truth Social' platform that potential American attacks would target various Iranian power plants, emphasizing that the largest and most vital plants would be the first. This threat comes amidst escalating tensions following Tehran's decision to restrict movement in the strategic waterway in response to joint military operations.

Iranian authorities had announced on March 2nd the imposition of strict restrictions on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, threatening to target any vessels crossing the passage without prior coordination with them. Tehran considers this a legitimate response to what it describes as ongoing American-Israeli aggression against its territory and leadership.

The Strait of Hormuz represents a major lifeline for the global economy, with approximately 20 million barrels of oil flowing through it daily to international markets. The closure of the strait or the threat thereof has led to sharp jumps in global energy prices, as well as an unprecedented rise in insurance and maritime shipping costs.

In a related context, the US President claimed that the United States had already succeeded in achieving its military objectives against Iran weeks ahead of schedule. Trump alleged that the Iranian naval and air forces had been completely eliminated, indicating that the country currently lacks any effective defense systems.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that his country is prepared to secure the passage of ships for some countries, such as Japan, if direct coordination with Tehran is established. Araghchi stressed that safe navigation is linked to respecting Iranian sovereignty and ceasing support for military operations targeting national facilities.

On the ground, Iran continues its military responses for the third consecutive week by launching dozens of missiles and drones towards Israeli targets. Media sources reported the most violent missile attack hours ago, targeting areas in southern Israel, resulting in the destruction of an entire neighborhood and injuring dozens with varying degrees of severity.

The office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the current situation as a 'very difficult night,' noting that Israel is fighting a fateful war for its future. These statements coincide with the ongoing intensive airstrikes launched by Israeli and American forces on strategic sites deep within Iranian territory.

It is worth noting that the military escalation, which began on February 28th, has resulted in hundreds of deaths on the Iranian side, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and prominent security commanders. Despite the significant human and material losses, Tehran continues to insist on pursuing its missile operations, placing the region before scenarios open to a comprehensive regional war.

If Iran does not fully open the Strait of Hormuz, without any threat, within 48 hours from now, the United States of America will strike and destroy its various power plants, starting with the largest.

The case of former US Air Force soldier, Monica Witt, has once again come to the forefront of intelligence concerns, amidst escalating tensions in the Middle East. Witt's case is classified as one of the most controversial espionage operations in modern American history, given the nature of the information she had access to.

Witt, 46, held a sensitive position as a counterintelligence specialist, spending over ten years conducting electronic surveillance and complex communications analysis. During her years of service, she received several military decorations, making her a trusted asset within the heart of the American defense establishment before her sudden defection.

Witt's career path began to change dramatically after her participation in an international conference in the Iranian capital, Tehran, in 2012. Reports indicate that elements linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard successfully recruited her during that visit. This transformation ultimately led her to fully defect from the United States and move to Iran in 2013.

Intelligence investigations later revealed exchanged messages between Witt and Iranian entities before she left US territory, in which she expressed a clear desire to join the other side. In one of these messages, Witt clearly stated her intention to end her work and leave immediately, describing Iran as the 'homeland' she sought to return to.

Security experts believe that Witt's greatest danger lies in the extent of her precise knowledge about the identities of American agents and the surveillance and tracking methods used by Washington. This information, according to officials' estimates, enabled Tehran to develop counter-strategies and thwart many American intelligence operations in the region.

In an assessment of the damage she inflicted on national security, Douglas Wise, a former official at the Defense Intelligence Agency, indicated that Witt's capacity for sabotage is very high. Wise rated her danger level between 7 and 8 out of 10, reflecting deep concern about the continued exploitation of her expertise.

Witt's life underwent a gradual intellectual and behavioral transformation that began to become public after her first visit to Tehran, where she began to speak positively about the Islamic religion through official Iranian media. She stated at that time that her reading of the Quran helped her understand the truth away from the official narrative promoted by the US military.

After her temporary return to the United States before her final defection, Witt began wearing the hijab and officially embracing Islam, and actively sought to obtain a permanent return visa to Iran. In 2013, she executed her plan to leave on a one-way trip via Dubai, and has since resided under the protection of Iranian authorities.

Following her departure, Witt faced official espionage charges brought against her in absentia by the US judiciary, where she was accused of leaking highly classified information that endangered lives. Allegations confirm that the Iranian government provided her with all means of support, including housing and the necessary technical equipment to continue her intelligence activities.

With the escalation of mutual cyberattacks between Washington and Tehran, concerns arise that Witt may be the mastermind or consultant behind some of these complex operations. Her extensive experience within the American system makes her capable of identifying weaknesses in the digital infrastructures she previously oversaw protecting.

Monica Witt was born in El Paso in 1979, and joined the military at a very young age after difficult family circumstances, including the death of her mother. She rose through the military ranks thanks to her skills in languages and cryptographic analysis, and served in hot conflict zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Witt remains on the FBI's most-wanted list to this day, amidst mystery surrounding her exact whereabouts or current activities. Despite her absence from public appearances since 2019, the impact of her defection continues to pose a significant challenge to US intelligence agencies attempting to contain the repercussions of her betrayal.

I realized that, contrary to what the US military told us, Islam is not a violent and aggressive religion.

A group of Western diplomatic missions operating in the cities of Jerusalem and Ramallah expressed their strong condemnation of the escalating waves of violence carried out by settler groups against Palestinian citizens in the occupied West Bank. In a joint statement issued on Saturday, these missions affirmed that what is happening falls under the framework of systematic 'terrorism' aimed at intimidating peaceful residents and undermining their stability in their lands.

International missions held the Israeli occupation authorities fully legally responsible for what is happening, considering them the occupying power under international law. Western diplomats expressed their deep alarm at the significant increase in the rates of Palestinian killings in recent weeks, emphasizing the need to rein in 'settler militias' that seek to impose a new geographical reality by seizing land and forcibly displacing residents.

The statement called on the Israeli authorities to take immediate action to prevent these deadly attacks and prosecute those involved in the raids and assaults targeting Palestinian villages and towns. Diplomats pointed out that protecting Palestinian communities is not an option but a legal obligation on Israel, warning against the continuation of the impunity policy that encourages settlers to persist in their violence.

In a related context, official data issued by the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission revealed that settlers carried out more than 511 attacks in February alone. Sources indicated that these attacks resulted in the martyrdom of 7 Palestinians by settler bullets since the end of the same month, reflecting a dangerous shift in the nature of attacks, which now directly and intensively use live ammunition against civilians.

Cumulative statistics since the start of the aggression on the Gaza Strip in October 2023 indicate that attacks by the army and settlers in the West Bank have led to the martyrdom of 1133 Palestinians and the injury of approximately 11,700 others. Arrest campaigns also affected nearly 22,000 citizens, coinciding with widespread demolition operations of homes and facilities aimed at accelerating the pace of settlement expansion in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem.

This violence perpetrated by settler militias, which aims to seize land and create a coercive environment to force Palestinians to leave their homes, must end.

The Arab region has witnessed an unprecedented military escalation over the past three weeks, with official reports counting Iran's targeting of seven Arab countries with approximately 4447 missiles and drones. These attacks were mainly distributed among the Gulf Cooperation Council states, in addition to Jordan, in a wave that began on February 28th and has not stopped yet.

Data compiled from military and governmental sources indicates that Tehran justifies these operations as a response to what it describes as continuous American-Israeli aggression against it. Despite Iranian claims that the attacks exclusively target American interests and bases, the reality on the ground has shown damage to vital civilian facilities, including international airports, commercial ports, and residential buildings.

The United Arab Emirates topped the list of countries most exposed to these attacks, with the UAE Ministry of Defense announcing the handling of intense aerial threats. According to official data, 341 ballistic missiles and 15 cruise missiles were intercepted and destroyed, in addition to 1748 suicide drones that attempted to penetrate UAE airspace.

In Kuwait, monitoring operations based on army and National Guard data revealed the interception of at least 270 missiles and 589 drones. The past few days have seen an escalating pace of attacks, with March 21st alone recording the interception of 9 missiles and 4 drones, preceded by a series of daily targets that affected various areas.

As for the Kingdom of Bahrain, its Defense Force confirmed that air defense systems were on high alert since the start of the Iranian escalation. Bahraini military sources clarified that the total number of interceptions reached 143 missiles and 244 drones, confirming the success of the defense systems in neutralizing these threats before they reached their targets.

In Qatar, Ministry of Defense statistics showed the handling of 206 missiles and 87 drones, in addition to an aerial breach carried out by two Sukhoi-24 fighter jets. Some of these attacks were concentrated around the Ras Laffan Industrial City, the country's energy lifeline, reflecting the seriousness of the escalation on the security of major economic facilities.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in turn, faced successive waves of attacks targeting several areas, including the capital Riyadh. According to official sources, 38 missiles and 518 drones were intercepted, with March 16th recording the peak with 92 drones intercepted in a single day, necessitating the full activation of the Royal Air Defense systems.

The escalation was not limited to the Gulf region but extended to include the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which announced a toll of 240 missiles and drones since the start of tensions. Jordanian army data reported that the armed forces are dealing firmly with any violations of sovereign airspace, noting the interception of 85 projectiles and flying objects in mid-March.

The Sultanate of Oman was the least affected by this escalation compared to its neighbors, but it was not entirely spared from Iranian aerial threats. The Oman News Agency reported that the Sultanate was subjected to attacks by 16 drones on different dates, with several of them shot down by Omani air defenses, which continue to monitor the airspace accurately.

The temporal details of the attacks reveal an escalating pattern, with not a single day passing since the beginning of March without recording missile or drone targeting attempts. This continuous military pressure has raised widespread international concern, amid warnings of the region sliding into a comprehensive confrontation that would affect international shipping lanes and global energy supplies.

Sources indicate that the diversity in the weapons used, from long-range ballistic missiles to cruise missiles and suicide drones, shows a deliberate intention to bypass Arab defense systems. Despite the significant success in interception operations, the continuation of attacks places significant logistical and military pressures on the region's armies.

In a related context, field reports indicated that some fragments resulting from interception operations fell in populated areas, leading to civilian casualties. The affected Arab countries have maintained restraint so far, while affirming their full right to defend their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and citizens by all available means.

Observers believe that this massive volume of projectiles, exceeding four thousand in less than a month, represents a real test for joint defense agreements and regional military cooperation. It also places the international community before its responsibilities to stop this threat that affects the stability of seven Arab countries at once under the pretexts of regional conflict.

In conclusion, the announced figures are likely to increase given the ongoing tension and the absence of indicators of an imminent de-escalation from the Iranian side. Military operations rooms in the concerned Arab capitals continue to coordinate their efforts to monitor any suspicious movements, with official casualty and interception tolls being updated periodically.

Tehran asserts that it does not target specific countries but rather American bases and interests, yet the attacks have caused damage to civilian facilities and resulted in casualties.

The Chief of Staff of the Israeli occupation army, Eyal Zamir, has approved new military plans for the Northern Command aimed at continuing combat operations on the Lebanese front. This approval comes amidst an escalation in field confrontations that began in early March, as Tel Aviv seeks to establish a new military reality by intensifying air raids and ground operations.

Field sources reported that the approved plans include a high probability of expanding the scope of ground incursions deep into Lebanese territory. This approach is consistent with repeated statements by the spokesman for the occupation army, who has indicated on several occasions in recent days that ground operations in southern Lebanon will see a significant expansion in the coming phase.

In the context of military reinforcements, the occupation army announced the completion of the readiness of Division 162 and its deployment to the northern border after being transferred from the southern combat front. This division is considered one of the striking forces that the occupation relies on to carry out additional combat missions and expand the scope of field control in border areas with Lebanon.

Zamir stressed during his military meetings that war operations will not stop in the coming weeks, confirming that they will include the period of the Hebrew Passover, which extends between the first and eighth of next April. He explained that the military establishment has decided to definitively abandon the 'containment' policy that was previously followed, and shift towards a comprehensive offensive strategy.

On the ground, the occupation army admitted that two reserve soldiers were injured as a result of mortar shells fired from southern Lebanon targeting military sites in the north. Medical sources described the condition of one soldier as moderate due to shrapnel injuries, while the injury of the other soldier was described as minor, and they were immediately transferred to the hospital for treatment.

In a separate incident, Israeli ambulance crews reported that five people were injured in the Tarshiha area of the Upper Galilee following a rocket barrage launched from Lebanese territory. These rockets caused a state of alert within the northern settlements, while sirens continued to blare in wide areas of the Galilee.

For its part, Lebanese Hezbollah continues to confront Israeli ground incursion attempts, confirming in its military statements that it is engaged in fierce confrontations with infiltrating forces at the front edge. Resistance reports in Lebanon confirm that it has inflicted losses on the occupation's vehicles and soldiers since the start of the limited ground aggression on March 3rd.

Observers believe that the transfer of Division 162 to the north represents a strategic shift in the distribution of Israeli forces, indicating the occupation's intention to open new fronts or deepen current operations. These movements coincide with the continuation of intense air raids targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut and various areas in the Beqaa and the South.

The region has been in a state of regional turmoil since late February, with the scope of confrontations expanding to include multiple parties in an open conflict. With the Israeli military leadership's insistence on continuing the fighting, international fears are growing that the situation will slide into an all-out war whose consequences in the Middle East cannot be controlled.

The war will continue in the coming weeks, whether in Lebanon or Iran, with the adoption of a new policy based on abandoning the containment approach.

Media sources reported claims by Omani political analyst Salem Al-Jahouri that US President Donald Trump made exorbitant financial demands on Gulf states in exchange for continued military operations against Iran. Al-Jahouri explained that the requested amounts reached 5 trillion dollars to continue the war, or 2.5 trillion dollars if they wished to end it, without specifying the time or place where these demands were made.

In a related context, the General Secretariat of the Gulf Cooperation Council has not issued any official comment confirming or denying these circulating reports about the funding. These developments come at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing unprecedented military escalation, as Gulf states seek to deal with the repercussions of a direct confrontation between Washington and Tel Aviv on one hand, and Tehran on the other.

On the diplomatic front, recent documents revealed a collective Gulf move to request an emergency session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva. This step aims to discuss Iranian attacks that targeted civilian facilities and energy infrastructure in several Arab countries, considering these aggressions a serious threat to international peace and security and human rights.

On the ground, the joint military campaign launched by the United States and Israel on Iranian territory entered its third week, amidst violent Iranian reactions that included the launch of ballistic missiles and drones. These attacks targeted objectives in Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Oman, causing significant material damage to vital energy sectors.

The ongoing military operations since late February have resulted in the killing of a number of senior Iranian leaders, most notably Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and prominent security officials. In return, Tehran continues to target what it describes as American interests in the region, which has resulted in civilian casualties and sparked a widespread wave of condemnation from affected Arab countries.

Economically, Tehran's closure of the strategic Strait of Hormuz caused severe disruptions in global energy markets, with prices soaring to record levels. Economic reports warned that continued obstruction of maritime navigation and attacks on oil facilities would lead to an uncontrollable global inflation wave, putting additional pressure on international powers to end the conflict.

For its part, the US administration added the protection of allies in the Middle East as a fifth and main objective of its military operations, in addition to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and destroying its ballistic capabilities. While Trump demands unconditional surrender, discrepancies emerge in American statements about the timeline of the operation, between those who see it as a short preemptive strike and those who expect it to continue for a long period.

Trump asked Gulf states to pay 5 trillion dollars if they wanted the war on Iran to continue, or 2.5 trillion dollars if they wanted to stop it.

US President Donald Trump has introduced a fundamental amendment to the declared military objectives in the current confrontation with Iran, adding a fifth objective: providing maximum protection for Washington's allies in the Middle East. The list specified by Trump in his recent statements included Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, emphasizing that ensuring the security of these countries has become a fundamental pillar of ongoing US military action.

This addition joins the four objectives that the US administration has adhered to for weeks, which focus on stripping Tehran of its nuclear capabilities and preventing it from arming its loyal groups in the region. According to the American vision, the operations also aim to completely destroy Iran's naval power and cripple the Islamic Republic's capabilities in the field of ballistic missiles, which Trump claims could pose a direct threat to American territory in the future.

US strategy shows a noticeable contradiction in official statements, with time estimates for the operation ranging from a few weeks to the possibility of it continuing for long periods without a specific time limit. While Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the goal is to undermine Iran's security infrastructure, Trump had earlier demanded unconditional surrender as the only option for reaching any agreement, before later backtracking, hinting at the possibility of ending operations without signing a formal ceasefire agreement.

On the political front, narratives within the White House varied regarding the motives for the attack. Marco Rubio considered the US move a pre-emptive measure against a unilateral Israeli operation and a protection of American interests, while Trump pointed to his pivotal role in pushing the Israeli side to act. Amidst these complexities, Trump's repeated calls to the Iranian interior for regime change stand out, despite his acknowledgment of the difficulty of this in the absence of sufficient armament for the internal opposition.

Protecting our allies in the Middle East at the highest level, specifically Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

An Iranian military official issued stern warnings to the United States, asserting that any attempt to target the strategic Kharg Island would immediately lead to instability in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait. Sources clarified that Tehran considers these waterways legitimate targets for resistance forces if its vital oil installations are subjected to any external aggression.

The official, who preferred to remain anonymous, pointed out that American threats starkly contradict Washington's recent diplomatic moves. He noted that the United States had partially lifted oil sanctions to control global energy prices, while simultaneously threatening to strike Iran's most important export centers.

In a related context, Tehran stressed that the dire consequences of any military folly would extend beyond Iran's geographical borders to include all oil installations in the region. The military official vowed to inflict severe damage on American interests, describing the expected scale of destruction as the largest since the end of World War II.

These developments come after Washington announced temporary sanctions waivers to allow the trading of Iranian crude oil stranded in tankers. Observers believe that this American move aimed to calm markets, but the ongoing escalation on the ground may undermine all implicit understandings between the two parties.

Kharg Island, located deep in the Gulf 30 kilometers off the coast, is the cornerstone of the Iranian economy and the primary export terminal for crude oil. Targeting it would be a devastating blow to Tehran's financial capacity, which explains the severity of Iranian military rhetoric and the threat to expand the conflict to include international shipping lanes.

On the ground, the region has been in a state of turmoil since late February, following the outbreak of direct military confrontations, including intense Israeli and American airstrikes. These operations resulted in hundreds of deaths, including prominent security officials in the Revolutionary Guard, prompting Tehran to respond with missile barrages and drones targeting Israeli territory.

The scope of tension also extended to American interests in several Arab countries, where civilian installations and assets were subjected to attacks claimed by or attributed to factions loyal to Iran. These attacks sparked widespread international condemnation amid fears of the region sliding into a comprehensive regional war that spirals out of control and destroys energy infrastructure.

Any potential American attack on Kharg Island would create instability in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, making them targets for resistance.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, expressed his welcome for the initiatives aimed at funding and rebuilding infrastructure and homes in the Gaza Strip, which were included in the plan of the 'Peace Council' affiliated with US President Donald Trump. Guterres affirmed in press statements that the international organization is closely following the goals approved by the UN Security Council in this regard, pointing to active cooperation with the administrative structures established by the American initiative to ensure that support reaches those who deserve it.

Despite welcoming the construction goals, the UN official criticized the project's management mechanism, considering that the US President's complete control over all details represents an obstacle to the required effectiveness. Guterres stressed that addressing the grave crises faced by Palestinians requires institutional work that goes beyond personal projects, affirming that clarity regarding international law and the values of the United Nations Charter remains the cornerstone of any genuine pursuit of peace.

Regarding the situation on the ground, the report indicated a continued deterioration of living conditions in the Gaza Strip despite the ceasefire agreement coming into effect on October 10, 2025. The occupying state faces direct accusations of not adhering to the truce provisions, especially concerning the entry of humanitarian and medical aid and essential shelter equipment, which exacerbates the suffering of hundreds of thousands of displaced people in dilapidated shelters.

Field sources reported that the occupation army continues its daily violations of the agreement through concentrated shelling and gunfire in border areas, threatening the collapse of the fragile truce. The ongoing war has resulted in catastrophic figures, with the number of martyrs rising to over 72,000, while the number of injured has exceeded 172,000, amidst massive destruction affecting nearly 90% of vital and civilian facilities in various governorates of the Strip.

On the diplomatic front, Guterres revealed that there has been no direct contact between him and President Trump since the outbreak of the recent confrontations, but he affirmed the continuation of diplomatic channels with prominent officials in the American administration. The Secretary-General refused to disclose the identity of these officials, contenting himself with indicating that coordination focuses on attempting to align American initiatives with urgent humanitarian requirements on the ground.

In a related regional context, the UN Secretary-General called for the necessity of ending the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, warning of its repercussions on regional stability and global trade. Guterres suggested that the United Nations play a pivotal role in protecting this strategic waterway and that the organization be part of a comprehensive international plan to de-escalate military tensions and ensure freedom of navigation.

These statements come at a sensitive time when international parties are trying to consolidate stability in the region, amidst legal and political challenges posed by the nature of the new American initiatives. The UN bet remains on the necessity of integrating all relief efforts within the framework of international legitimacy to ensure the sustainability of reconstruction and the protection of fundamental Palestinian rights in light of unprecedented destruction.

There is a goal that has been identified and adopted by the Security Council, and we are actively cooperating with the structures established by the Peace Council, but complete control is not an effective way to address serious problems.

Informed sources reported that a specialized judicial body has completed its review of the accusations against Karim Khan, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and decided to fully acquit him. This decision came after a thorough examination of the results of an investigation conducted by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services regarding allegations of sexual misconduct that had been raised against him earlier.

According to available information, the report, described as "highly confidential," was delivered to the office of the Assembly of States Parties, the Court's supreme oversight and executive body, on March 9th. The three-member judicial body confirmed in its conclusion that the available evidence does not rise to the level of proving any breach of duty or unruly conduct by the Prosecutor.

Diplomatic sources who reviewed the report indicated that the judges made their decision unanimously, emphasizing the absence of any evidence incriminating Khan. This report is expected to remain confidential and will not be released to the public, nor has it been seen by the vast majority of the Court's 125 member states.

These accusations surfaced concurrently with crucial legal steps taken by the Prosecutor's office to prosecute officials in the Israeli occupation government. Observers believe that the timing of raising these allegations was aimed at pressuring the Court to deter it from investigating war crimes committed during the ongoing aggression on the Gaza Strip.

In a related context, sources stressed that Khan's acquittal means the continuation of the Court's legal process without administrative impediments related to the person of the Prosecutor. This includes the continued validity and international enforcement of arrest warrants issued against the occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former War Minister Yoav Gallant.

The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court dealt a legal blow to the occupation late last year by rejecting an appeal aimed at halting investigations in Gaza. This decision confirmed that the Court has full jurisdiction to pursue crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, despite repeated Israeli rejection and international political pressure.

It is worth noting that Karim Khan had decided to temporarily step down from his duties last May, preferring to take leave until the completion of the UN investigations. This step, according to his statements, was to ensure the highest degree of integrity and transparency in the Court's work, and to prevent any disruption to the major criminal cases handled by his office.

In messages addressed to Court staff during the investigation period, Khan affirmed his commitment to the principles of justice and fairness, noting that his decision to temporarily step aside was carefully considered to protect the institution's reputation. During that period, Khan faced pressure from non-governmental organizations demanding his resignation, but he insisted on following official legal procedures until the truth emerged.

The International Criminal Court continues to face major challenges, especially in light of the ongoing war of annihilation waged by the occupation in Gaza and its refusal to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. However, the Prosecutor's acquittal restores momentum to the ongoing investigations and affirms the independence of the international judicial body in confronting accusations targeting its leading cadres.

In conclusion, this legal development marks the end of a period of controversy surrounding the person of the Prosecutor, allowing him to return to fully exercising his duties. The next phase is expected to focus on accelerating the pace of prosecutions related to the situation in Palestine, amidst increasing international demands for accountability for those responsible for grave violations of international law.

My decision to temporarily step aside was driven by a deep and unwavering commitment to the credibility of our office and the Court, and to ensure the integrity of the process and fairness for all.

Prominent American writer Thomas Friedman expressed deep doubts about the possibility of improving conditions in the Middle East through the option of militarily destroying Iran. In an article for the New York Times, he explained that historical facts have proven there is no such thing as a 'final' solution to the complex conflicts in this region of the world.

Friedman considered that relying on the phrase 'once and for all' represents a dangerous slippery slope, as military threats cannot be completely eliminated without combining force with a clear political path. He pointed out that this path always requires painful and complex political concessions that current parties refuse to engage in.

As an example, the writer cited Israel's assassination approach against the Hamas movement since the 1990s, where it managed to eliminate three generations of historical leaders. Despite this, this policy did not succeed in ending the movement's existence, which is now led by a fourth generation in large areas of the Gaza Strip.

Friedman explained Hamas's resilience by stating that it is a movement deeply rooted in the Palestinian social fabric, making its military eradication almost impossible. He also criticized Benjamin Netanyahu's government's refusal to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority as a political alternative, considering that this refusal aims to obstruct the two-state solution and maintain permanent control over the West Bank.

Regarding the Iranian issue, Friedman believes that Washington and Tel Aviv are repeating the same mistake by targeting leaders, only for new leaders to replace them in the absence of a unified opposition. He stressed that eliminating the Iranian leadership through airstrikes from long distances will not achieve the desired stability but may exacerbate chaos.

The article warned against the policy of stripping an enemy of their dignity to the extent that they feel they have nothing left to lose, describing this as lost wisdom. He considered that pushing adversaries into a corner without a political horizon will inevitably lead to major explosions whose regional repercussions cannot be controlled.

Friedman touched upon the situation in the West Bank, emphasizing that the settlement policy eliminates the chances of establishing a Palestinian state, which puts Israel in a historical dilemma. Either it transforms into a binational state and loses its identity, or it becomes an apartheid state and loses its alleged democracy.

As for Lebanon, the writer believes that destroying infrastructure and occupying territories will not eliminate Hezbollah as a military and political force. He explained that the only way to weaken the party's influence is through an internal political process led by a strong Lebanese government, which is hindered by ongoing military operations.

Friedman criticized US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's statements boasting about absolute military power against Tehran, questioning the effectiveness of this power in the face of economic consequences. He pointed out that Iran, even in a state of weakness, is capable of shaking the stability of the global economy by targeting energy supplies.

He explained that launching a single drone from a simple truck is enough to disrupt navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and raise oil, gas, and fertilizer prices to record levels. This reality proves that military force alone does not provide protection for strategic interests in a closely interconnected global economy.

The writer described what is currently happening as a 'global tragedy' that will not end with the killing of leaders or the stripping of factions of their missile arsenals. Wars not followed by a political vision turn into a permanent drain on lives and resources without achieving real security for any party to the conflict.

Friedman called for adopting a strategy aimed at weakening adversaries enough to open the way for 'real politics' in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. He believes that pressure should be directed to force these powers to consider their peoples' desire to live in peace and enjoy the benefits of modernity and economic prosperity.

He concluded his article by emphasizing that politics, not total war, is the only way to sustainably and definitively end these conflicts. History proves that military force may win battles, but it rarely creates lasting peace in a region teeming with historical and religious contradictions.

The vision put forward by Friedman reflects growing concern among the American intellectual elite about being drawn into promises of swift military decisive action. The question remains open as to how willing the current US administration and the Israeli government are to heed these warnings before it is too late.

The most dangerous words in the Middle East are those found in the phrase 'once and for all,' because the conflicts in the region will never end, no matter how much the parties pledge to resolve them definitively.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, affirmed that the Israeli occupation authorities are pursuing a systematic and widespread policy of torture against Palestinian detainees. Albanese explained in a recent report presented to the media that these practices reflect a clear desire for collective revenge and reveal destructive intentions targeting the Palestinian presence. She stressed that these violations have escalated sharply and unprecedentedly since the events of October 7, 2023.

The UN report, issued under the title 'Torture and Genocide,' detailed horrific accounts of the extremely cruel physical and psychological abuses suffered by Palestinian detainees. Human rights sources indicated that the occupation has turned detention centers into arenas for collective punishment, away from international oversight. The report stated that this policy aims to break the will of the Palestinian people by directly and continuously targeting the bodies and minds of detainees.

Albanese detailed in her report the types of violations committed, confirming that they include brutal beatings, sexual violence, rape, in addition to ill-treatment that in many cases led to death. She also drew attention to the policy of deliberate starvation and systematic deprivation of the most basic necessities of human life inside prisons. She considered these actions not merely individual incidents, but part of an integrated system used by the occupying state in the occupied territories.

The UN rapporteur warned of the long-term effects of these crimes, as the occupation's practices have left deep and permanent scars on the bodies and minds of tens of thousands of Palestinians and their families. She affirmed that the scale of human suffering resulting from these policies is beyond description and calls for urgent international action for accountability. Albanese also condemned all forms of ill-treatment and torture, focusing primarily on the systematic behavior of the Israeli occupation in this context.

In contrast, the Israeli mission in Geneva responded to these accusations by attacking the person of the UN rapporteur, claiming that she adopts a 'hate agenda' aimed at delegitimizing Israel. Despite these criticisms, Albanese continues to document the crimes committed in the occupied territories, emphasizing the need to protect the human rights of Palestinians. This report comes at a time when international pressure on the occupation to stop its ongoing violations in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is increasing.

Torture in detention centers has been used on an unprecedented scale as collective punishment, indicating revenge and destructive intentions.

Informed sources revealed that the Peace Council, headed by US President Donald Trump, submitted a formal written proposal to the Hamas movement outlining detailed mechanisms for the movement to relinquish its military arsenal. The sources clarified that this proposal was presented during an intensive series of meetings held in the Egyptian capital, Cairo, last week, as part of Washington's efforts to impose new security arrangements in the Gaza Strip.

Nikolay Mladenov, the High Representative of the Peace Council for Gaza, along with Ariyeh Lightstone, Assistant Special Envoy for US President Steve Witkoff, participated in these high-level talks. This step comes as part of Trump's broader plan for the Strip, which aims to end armed manifestations in exchange for international guarantees of the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces and the commencement of extensive reconstruction operations for the devastated areas.

The proposed plan stipulates exchanging the military presence of Palestinian factions for a timetable for a comprehensive Israeli withdrawal from the Strip, and immediately beginning the restoration of damaged infrastructure. According to the sources, these understandings had received initial approval from the concerned parties last October, but the procedural details of disarmament remained the most prominent sticking point in the negotiations.

For his part, Nikolay Mladenov affirmed that intensive efforts are currently underway to secure the urgent delivery of relief aid to the residents of the Strip who are suffering from the ongoing war. In recent statements, he indicated the existence of a consensual framework among mediators that could pave the way for advancing the reconstruction process, provided that decisive decisions are made regarding the security file and arms control.

Mladenov stressed in a message on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr that the option presented to the Palestinian leadership is clear and unequivocal: the complete abandonment of weapons by Hamas and all armed factions. He added that this step is the mandatory path to achieving stability and fulfilling the aspirations of the Palestinian people to live in safety away from the cycles of armed conflict.

In contrast, the Hamas movement adopts a cautious stance towards these proposals, having previously affirmed that any implementation of such plans requires difficult and complex negotiations that guarantee the rights of the Palestinian people. Musa Abu Marzouk, a leader in the movement, had clarified that the circulated formulas regarding weapons ranged between freezing and disarmament, stressing that the top priority currently is to stop the aggression and protect civilians.

The American incentives offered include the possibility of granting a comprehensive amnesty to members of the movement within a final agreement that stipulates the surrender of all types of heavy and light weapons, including individual weapons. This offer, according to American officials, aims to encourage field leaders to engage in the new political path in exchange for legal and security guarantees that protect them from future prosecution.

Despite these offers, observers indicate that the success of the agreement fundamentally depends on the Israeli position, as the occupation government insists on complete and verified disarmament as a condition for any withdrawal. At the same time, the occupation forces still militarily control about half of the Gaza Strip, and have shown no actual indications of their intention to evacuate the positions they have entrenched in over the past two years.

In the context of financial support, reports revealed that President Trump succeeded in raising financial pledges totaling $7 billion from donor countries, including Gulf states, allocated for the reconstruction of Gaza. However, doubts remain about the flow of these funds, as only a small portion of them has been provided so far, which weakens the strength of the economic incentives offered to Palestinians.

On the ground, the situation in the Gaza Strip remains extremely fragile despite the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 2025, as the occupation forces continue their constant violations of residential areas. These violations have led to the martyrdom of hundreds and the injury of thousands, which reinforces the state of distrust in international promises regarding security and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories.

Official statistics issued by the Ministry of Health indicate an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, with the number of martyrs since the beginning of the aggression in October 2023 exceeding 72,000, while approximately 172,000 citizens have been injured. The war has caused the destruction of nearly 90% of the Strip's infrastructure, making the reconstruction file a major political bargaining chip in the hands of international parties.

The matter is now on the table, requiring one clear choice: the complete abandonment of weapons by Hamas and all armed groups, without any exceptions.

International media sources reported that the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Israeli Mossad are in a state of high alert, attempting to understand the current leadership structure in Tehran. Monitoring operations during the Nowruz holiday focused on observing any public appearance of the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who was expected to follow his late father's tradition of delivering a public speech. However, the mystery deepened after only a written statement was issued on his behalf, without a physical appearance.

Intelligence information available to Washington and Tel Aviv indicates that Mojtaba Khamenei is still alive, despite doubts surrounding his physical condition and actual whereabouts. Sources confirm that attempts by Iranian officials to arrange direct meetings with him have failed, which security agencies attribute to strict precautionary measures imposed by the deteriorating security situation in the country.

In light of this absence, the American National Security team is working to assess who is actually running affairs in Tehran, with an American official stating that the situation appears strange and complex. The official explained that the lack of evidence of Mojtaba exercising leadership duties raises questions about who is issuing military and political orders at this critical stage of the conflict.

Joint intelligence assessments had indicated that Ali Larijani, a prominent security official, was the de facto leader and primary mover of the Iranian state recently. However, Larijani's assassination last Tuesday created a new void in Western analyses regarding the center of gravity in Iranian decision-making, further complicating the intelligence landscape.

Sources quoted officials in the occupation authorities as saying that senior Iranian leaders have adopted complex disappearance strategies, constantly moving between unknown safe houses. Reports also confirmed that the Iranian leadership completely avoids using digital communications, fearing tracking and assassination operations that have targeted a number of military and political officials recently.

Despite the existing security threats, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian appeared in a video message for Nowruz, which observers considered a disturbing sign given Mojtaba Khamenei's failure to use this opportunity to appear and consolidate his legitimacy. Analysts believe that this disappearance may reflect either a critical health condition or an overly cautious security strategy to avoid the fate of assassinated leaders.

On the ground, the military confrontation enters its eighteenth day with widespread destruction affecting about 15,000 civilian and military infrastructure sites in Iran. In return, Tehran continues to assert its full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, threatening global energy supplies passing through this vital waterway, which accounts for about 20% of the world's oil needs.

In a related context, tensions are escalating on the Lebanese front, where the occupation army has mobilized more than 100,000 soldiers, coinciding with the displacement of one million Lebanese from southern areas due to intensive raids. These developments coincide with increasing popular opposition within the United States to the ongoing war, with the percentage of those rejecting the continuation of the conflict exceeding two-thirds, according to recent polls.

Missile confrontation continues between the two sides, with Iran launching 'Nasrallah' type missiles towards vital facilities in Haifa, while Hezbollah continues to carry out complex attacks with missiles exceeding 300 kilometers in range. Amidst the strict military censorship imposed by the occupation on its losses, questions remain about the ability of the parties to continue this violent escalation that began in late February.

It's very strange, we don't think the Iranians would go to the effort of choosing a dead person as Supreme Leader, but we have no evidence that he is actually in charge.

By: Said Arikat

March 22, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C - In her latest report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese confronts a question that much of the international community has strained to avoid: whether the devastation in Gaza should be understood not only as a humanitarian catastrophe or even a war crime, but as something far more grave—genocide.

This is not a rhetorical escalation. It is a legal argument, grounded in the framework of the Genocide Convention. Albanese does not claim that genocide has been definitively adjudicated; that is the role of courts. Instead, she argues that the observable facts—mass civilian killing, widespread destruction of infrastructure essential to life, and the imposition of conditions that make survival increasingly untenable—may satisfy the Convention’s criteria when coupled with evidence suggesting intent.

That distinction matters. The report does not seek to replace judicial bodies, but to trigger their relevance. It reframes Gaza from a site of recurring crisis into a test case for whether international law retains any operational meaning when its most serious prohibitions are plausibly engaged.

What gives the report its force is not only its legal framing but its insistence on continuity. Gaza is not treated as an isolated eruption of violence following a single triggering event, but as the most acute manifestation of a system that has evolved over decades. The occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967, the prolonged blockade of Gaza, and the progressive fragmentation of Palestinian life are presented not as background conditions but as integral to understanding the present moment. In this view, the current destruction is not an aberration—it is an intensification.

Within that broader context, the report also documents patterns that meet the threshold of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment: arbitrary and mass detention, reported abuse of detainees, and conditions that strip individuals of dignity and security. These are not framed as incidental byproducts of war, but as recurring features of a system in which coercion and control are embedded practices.

Taken together, the allegations of torture and the analysis of potential genocidal acts converge on a single, uncomfortable implication: that what is unfolding may not simply be excessive force or even systematic violations of humanitarian law, but conduct that engages the highest level of international criminal responsibility.

The political implications are as significant as the legal ones. If the threshold of genocide is plausibly met, even as a matter of risk rather than final determination, states are not free to remain passive. The Genocide Convention imposes an obligation not only to punish but to prevent. This shifts the burden outward, onto governments that continue to provide military aid, diplomatic cover, or political support. The report does not name them as co-perpetrators, but it makes clear that the line between support and complicity is not infinitely elastic.

This is where the report becomes more than a legal document; it becomes an indictment of international inertia. For months, governments have responded to Gaza with a familiar vocabulary—calls for restraint, concern for civilian lives, appeals for humanitarian access—while largely maintaining the policies that enable the continuation of the conflict. Albanese’s analysis challenges that posture by suggesting that such responses may be not only inadequate but legally insufficient.

Unsurprisingly, the report has drawn sharp criticism. Israeli officials and several allied governments reject its conclusions outright, arguing that the genocide label is both unfounded and inflammatory. They question the impartiality of the Special Rapporteur and warn that such accusations risk politicizing international law. These objections are not new; they have accompanied previous UN findings on the occupied territories.

But dismissing the report does not neutralize its argument. The strength of Albanese’s case lies in its method: it applies established legal standards to a body of documented facts and asks whether the resulting picture fits the definitions that states themselves have codified. One may dispute the interpretation, but one cannot simply wish away the framework.

The deeper issue, then, is not whether this report is accepted in full or rejected outright. It is whether the international system is prepared to confront the possibility that its most solemn legal commitments are being tested—and perhaps found wanting. If the threshold for even investigating genocide is set so high that no contemporary case can meet it without unanimous political consent, then the Convention risks becoming a symbolic instrument rather than a binding one.

Gaza, in this sense, is not only a humanitarian tragedy; it is a legal reckoning. It forces a choice between a rules-based order that operates selectively and one that applies its standards consistently, even when politically inconvenient. Albanese’s report does not resolve that tension, but it strips away the ambiguity that often allows it to persist.

The question it leaves behind is stark: if this does not compel serious legal and political scrutiny, what would?

Decision-making circles in the United States are witnessing a dramatic shift in dealing with the Iranian nuclear file, as the issue has moved from diplomatic negotiation tables to a bank of potential military targets. Media reports indicate that US President Donald Trump is seriously considering strategic options aimed at securing or extracting sensitive nuclear materials possessed by Tehran.

Leaked information suggests that US plans focus on the possibility of involving the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most secretive and specialized forces in the US military. These units are entrusted with high-risk missions that require extreme precision, especially concerning handling weapons of mass destruction and strategic materials in hostile environments.

This move comes amid growing international concern, as the International Atomic Energy Agency announced its inability to locate approximately 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. This disappearance followed airstrikes targeting three Iranian nuclear sites last June, creating an intelligence and security gap that raises concerns for Washington and its allies.

For his part, Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, expressed deep skepticism about the feasibility of any limited military action against Iranian facilities. Grossi explained that the Iranian nuclear program is not just a single facility, but an integrated and complex system built and distributed over decades in multiple, fortified geographical locations.

Recent satellite images have detected intensive Iranian defensive movements, including filling tunnel entrances at vital nuclear sites with massive amounts of soil and concrete. These steps are clearly aimed at obstructing any ground attempt to access sensitive materials, making any airborne operation or ground assault a complex and extremely difficult task.

Nuclear physics experts confirm that handling highly enriched uranium requires special equipment due to the weight of the cylinders in which these materials are stored. Each cylinder weighs approximately one hundred pounds and is designed with reinforced casings, making its rapid transport under combat fire an unprecedented logistical challenge for attacking forces.

In the context of military analysis, media sources reported that the Iranian side transferred an estimated 441 kilograms of enriched uranium during recent periods of escalation. These quantities were distributed into cylinders, each 70 centimeters long, which facilitates their concealment and distribution in underground facilities that are difficult to penetrate.

Military analysts believe that the presence of approximately 22 nuclear cylinders distributed in fortified locations means that airstrikes alone will not be sufficient to neutralize the nuclear threat. This reality forces military planners to consider ground landing operations involving engineering teams and nuclear experts, a scenario that carries the risks of a comprehensive regional war.

On the political front, Tehran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, categorically denying any pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iranian officials have warned that any aggression against their sovereignty or vital facilities will be met with a 'shattering' response that extends beyond the immediate geographical boundaries of the conflict.

It appears that the nuclear file has now become the decisive point in the long conflict between Washington and Tel Aviv, on one hand, and Tehran, on the other. With the decline of diplomatic solutions, the probabilities of sliding into a military confrontation that could completely redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East are increasing.

Any American ground intervention to control uranium requires extremely precise intelligence coordination, which US and Israeli intelligence agencies may be banking on. However, the risk remains that Iran could exploit any attack to accelerate its steps towards acquiring full nuclear deterrence capabilities as a reaction to the existential threat.

In conclusion, observers believe that current US trends reflect a strategic desire to undermine Iranian influence and control the balance of power in the region. The coming days remain pregnant with possibilities, as the world awaits whether Washington will risk implementing a 'nuclear seizure' operation or remain within the framework of military pressure.

The Iranian nuclear program is a complex system built over decades, and eliminating it through limited military action is of doubtful success.

A group of Arab and Islamic countries expressed their strong condemnation of the military raids carried out by the Israeli occupation army against military installations in the southern region of Syria. Official statements affirmed that these attacks represent a clear violation of Syrian sovereignty and an assault on the foundations of regional security and stability, warning of the consequences of continuing these aggressive policies in light of widespread international silence.

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Kuwait all stressed that the absence of an effective international deterrent encourages Israel to continue its violations of international law and the United Nations Charter. These countries called on the UN Security Council to intervene immediately to compel the occupation to stop its repeated aggressions and to ensure the protection of Syria's territorial integrity and regional safety from any external interventions aimed at destabilizing it.

For its part, diplomatic sources clarified that the Israeli raids, which came under the pretext of responding to events in Sweida, constitute a blatant violation of the Disengagement Agreement signed in 1974. The sources indicated that these military movements increase tension in the Middle East and hinder efforts aimed at finding political solutions to existing crises, affirming full support for Syria's right to protect its security.

In a related context, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the Israeli attack as a 'serious escalation' that threatens peace and security in the entire region. It affirmed that targeting Syrian sites represents an unacceptable violation of international laws, stressing the need to respect the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to prevent Israel from exploiting current circumstances to expand the scope of its military operations beyond its borders.

In turn, the Syrian government accused the occupation authorities of pursuing a systematic escalation policy aimed at interfering in its internal affairs and undermining attempts to restore economic stability. Damascus affirmed that these aggressions come at a sensitive time when the region is experiencing a wave of turmoil, considering that the continued occupation of the Golan and the exploitation of Syria's internal crises are part of a broader Israeli plan to impose control and dominance.

The continuation of these violations reflects the absence of an effective international deterrent and contributes to the escalation of chaos in the Middle East.

Colonel Talia Lankri, former head of the Israeli National Security Directorate, affirmed that there is a growing gap between public expectations and the actual military reality amid ongoing confrontations on multiple fronts. She explained that terms used by the political leadership, such as 'final elimination' and 'total destruction,' do not align with the complexities of the security field faced by the army.

Lankri pointed out in an analysis published by 'Yedioth Ahronoth' that coordinating expectations between leadership and the public is a fundamental condition for resilience in long wars of attrition. She considered that these wars do not usually end with a swift and decisive victory, but rather with extended operations aimed at weakening and deterring, leading to political settlements that ensure long-term stability.

The former security official stressed that organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are not merely military entities with infrastructure that can be destroyed, but are fundamentally an idea, a deeply rooted ideology, and a broad social and political network. Accordingly, significant military achievements, no matter how powerful, do not necessarily lead to the complete disappearance of these organizations from the scene.

Lankri cited the principle of military thinker Carl Clausewitz, who views war as a continuation of politics by other means, emphasizing the necessity of translating field achievements into clear political objectives. She warned that government promises of 'complete victory' create disappointment among the Israeli public when they encounter the reality that the enemy is still capable of initiative.

Sources mentioned that the political discourse portraying reality as a process of complete elimination of the threat often stems from narrow partisan interests aimed at appealing to voters' emotions. She added that this discourse negatively impacts public trust in the security system, especially when witnessing contradictory field realities, such as the continued intense rocket barrages targeting the Galilee and northern areas.

Regarding realistic goals, Lankri clarified that the objective should focus on inflicting continuous damage to military capabilities, reducing war means, and dismantling the chain of command. She considered success to be preventing direct threats, such as preventing a repeat of the October 7 scenario, and not necessarily completely erasing the organization's existence.

In the northern arena, Lankri identified the main goal as pushing Hezbollah's 'Radwan Force' beyond the Litani River to ensure the security of border settlements. She affirmed that this path requires a comprehensive strategy that also targets the 'head of the octopus' in Iran to weaken the ability of regional proxies to operate and coordinate against Israeli interests.

She noted that military operations in Gaza and Lebanon ultimately aim to create buffer zones and reduce risks to the home front, but these remain temporary solutions. She emphasized that true stability will only be achieved through stable political agreements, as military force alone is incapable of ensuring a permanent and comprehensive elimination of security threats.

Colonel Lankri concluded that victory in modern wars against armed organizations is not a pivotal moment where a flag is raised, but rather a continuous process of attrition of capabilities. She called on the Israeli leadership to adopt a more realistic discourse that maintains public trust, instead of being swayed by slogans that could lead to national frustration upon discovering the complexities of strategic reality.

War is a continuation of politics by other means, and when the government promises complete victory while the reality is gradual weakening, a gap arises that undermines public trust.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed conditional welcome for the stated goals of the 'Peace Council' launched by US President Donald Trump, specifically regarding the funding of the Gaza Strip reconstruction plan. Guterres clarified that focusing on repairing destroyed homes and rehabilitating Palestinian infrastructure represents an urgent need consistent with the international community's direction, but he simultaneously warned against the council's tasks expanding into other political areas.

Guterres emphasized in press statements the necessity of limiting the council's efforts to the technical and funding framework of reconstruction, criticizing any attempts to operate outside this scope as 'personal initiatives' lacking collective endorsement. He considered that deviating from the objectives approved by the UN Security Council weakens the legitimacy of international actions and transforms them into tools for individual control instead of consensual solutions.

US President Donald Trump announced the launch of the 'Peace Council' on January 22nd during an official ceremony held in Davos, Switzerland, where he signed its charter in the presence of international leaders. The council, according to Trump's vision, aims to address major global challenges beyond the ceasefire in Gaza, with his continuous emphasis that the new entity does not seek to be a substitute for the UN organization.

Speaking to media sources, Guterres affirmed that he sees no necessity for this council's existence outside the context of the Gaza reconstruction plan approved by the Security Council, describing it as 'not an effective means of managing' complex international crises. He indicated that current cooperation with the structures established by the council is limited to aspects that serve approved UN objectives, warning against the dominance of Trump's personal vision in managing sensitive issues.

The Secretary-General called for strict adherence to the principles of international law and the values of the UN Charter when proposing any new peace initiatives, considering that clarity in these principles is the foundation for the success of any diplomatic effort. He added that addressing the serious problems facing the world requires integrated institutional work that does not rely on complete control by one party, but rather on multilateral cooperation.

Guterres strongly defended the pivotal role of the United Nations in resolving international conflicts, citing complex crises such as navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz, where the organization can play a role in de-escalation and protecting waterways. He also recalled the organization's successful mediation in the 'Black Sea Initiative' which secured the export of grains and fertilizers, as evidence of the ability of international institutions to achieve tangible results away from individual actions.

These statements come amidst increasing pressure from Trump on his Western allies to participate in securing the Strait of Hormuz and sending warships to escort oil tankers, a request that has been met with rejection from several countries. Trump has accused some allies of 'ingratitude,' reflecting a growing gap between the American vision for crisis management and the UN approaches represented by Guterres at this critical stage.

Everything outside of Gaza reconstruction is President Trump's personal project, in which he has complete control over everything, and this is not an effective way to address serious problems.

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran announced today, Saturday, that the Natanz uranium enrichment facility was subjected to a new attack carried out by American and Israeli forces. The organization clarified that precautionary measures taken previously prevented any leakage of radioactive materials, stressing that this targeting represents a clear violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As the military confrontation entered its twenty-second day, field sources reported hearing violent explosions that shook wide areas in Iran, including Dezful in Khuzestan province, Bandar Abbas in Hormozgan, and the city of Yazd. These developments come amid an unprecedented escalation targeting infrastructure and vital facilities deep within the country.

Media sources reported additional explosions in the city of Karaj in the east of the country and Isfahan, amid unofficial reports indicating that the bombing extended to include Qazvin and Ramsar. These explosions coincided with the sound of fierce clashes in the eastern regions, especially in Sanandaj, the capital of Kurdistan province, and Hamadan province.

On the political front, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that his country is open to any serious initiative to stop the war, but he set specific conditions for it. Araghchi explained in press statements that Tehran does not accept a temporary ceasefire, but insists on a complete, comprehensive, and permanent end to military operations.

The Iranian minister stressed that his country will continue to defend its sovereignty for as long as it takes, as long as the necessity to deter aggression remains. He indicated that the United States has not yet shown any real willingness to resolve the crisis or offer serious proposals for a political settlement.

Araghchi demanded the necessity of providing decisive international guarantees against the recurrence of short war scenarios or repeated aggressions that the country witnessed last year. He also affirmed Iran's right to full compensation for the material and human damages it suffered as a result of the recent attacks.

Regarding international navigation, Araghchi explained that Iran has not completely closed the Strait of Hormuz, but has imposed strict restrictions on ships belonging to countries involved in the attack. He indicated that any ship wishing to pass must coordinate in advance with the Iranian authorities to ensure a safe passage for it amid the current tensions.

The foreign minister revealed the start of talks with the Japanese capital, Tokyo, regarding the possibility of securing the passage of Japanese ships through the strait on the condition of direct coordination. This step reflects Tehran's desire to manage the strategic waterway in accordance with national security requirements and emerging military circumstances.

Araghchi's statements intersect with previous official positions expressed by officials in the Iranian parliament and government, in which they emphasized the strategic importance of the strait. Observers believe that Tehran seeks to consolidate its control over waterways as a political and economic pressure tool in the post-war phase.

On the economic front, technical reports revealed that Iran benefited from the sharp rise in global energy prices to secure additional financial resources. Data from 'Kepler' company indicated that Tehran has a huge stockpile of up to 187 million barrels of oil loaded on tankers ready for export.

Estimates indicate that the Iranian treasury achieved gains of about $8.7 billion as a result of price jumps, without the need to raise current production levels. This financial surplus enhances the state's economic resilience in the face of military pressures and imposed international sanctions.

In a related context, Tehran categorically denied American claims about the existence of huge Iranian energy reserves that could be pumped to lower global prices. Iranian sources described these statements as inaccurate and aimed at manipulating global gas and oil markets, far from the reality on the ground.

Tehran plans to impose new standards and conditions on maritime transport crossing its territorial waters, especially those belonging to countries that impose sanctions on it. The Iranian parliament is currently discussing draft laws that grant the armed forces broader powers in managing maritime traffic to serve national interests.

In conclusion, the field and political scene in Iran remains open to all possibilities with the continuation of attacks on nuclear facilities. The Iranian leadership insists that any political solution must pass through international recognition of its sovereign rights and compensation for the losses it incurred during the past three weeks.

We do not seek a temporary ceasefire, but demand a complete, comprehensive, and permanent end to the war with guarantees against the recurrence of aggression and compensation for all damages.

The American administration is experiencing a clear divergence in defining the ultimate goals of the war it is waging in cooperation with Israel against Iran, as observers have noted continuous changes in the political rhetoric of President Donald Trump and his senior officials. Critics believe that this fluctuation reflects the absence of prior planning for the conflict and its potentially serious geopolitical repercussions in the region, especially with the overlap of objectives between weakening regional influence and overthrowing the regime.

The outlines of this trend began on February 28, when Trump addressed the Iranian people directly via social media, urging them to take control of the government and overthrow their rulers. Trump considered the major military operations led by Washington and Tel Aviv to be a historic opportunity for Iranians that might not recur for generations to come, describing the military action as a means to empower internal change.

In parallel with calls for political change, the US administration focused on the military aspect, with Trump pledging to deny Tehran nuclear weapons and completely destroy its arsenal of ballistic missiles. Official sources confirmed that the plan includes leveling the missile industry and eliminating the Iranian naval fleet, under the pretext of protecting allies in Europe and US forces stationed abroad from imminent threats.

Despite Trump's assurances that Iranian missiles could soon reach American soil, intelligence reports and military experts questioned these claims, considering them to lack scientific accuracy. Technical sources indicated that the Iranian missile program still needs years before it poses a direct threat to the American heartland, recalling the pretexts that preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In early March, the war's timeline began to show significant contradictions, with Trump initially stating that operations might take only four weeks, then later raising expectations to five weeks or more. The US President indicated from inside the White House that forces were ahead of schedule, emphasizing that Washington possessed unlimited ammunition supplies, allowing it to successfully wage long-term wars.

For his part, Secretary of State Marco Rubio presented a different narrative for the outbreak of the conflict, suggesting that Israel's determination to attack Iran unilaterally was what prompted Washington to intervene directly. Diplomatic sources explained that the US administration preferred to launch preemptive strikes in coordination with Tel Aviv to avoid greater losses among US forces if Iran retaliated against a unilateral Israeli attack.

However, Trump contradicted his Secretary of State's statements, claiming that he was the one who pushed the Israeli side to military action, not the other way around, based on information that Tehran was about to initiate an attack. This contradiction in official narratives raised questions about the centrality of decision-making in Washington and the extent of actual coordination between the White House and the State Department in managing the war file.

The Department of Defense entered the fray of statements through Secretary Pete Hegseth, who set purely technical objectives of destroying Iranian security infrastructure and offensive capabilities. Hegseth stressed that the mission focuses on neutralizing the threat of missiles and the naval fleet, without delving into political details related to the nature of the ruling regime in Tehran, which showed a gap in rhetoric between Defense and the White House.

On March 6, Trump raised the bar for political demands to their maximum, announcing via his online platforms that he would not accept any political settlement or agreement with Iran that did not include 'unconditional surrender.' This hardline stance closed the door to any potential international mediation and placed the conflict in a zero-sum framework that does not accept compromises, further complicating the field and diplomatic scene.

Between March 8 and 11, there was extreme confusion regarding the assessment of war outcomes, with the Secretary of Defense describing it as 'just the beginning,' while Trump emerged the next day to say that the war was 'almost over.' When journalists confronted Trump with this contradiction, he replied that the war could be considered to have begun and ended simultaneously, claiming numerous victories but not enough to close the file permanently.

By mid-March, Trump began to soften his rhetoric towards the Iranian interior, admitting in a television interview that his call for Iranians to overthrow their regime faced significant obstacles due to civilians' lack of weapons. This relative retreat reflected a belated realization of the difficulty of achieving internal political change through air strikes and external military operations alone, without an organized armed opposition on the ground.

The US Department of Defense, for its part, tried to reconcile the temporal contradictions through statements by Hegseth, who affirmed that Washington would not commit to a specific timeframe for ending operations. The Secretary clarified that the final decision to stop the war rests solely with President Trump, when he decides that military objectives have been fully achieved, which leaves the door open for continued military attrition for an unknown period.

In the latest developments, Trump hinted via 'Truth Social' at the possibility of ending the great military efforts - as he described them - soon, considering that the objectives are within reach. However, he surprised observers with another statement confirming that he does not wish to sign a ceasefire agreement, indicating Washington's intention to end combat operations unilaterally without making any legal or political commitments.

These ongoing contradictions in the US administration's statements continue to raise concerns among allies and international observers alike, as there is no clear post-war vision. As military operations continue, the question remains whether Washington has a real exit strategy, or if it is drifting behind momentary decisions that change with President Trump's media positions.

There will be no agreement with Iran except on unconditional surrender.

International press sources, quoting American officials, reported that Iran recently launched two ballistic missiles targeting the joint US-British military base on 'Diego Garcia' island, located in the central Indian Ocean. This operation is a significant military development, as the base is approximately four thousand kilometers from Iranian territory, exceeding the previously declared range of Iranian missile capabilities.

Reports clarified that the missile attack did not hit the specified targets within the strategic base, as one of the missiles suffered a sudden technical malfunction during its flight phase, leading to its fall. Meanwhile, a US warship stationed in the region launched an SM-3 interceptor missile to counter the second missile, and it is not yet definitively clear whether the interception succeeded in destroying the target in the air.

The US Department of Defense (Pentagon) declined to provide any official comment on these reports, but military observers see this move as a clear Iranian message about its missiles' ability to reach vital distant points. Tehran had previously stated through its Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi that the range of its missiles was limited to 2000 kilometers, but this targeting proves its possession of technology that exceeds these limits by double.

Diego Garcia base, located in the Chagos Islands, is considered one of the most important military bases in the world, used by US forces as a primary launch point for heavy bombers and advanced military equipment. The base has played a pivotal role in major military operations led by the United States in Asia, including extensive air campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past decades.

These developments come amidst political complexities surrounding the future of the island, as Britain recently agreed to return the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritian sovereignty after decades of British control. However, the agreement stipulated that London would retain the right to lease the military base in Diego Garcia to ensure the continuation of joint defense operations with Washington, a decision that faced sharp criticism from US President Donald Trump.

Security experts believe that Iran's use of medium-range ballistic missiles outside the Middle East represents a shift in regional and international rules of engagement. Estimates from American research centers indicate that Tehran has indeed succeeded in developing an arsenal capable of reaching a range of 4000 km, while Israeli intelligence estimates had set a ceiling for these capabilities at only 3000 kilometers before this incident.

Politically, the report sparked a wave of analyses about Iranian motives at this time, with some seeing it as an attempt to deter American movements in the Indian Ocean. Western circles fear that Iran's success in developing intercontinental missiles could strengthen its negotiating position in the nuclear file, especially with the continued uranium enrichment at high levels that concern the international community.

In a related context, President Trump strongly criticized British tendencies to relinquish sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, considering the base a fundamental pillar of US national security in the face of increasing threats. Trump had previously hinted at the possibility of using capabilities stationed at the base to repel any potential Iranian attacks, emphasizing the need to maintain full control over this strategic location.

In conclusion, this targeting opens the door to questions about the effectiveness of air defense systems in protecting distant bases, and the readiness of joint forces to confront unconventional missile threats. Major capitals are cautiously monitoring upcoming reactions, amid fears of military escalation that could extend from the waters of the Gulf to the depths of the Indian Ocean, threatening international shipping lanes and global security.

The launch operation reveals that Tehran possesses missiles with a longer range than previously thought, as it targeted a location 4000 kilometers away.

US President Donald Trump revealed the American administration's intention to end large-scale military operations in the Middle East, indicating that the United States is very close to achieving its strategic goals. Trump explained that these efforts primarily focused on confronting what he described as the terrorist regime in Iran and undermining its military influence in the region.

The US President stressed that military operations succeeded in completely weakening Iran's missile capabilities, including launch platforms and the infrastructure of defense industries. He also noted that the American strategy included neutralizing Iranian naval and air forces, in addition to destroying air defense systems to ensure the superiority of allies and prevent any future threats.

Regarding the nuclear file, Trump affirmed Washington's strict commitment not to allow Tehran to possess any nuclear capabilities under any circumstances. He indicated that the United States would maintain a military posture that allows it to intervene quickly and decisively to respond to any Iranian attempt to cross red lines in this sensitive file.

On the regional security front, Trump reiterated that protecting allies is at the top of American foreign policy priorities, specifically mentioning Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait. He explained that Washington is committed to providing the highest levels of security support to these countries to ensure regional stability away from Iranian threats.

In a related context, Trump addressed the issue of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, considering that the responsibility for securing and monitoring this waterway lies with the countries that actually use it, especially since the United States no longer relies on it. He expressed his country's readiness to provide military assistance to those countries if requested, considering that the task would be easy after eliminating the threats posed by the Iranian regime.

We will always remain in a position to respond quickly and forcefully if Iran attempts to approach possessing nuclear capabilities.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, revealed the international organization's aspirations to play a pivotal role in defusing escalating tensions in the Gulf region. Guterres clarified that the UN is considering launching an initiative aimed at protecting freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, thereby ensuring the stability of global energy supplies and avoiding direct military confrontations.

Guterres indicated in press statements that the UN is currently conducting intensive contacts with key stakeholders, including the Gulf Cooperation Council and the European Council. These moves aim to build international consensus supporting a comprehensive plan to de-escalate tensions in the strategic waterway, which is witnessing unprecedented tensions.

The Secretary-General cited the success of the UN's previous mediation in the 'Black Sea Initiative,' which enabled the export of grain and fertilizers during the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Guterres believes that applying a similar model in the Strait of Hormuz may be the only way to secure the passage of commercial ships away from political and military tug-of-wars.

Guterres affirmed the existence of specialized working groups specifically established to study the mechanisms for implementing this initiative on the ground. However, he stressed that the organization prefers direct work and close coordination with the United States and other international powers to ensure the success of any future agreement concerning navigation security.

Regarding communication with the American administration, Guterres denied holding any direct talks with President Donald Trump since the outbreak of military confrontation with Iran. He clarified that he is currently content with communicating with other officials within the American administration, without disclosing their identities or the nature of the issues being discussed.

The Secretary-General warned that recent US military strikes against Iranian targets are consistent with a strategy seeking to draw Washington into a wide regional war. He considered that this goal has already been achieved, leading to a complex overlap in regional and international strategies in the Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian arenas.

Guterres believes that the key to ending the current crisis remains in the hands of the White House, where an American decision to halt military operations could open the door to a comprehensive de-escalation. He added that President Trump has the ability to convince the concerned parties that military objectives have been achieved, paving the way for a diplomatic path.

These UN moves come after Tehran's decision in early March to restrict navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, in response to what it described as American-Israeli aggression. Iranian authorities threatened to target any ship attempting to cross the strait without prior coordination, raising widespread international concern about the future of oil trade.

The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for the global economy, with approximately 20 million barrels of oil passing through it daily, representing a large share of global consumption. The recent tension has led to a jump in shipping and insurance costs, as well as a significant rise in global energy prices, threatening an economic recession.

In a separate context, Guterres touched upon the 'Peace Council' recently launched by President Trump, welcoming its stated goal of funding the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. He affirmed that the UN is actively cooperating with the Council's affiliated structures on aspects related to building homes and Palestinian infrastructure destroyed by the war.

Despite this cooperation, Guterres described the 'Peace Council' as a 'personal project' of the American President, in which he exercises complete control over all decisions. He expressed reservations about this approach, considering that it may not be the most effective way to address serious international crises that require institutional action.

Guterres concluded his remarks by emphasizing the need to adhere to international law and the principles of the UN Charter in any peace initiative that is put forward. He affirmed that these values remain the basis for any sustainable solution, noting that the UN will remain committed to its role as a guarantor of international legitimacy despite the challenges posed by individual initiatives.

My main goal is to find out if it is possible to create conditions in the Strait of Hormuz similar to what they were in the past through an international initiative.