By: Said Arikat

March 18, 2026

News Analysis

The war on Iran appears less a reluctant necessity than the culmination of years of political ambition, ideological fixation, and strategic distortion. Initiated under President Donald Trump at a moment when diplomatic channels remained open and were showing measurable progress, the decision to wage war reflects a deliberate rejection of negotiation in favor of force. The assertion that military action represented a last resort collapses under scrutiny; it was instead a chosen course, privileging spectacle and decisiveness over restraint, patience, and the disciplined practice of statecraft.

At the center of this trajectory stands Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has for decades portrayed Iran as an existential threat. By his own account, this concern has defined much of his political life. Yet repetition alone does not confer accuracy. Netanyahu’s framing has functioned less as a calibrated assessment and more as a sustained strategic narrative, steadily narrowing policy alternatives and conditioning allies, particularly the United States, to perceive confrontation not as a choice but as an inevitability that must ultimately be faced.

Under Trump, that narrative encountered an unusually receptive political environment. His administration did not simply align with Israeli security concerns; it amplified them, often discarding the caution and nuance that traditionally accompany decisions of war. The outcome was not a balanced reassessment of risk, but an accelerated movement toward conflict, shaped as much by political affinity and external pressure as by rigorous analysis. In such an environment, dissenting perspectives were marginalized, and diplomacy was recast not as leverage, but as weakness.

This convergence of agendas raises uncomfortable questions about agency and national interest. The resignation of Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, brought these concerns into sharper focus. In his reported communication to the president, Kent suggested that the war was being prosecuted not primarily in defense of core American interests, but under pressure linked to Israeli priorities and lobbying influence. Whether accepted fully or partially, the claim underscores a deeper unease within the national security apparatus regarding the coherence and independence of the war’s rationale.

At its core, the campaign rests on a familiar yet repeatedly discredited assumption: that military force can engineer political transformation. History has consistently demonstrated the limits of this belief, yet it persists in moments of strategic impatience. Airstrikes may degrade infrastructure and disrupt capabilities, but they rarely produce stable or favorable political outcomes, particularly in a country as large, complex, and internally resilient as Iran. More often, such actions entrench the very forces they are intended to weaken, reinforcing resistance rather than inducing compliance.

That pattern is already becoming evident. Iranian domestic politics has hardened in response to external attack, with hardline factions gaining strength and more moderate voices increasingly sidelined. What might once have been an internal debate has been reframed as a national struggle against foreign aggression. By choosing war, the United States has inadvertently strengthened the internal dynamics it seeks to counter, transforming political fragmentation into unity against a common external adversary and narrowing the space for reformist discourse.

Beyond Iran’s borders, the consequences are spreading outward with increasing intensity. The conflict has exacerbated regional instability, disrupted global energy markets, and introduced new volatility into an already fragile international system. Oil prices have surged, inflationary pressures have widened, and critical trade routes, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, have become zones of persistent risk. These developments are not unforeseen side effects, but predictable outcomes of a military campaign initiated without a credible or sustainable strategy for containment.

Equally concerning is the erosion of legal and moral constraints governing the use of force. The justification for war relies on an expansive and highly questionable interpretation of imminence, effectively lowering the threshold for military action. This redefinition risks normalizing preventive war as an instrument of policy, undermining international norms designed to restrain unilateral escalation. In doing so, the United States not only diminishes its own credibility, but also creates a permissive environment in which other states may adopt similar justifications.

Domestically, the war has revealed a widening disconnect between leadership and public sentiment. Many Americans, shaped by the legacy of prior interventions, view the conflict with skepticism and unease. The parallels to earlier wars, including ambiguous intelligence, inflated threat assessments, and unclear objectives, are difficult to ignore. Yet these concerns have had limited impact on policy direction, reinforcing the perception of a decision-making process increasingly insulated from public accountability and democratic constraint.

Ultimately, the most damning critique of Operation Epic Fury lies not only in its risks, but in its strategic incoherence. There is no clearly defined measure of success, no realistic pathway to achieve stated objectives, and no credible exit strategy. If regime change is the goal, it remains unattainable without catastrophic cost. If deterrence is the aim, escalation may well produce the opposite effect, entrenching hostility and inviting sustained retaliation across multiple fronts.

In this light, the war represents the convergence of two deeply flawed approaches: Trump’s preference for forceful, high-visibility action untethered from long-term planning, and Netanyahu’s decades-long effort to frame Iran as an unavoidable target of confrontation. Together, they have produced not a coherent strategy, but a collision in which political narratives have overtaken strategic logic and prudence has been subordinated to urgency and alignment.

Operation Epic Fury is therefore not simply a policy misstep, but the foreseeable outcome of years of escalating rhetoric, political calculation, and the systematic sidelining of diplomacy. It reflects a deeper dysfunction in decision-making, where ideology and alignment eclipse careful analysis, and where the costs of war are treated as secondary considerations. In repeating the errors of the past with diminished justification, it risks becoming not only another costly conflict, but a defining example of avoidable failure in modern statecraft.

Washington – Said Arikat – 2026/3/18

News Analysis

Since its inception, Israel has not acted as a state content with defense, as it claims. Instead, its behavior has been characterized by a recurring offensive tendency, often based on interpretable pretexts to justify launching wars, with a firm understanding that the United States would provide extensive political, military, and diplomatic support. This understanding was not a minor detail; rather, it constituted a structural element in shaping its security doctrine, where the cost of military initiative decreases with guaranteed American cover, which reinforced the preference for offensive action over defensive reactions.

In this context, the insights of Professor Nathan Brown, a political science professor at George Washington University, gain particular importance, as he points to a profound shift in Israeli strategy. According to his analysis, Israel no longer operates within the mix of deterrence and diplomacy that characterized its policies for decades, but has shifted to a more rigid logic based on dominance, weakening adversaries, and preventing their recovery, instead of seeking viable settlements.

Brown believes that Israel no longer aims to end wars or produce stable political arrangements, but acts as if it has entered a phase of "permanent war," where the goal becomes managing the conflict within controllable terms, not resolving it. This reflects a transition from attempting to modify the adversary's behavior to working on dismantling its structural capabilities, militarily and politically, thereby preventing it from reconstituting itself as a threatening force.

Since the attacks of October 7, 2023, the Israeli response was not merely a restoration of the logic of deterrence, but represented a departure from it. Operations have targeted civilian infrastructure, health facilities, educational institutions, places of worship, farms, water wells, and more, as part of an approach based on continuous subjugation. In this sense, war is no longer a means to impose a settlement, but a tool to manage a permanent reality of superiority and control.

Historically, Israel relied on a mix of military force and deterrence to compel its adversaries to avoid confrontation, and this approach partially succeeded with countries like Egypt and Jordan, leading to peace agreements. However, this success remained geographically limited and did not extend to the Palestinian arena, which remained the central challenge.

In the Palestinian case, the threat was not existential as much as it was political and symbolic, given the Palestinian national movement's ability to mobilize regional and international support. Therefore, Israel tried to combine deterrence and containment, benefiting from Western diplomatic cover, but this approach did not end the conflict; rather, it contributed to its transfer to more fragile arenas, such as Lebanon.

Attempts to "produce a deterrable entity" culminated in the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, but ended with counterproductive results, most notably the rise of new forces and continued instability. Even the Oslo Accords were merely a framework for managing the conflict, through a Palestinian Authority with limited powers, without addressing the roots of the issue.

In Gaza, the 2023 attacks constituted a strategic turning point, as Israel shifted from a policy of "controlled containment" to an approach seeking the complete elimination of resistance. This was not limited to the military dimension but included an attempt to dismantle the foundations of life and impose realities that push towards displacement, in parallel with accelerating steps to annex the West Bank. This occurred with the conviction that American support would remain, even if it sometimes took a cautious tone in rhetoric.

This shift was not confined to the Palestinian arena but extended to a broader regional pattern. In Syria, Israel moved beyond limited strikes to targeting deeper areas, aiming to prevent the re-formation of hostile forces. In Lebanon, the approach is repeated through an attempt to dismantle the environment supporting resistance. As for Iran, the goal is to undermine long-term strategic capabilities. Across all these arenas, the logic of reshaping the regional environment by force is being solidified, ensuring permanent superiority.

However, this strategy, despite its military successes, lacks a clear political horizon. War is no longer a means to achieve stability; rather, it has become the organizing framework for relations, pushing the region towards a sustained state of instability.

In this context, the United States appears to be a key partner in enabling this approach, as its support contributes to reducing the cost of escalation for Israel, which weakens the chances of reaching political settlements. Here lies a fundamental paradox: while Israel enhances its military superiority, it contributes to producing a more fragile and complex environment.

Brown's analysis highlights a structural shift in Israeli strategic thinking, where settlements are no longer a realistic option but a potential risk. Instead, conflict management is preferred, despite its long-term cost, which is the entrenchment of instability and the perpetuation of violence as a permanent tool.

The "prevention of recovery" approach also raises an additional problem, as dismantling adversaries does not necessarily reduce the threat but may open the door for more extremist actors. Regional experiences indicate that security vacuums are often filled by forces that are difficult to deter, turning military successes into future challenges, according to Brown.

The decline of diplomacy further complicates the scene, as the absence of a political path means that military operations do not translate into stable arrangements but into repeated cycles of violence. This places Israel's allies, especially the United States, before a strategic dilemma between continuing support or attempting to revive weak political paths.

Internally, the continuation of this approach may lead to strengthening the role of the military establishment in decision-making and a decline in political discussions, with the possibility of entrenching a permanent state of emergency. This may also strengthen the influence of hardline right-wing currents, making it more difficult to backtrack from this path in the future.

Ultimately, this strategy reveals a reality moving towards managing open conflicts instead of resolving them, raising serious questions about the future of stability in the Middle East, in the absence of a real political horizon.

Death has claimed the prominent Palestinian historian Walid Khalidi, who passed away at the age of nearly a century, leaving behind a vast intellectual legacy that led him to be described as the 'legitimate father' of contemporary Palestinian history. Khalidi was born in Jerusalem in 1925 to a distinguished scholarly family; his father, Ahmad Samih Khalidi, was a pillar of education in Mandatory Palestine and the dean of the famous Arab College.

The deceased received his higher education at the most prestigious international universities, earning his master's degree from Oxford University in 1951, and began his academic career as a lecturer at the Institute of Oriental Studies there. However, his national stances preceded his academic ambitions, as he resigned from his position at Oxford in 1956 in protest of British participation in the Tripartite Aggression against Egypt.

Khalidi is considered the true founder of the Palestinian history school that confronted the Zionist narrative with rigorous scientific tools and extreme professionalism. He published pioneering studies on the fall of the city of Haifa and the Zionist military 'Plan Dalet,' decades before the emergence of what became known as the 'New Historians' in Israel, who later confirmed the accuracy of his conclusions.

In 1963, Khalidi led efforts to establish the Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, making it the first specialized research center on Palestinian affairs worldwide. Under his supervision, the Institute successfully transformed into a global intellectual fortress, extending its activities to Washington and Paris, and issuing authoritative periodicals in Arabic, English, and French.

Khalidi did not limit himself to pure academic research but also worked to restore the presence of the Palestinian person and place in history through encyclopedic works such as 'Before Their Diaspora.' In his authoritative book 'All That Remains,' he documented the Palestinian villages destroyed by the occupation in 1948, immortalizing the names of their martyrs and the details of their stolen geography.

Khalidi believed that the conflict over Palestine was, at its core, a conflict over the entire Arab East, which was reflected in his writings on the Lebanese Civil War and the Gulf crisis. He believed that the absence of a 'moral compass' and a unified Arab center after the departure of Gamal Abdel Nasser led to the fragmentation of the region and the escalation of sectarian conflicts.

In his reading of the Arab reality, Khalidi warned against the erosion of the nation-state and the decline of secular Arab nationalism in favor of destructive ethnic and sectarian divisions. In his later proposals, he indicated that the failure to build strong federal or unitary institutions was one of the reasons for the collapse of major Arab projects in the twentieth century.

On the political front, Khalidi presented a strategic vision in the late 1980s calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders as the only possible solution for peace. Although the organization later adopted this vision, Khalidi remained aware of the complexities of reality that could lead to an open conflict with no immediate end in sight, given Israeli intransigence.

Khalidi's approach was characterized by combining Western research rigor with deep national belonging, which earned him wide credibility in international academic forums such as Harvard and Princeton. Through decades of teaching and research, he was able to shift the Palestinian narrative from the realm of emotion to the realm of documented historical facts that are beyond dispute.

Historians believe that Khalidi was not merely a conveyor of events but a maker of history by reshaping awareness of the Palestinian Nakba. He transformed '1948' from a mere memory of defeat into a comprehensive legal and historical file proving the systematic ethnic cleansing practiced by Zionist gangs against civilians.

The Institute for Palestine Studies, nurtured by Khalidi, represented a unique model of successful Arab institutionalism that withstood political upheavals and wars. The journal published by the Institute remained the primary reference for researchers worldwide, reflecting Khalidi's vision for institutionalizing Palestinian cultural and research work.

In his later years, Khalidi remained a keen observer of Arab transformations, expressing his concern about the rise of political Islam and the decline of reformist Arab thought. He believed that salvation for the Arab peoples and for Palestinians lay in restoring the Arab bond as the only effective alternative to confront the challenges of the era and the occupation.

Walid Khalidi left behind an entire generation of Palestinian historians who were educated by his books and methodology, even if they did not meet him personally. His works, such as 'The Pictorial History of the Palestinian People,' remain a living testament to the civilization of a people that the occupation tried to erase from the map and from human memory.

The passing of Walid Khalidi represents a tremendous loss for Arab thought, but his legacy will remain a beacon for all those seeking truth in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Khalidi proved over a century that the pen and the document are weapons no less important than any other means of struggle in the battle for survival and freedom.

History is made by the historian; and Walid Khalidi became one of the great makers of the history of that transformative moment in the history of Palestinians and Arabs: the year 1948.

The Ramat Gan area, south of Tel Aviv, witnessed the death of two Israelis early this Wednesday morning, as a result of an intense missile attack launched by Iranian forces. Medical and field sources confirmed that the missiles caused widespread destruction to residential buildings, while ambulance teams continue search operations for those trapped under the rubble in directly affected areas.

For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard officially announced the launch of a wave of retaliatory missile strikes, in response to the assassination of the head of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, carried out by Israel yesterday. Tehran clarified that these operations come within the framework of a legitimate response to targeting its political and military leaders in the heart of the capital, Tehran.

Field sources reported that Iranian forces used cluster missiles to target the greater Tel Aviv area, leading to massive explosions and fires in vital locations. Shrapnel and explosive warheads also hit the Bnei Brak area, east of Tel Aviv, which doubled the extent of material losses in infrastructure and public property.

Regarding transportation, Israeli authorities announced the complete halt of central train traffic in Tel Aviv due to severe damage to station platforms. A large fire broke out in one of the main train stations after direct missile shrapnel fell, while Hebrew media described the attack as one of the most violent strikes the center has recently experienced.

This field escalation comes less than 24 hours after Israeli raids targeted Tehran and led to the killing of Ali Larijani, who was seen as the de facto guide of the regime since the killing of Ali Khamenei in early 2025. The assassination list also included Larijani's son and his security aide, in addition to the commander of the Basij forces, Gholamreza Soleimani.

In light of these developments, Israel is in a state of maximum security alert, as the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation detected shrapnel falling in multiple locations in the central region. Fears of a widening direct confrontation are increasing, especially with the election of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new guide and the Iranian leadership's vow not to tolerate Israeli and American attacks.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced the start of a wave of harsh strikes in revenge for the assassination of the Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani.

On the morning of February 28, 2026, the streets of Tehran were shaken by the sound of massive explosions, and columns of smoke rose from the presidential palace and other security headquarters. This was the beginning of the comprehensive war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, a war that was not merely a traditional military confrontation, but an attempt to reshape power and legitimacy within the Iranian Republic.

At the heart of this war were two strategic targets: Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the symbol of the Islamic Revolution and the symbolic power of the regime for decades, and Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, the bridge between different political currents and the “living memory of the regime.” Their assassinations were not merely the elimination of individuals, but a direct blow to the symbolic legitimacy upon which the regime had relied since the revolution.

With Khamenei's fall in the first strike, the regime felt an internal earthquake. It was not just an administrative vacuum, but a complete shaking of the revolutionary narrative built on the symbolism of leadership. Weeks later, Ali Larijani's assassination doubled the shock: the new leadership lost the ability to invoke the symbolic capital that connected the various institutions and wings of the regime.

The absence of these symbols not only creates an administrative vacuum but also opens a gap in the symbolic legitimacy on which the regime depends. New leaders, no matter how competent, do not automatically inherit symbolic legitimacy, nor can they evoke the same internal acceptance, especially in a system that derives much of its strength from revolutionary memory and religious symbols.

In this context, the problem of balancing power centers emerges: the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the religious establishment, and the official political structure form a delicate triangle of influence. The absence of a unifying figure to maintain this balance could transform implicit coordination into overt competition, leaving the door open for an unstable redistribution of power.

This loss of a fundamental pillar for the regime opens a window for the internal opposition to mobilize itself and rebuild political bases upon which it can rely in the battle for change. This was not a coincidence, but one of the most important goals of the war: to cut off the regime's continuity and shuffle the cards within it. The new leadership will not automatically gain legitimacy, because the system is fundamentally built on Shiite religious symbolism, where historical figures and supreme leaders are revered and become the focal point of the revolutionary narrative.

This gap is not just an opportunity, but a critical time window for the opposition to reorganize itself. However, its ability to transform from merely a voice of protest into an influential force remains linked to several factors: its level of internal cohesion, the pressure of the security system, and economic conditions that form the crucial backdrop for any political transformation.

After the regime ensures its relative stability and the voice of the opposition fades, repression transforms from a temporary tool into a painful machine of oppression against the people. Initially, the use of the security grip decreases because it is only minimally needed, benefiting from the weakness of the opposition. But with the restoration of its internal influence and the reassurance of the ruling elite, it often tends to strengthen its grip on the streets, using repression more clearly and effectively to eradicate any signs of protest.

This approach, despite its temporary effectiveness, carries a dangerous paradox: every repressive step can lead to the resurgence of the opposition and ignite the spirit of resistance among citizens. Strict restrictions on expression and political movement, instead of ensuring long-term stability, can ignite hidden anger and create new forces capable of challenging the regime.

From here, we find ourselves at a sensitive stage where the United States and Israel may see that the undeclared goal of the war has been achieved. The strikes and assassinations were not merely military operations, but sowed the seeds of change within Iran: undermining symbolic legitimacy, creating a leadership vacuum, and providing an opportunity for the opposition to reorganize itself. At this stage, military escalation may cease, not because the war has ended, but because the strategic goal — destabilizing the regime and shuffling the cards within it — has already been achieved.

In the end, the Iranian regime faces a delicate equation: strengthening its grip to ensure its short-term continuity, or risking opening the door to opposition and internal conflicts in the medium term. It is a sensitive crossroads between the legitimacy of the past and the pressures of the present, between the symbolism of history and the weight of reality, where the fate of the regime is not decided by falling or remaining, but by redefining itself: what will remain of the revolutionary spirit, and what will change under the weight of events? The answer to this question will determine the shape of the next phase — a phase that may be the most precise and complex since the founding of the Republic.

On Tuesday evening, the Israeli occupation authorities prevented worshippers from performing the Isha and Tarawih prayers in the areas surrounding the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. This measure coincided with a noticeable escalation in the pursuit of media crews working in occupied Jerusalem, in an attempt to impose a comprehensive siege on the city and its holy sites.

Official sources in Jerusalem Governorate reported that occupation forces suppressed crowds of worshippers who tried to gather in the vicinity of Bab Al-Sahira (Herod's Gate) on the northern side of the Old City. These forces used physical force, pushing, and beating to disperse the worshippers and interrupt their prayers, forcing dozens to leave the area under threat of arms.

The area witnessed an intensive deployment of occupation police who set up iron barriers to prevent any gatherings, coinciding with the twenty-eighth day of the blessed month of Ramadan. The forces tightened their military measures in various alleys of Jerusalem, hindering the movement of citizens and their access to available places of worship.

In the Bab Al-Asbat (Lion's Gate) area, occupation forces imposed a security cordon, preventing Jerusalemites from entering the Old City, with the exception of registered residents of the area. This restriction led to the emptiness of the streets leading to Al-Aqsa from worshippers, an unusual scene during the last ten days of the holy month.

The blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque has remained closed to worshippers since late February, with the occupation authorities citing current security conditions as a pretext for this closure. This comprehensive ban on prayer and i'tikaf is an unprecedented event in the city since 1967, as religious revival manifestations were absent on the 'Orphan Friday' and Laylat al-Qadr.

As part of the systematic expulsion policy, the occupation authorities issued a decision to ban the released prisoner Musa Fatafta from Al-Aqsa Mosque for six months. Fatafta joins a long list of hundreds of Jerusalemites against whom similar expulsion orders have been issued in recent weeks, with the aim of emptying the mosque of its worshippers.

For its part, the Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate warned of the danger of targeting media personnel in Jerusalem, stressing that the occupation seeks to monopolize the media narrative. The syndicate indicated in a recent report that the attack primarily aims to obscure the truth about the violations taking place within the holy city.

The syndicate documented a series of systematic violations during January and February of this year, including arrests and field interrogations of journalists. The measures also included preventing coverage in friction areas and direct physical assaults, in addition to banning the work of several media outlets active in Jerusalem.

The syndicate considered that using the policy of expulsion from Al-Aqsa Mosque as a tool against journalists represents the peak of targeting to silence the Palestinian voice. It clarified that these practices aim to reduce media presence around Al-Aqsa, especially during times of field tensions and continuous incursions.

In conclusion of its statement, the Journalists' Syndicate called for urgent international action to provide protection for Palestinian journalists in Jerusalem. It stressed that the silence of international institutions encourages the occupation to continue violating the freedom of journalistic work and disregard international laws and conventions.

The occupation's measures reflect an organized policy aimed at reducing the Palestinian media presence and preventing the transmission of an accurate picture of what is happening on the ground at Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The Secretariat of Iran's Supreme National Security Council issued an official statement mourning its Secretary-General, Ali Larijani, confirming his death in an Israeli aerial attack targeting the capital, Tehran. The statement clarified that Larijani was martyred alongside his son, Morteza, and Ali Reza Bayat, the security assistant in the General Secretariat, in addition to a group of escorts, describing them as 'zealous protectors' who achieved martyrdom in a blessed dawn of the month of Ramadan.

This announcement coincided with confirmations from the Israeli side regarding precise airstrikes targeting first-tier leaders in the Iranian regime, where the assassination list also included Gholamreza Soleimani, commander of the Basij forces affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. This operation comes within the framework of a wide military escalation that began last February, targeting the command and control structure in the Islamic Republic.

Ali Larijani, born in Najaf in 1957, is considered one of the most prominent pillars of governance in Iran for decades, having held sensitive positions including head of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and speaker of the Shura Council for three consecutive terms. His political and security role significantly increased during the recent war, especially after the vacuum left by the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei at the beginning of the military confrontations.

Informed sources reported that Larijani represented the 'de facto leader' in managing state affairs and complex negotiations during the past months, which led Tel Aviv to place him at the top of its target list. Larijani had made a rare public appearance in the International Quds Day march a few days ago, in a clear challenge to the security threats and continuous airstrikes on Iranian facilities.

In a related context, reports indicate that Larijani's absence may open the door to major shifts within the Iranian power hierarchy, with expectations of strengthening the influence of the radical wing within the Revolutionary Guard. Despite Mojtaba Khamenei being elected as his father's successor last week, his absence from the public scene and his reliance on written statements increased the weight of responsibility that fell on Larijani in managing the crisis.

Larijani had reiterated in his last statements Tehran's commitment to avenge the assassination of Ali Khamenei, emphasizing that his country would not back down in the face of American and Israeli pressures even if military operations ceased. He affirmed in his speeches that Iran was not the one who sought war, but it would not hesitate to fight it to the end if it was imposed upon it, which reflects the extent of the current tension in the region.

These field developments come at a time when Iran has been experiencing successive strikes since last February 28, resulting in the elimination of a large number of military and political leaders. Observers believe that Israel's 'decapitation strategy' aims to disrupt the Iranian decision-making system and weaken capabilities related to the nuclear program and regional influence in the absence of the regime's most prominent figures.

We will not leave the Americans until we avenge the assassination of our leader Ali Khamenei, and we will not be lenient with them even if they stop the war.

Field sources reported that Israeli occupation police carried out brutal assaults on dozens of worshippers on Tuesday evening, in the vicinity of the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem. These developments come amidst the continued closure of Al-Aqsa Mosque by the occupation authorities and the prevention of entry since February 28th, forcing residents to pray in streets and public squares.

The sources stated that a group of worshippers gathered in the Bab Al-Sahira area, one of the main gates of the Old City, to perform the Isha prayer. At that time, police officers demanded them to move to an adjacent square, claiming to organize the place. However, the forces surprised them with a coordinated attack immediately after they began praying, resulting in injuries and chaos in the area.

In a related context, occupation forces intensified their repressive measures to prevent Tarawih prayers in several Jerusalem neighborhoods, with reinforced units deployed around Bab Al-Amoud, Bab Al-Sahira, and near Al-Rashidiya School. These forces pursued worshippers and forced them under threat to leave the squares, preventing any religious gatherings in the area surrounding the city's historic wall.

Local reports indicated that the occupation army deployed additional reinforcements to force worshippers towards the Wadi Al-Joz neighborhood, in an attempt to disperse gatherings and prevent worshippers from reaching points near Al-Aqsa Mosque. These practices included field pursuits and restrictions on residents passing through the area, which increased popular tension in the occupied capital.

The entrance to the Friday market witnessed significant security tension after occupation forces heavily fired tear gas canisters at citizens, resulting in cases of suffocation and stampedes. These military measures aim to empty the area of Palestinian presence and consolidate the imposed closure on Islamic holy sites, especially during times when worshippers gather.

Occupied Jerusalem is experiencing a continuous military siege, with the Old City and its surroundings transformed into a military barracks due to checkpoints and inspection points. These intensifications continue to deprive thousands of Palestinians of their natural right to access the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, amidst warnings of an escalation of the situation due to the continuation of these violations.

Dozens of police officers surprised worshippers with a violent attack immediately after they began performing prayers in the square they were directed to.

The publication by Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of an official photo of himself during the moment of approving assassination operations deep inside Iran has sparked a wide wave of political analyses. This controversy arose after a book titled 'Guests of the Ayatollah' was spotted in the background of the photo, which observers considered an indirect political message whose dimensions go beyond merely documenting a military field event.

This symbolic appearance coincided with the announcement by the Israeli occupation Minister of War, Yoav Gallant, of the killing of prominent Iranian official Ali Larijani in intense airstrikes targeting sites in the heart of the capital, Tehran. Reports confirmed that the attack also resulted in the elimination of high-ranking leaders, including Basij Forces Commander Gholamreza Soleimani and his deputy Qassem Qaisari, reflecting the magnitude of the intelligence and military strike.

The targeting was not limited to the Iranian side only but also included the prominent leader of the Islamic Jihad movement, Akram al-Ajouri, who was present in the Iranian capital. These synchronized operations solidify a new reality of direct and open confrontation between the occupation and Tehran, transcending the traditional rules of engagement that prevailed in recent years.

In an analytical reading of what lies behind the photo, media sources indicated that the choice to place the book 'Guests of the Ayatollah' was not accidental but a deliberate act carrying deep historical connotations. The book documents the incident of the storming of the American embassy in Tehran in 1979 and the detention of diplomats, a moment that constituted the major break between Iran and the West and established the legitimacy of the current regime.

Analysts believe that the message Netanyahu wanted to convey lies in linking the current military operations to the roots of the conflict that began with the Iranian Revolution. This اشاره suggests that the current targeting of first-tier leaders may pave the way for a path aimed at bringing about a radical change in the structure of the Iranian political system, by recalling the memory of its initial foundational crises.

It is worth noting that 'Guests of the Ayatollah' by journalist Mark Bowden provides a detailed narrative of the 444 days American hostages spent in captivity, highlighting the ideological shifts in the region. This documentary work has today become a tool in psychological and political warfare, used to indicate that the historical cycle that began in the seventies may be approaching its end.

The appearance of the book 'Guests of the Ayatollah' behind Netanyahu was not a coincidence, but carries deliberate political connotations that require scrutiny to be noticed.

The Israeli occupation authorities announced on Tuesday a decision to suspend the entry of relief aid supervised by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) from Egyptian territories into the Gaza Strip. This decision came under the pretext of detecting what it described as an attempt to smuggle prohibited materials within humanitarian shipments. The occupation authorities stipulated that the international organization provide the results of an official and detailed investigation before resuming permission for its supplies to pass.

The Coordinator of Government Activities in the Palestinian Territories (COGAT) explained that the measure was taken following allegations of seizing quantities of tobacco and nicotine hidden inside aid shipments coordinated through UNICEF at the Kerem Shalom crossing. This development comes at a sensitive time when the Strip is suffering from a severe shortage of basic materials, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis faced by the besieged population.

For its part, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that relief movements through the Kerem Shalom crossing face strict restrictions and continuous obstacles that prevent the arrival of essential supplies. UN sources indicated that relief teams have recently been able to bring in only limited quantities of fuel, while the rest of the vital needs remain stalled due to complex Israeli procedures at the only currently available crossing.

Amid the continued closure of the Rafah and 'Zikim' crossings, international pressure on the occupation authorities to open additional crossings and facilitate the flow of urgent humanitarian aid is increasing. International officials warned of the dangers facing civilians as a result of continued shelling and raids on residential areas, emphasizing the need to adhere to international humanitarian law, which mandates the protection of civilian infrastructure and ensuring unimpeded access to relief.

In a related context, UNRWA revealed the deteriorating living conditions of approximately 73,000 Palestinian refugees currently residing in overcrowded shelters belonging to it within the Strip. The agency explained that schools that were not completely destroyed have been converted into temporary shelters for displaced families, forcing educational staff to search for alternative and simple spaces to continue the educational process for children under these harsh conditions.

The ban will continue until the UN organization provides the findings of a comprehensive investigation and an official response regarding this matter.

Anticipation is growing in the Gaza Strip among thousands of injured and sick individuals awaiting the reopening of the Rafah land crossing, following a period of severe closure that has exacerbated the suffering of critical cases. Field estimates indicate that waiting lists include over 20,000 Palestinians in urgent need of travel for treatment abroad, especially with the continued deterioration of security and political conditions that have negatively impacted movement through border crossings.

Informed sources reported that Israeli occupation authorities have expressed their intention to partially reopen the crossing for individual movement starting next Wednesday. Those stranded in the Strip have high hopes that the new mechanism will allow hundreds of cases to exit daily, overcoming previous failures that permitted only a very limited number of passages, disproportionate to the scale of the health catastrophe experienced by the population.

In a related context, cancer and tumor patients in the remaining treatment centers in Gaza suffer from harsh conditions, lacking the most basic medical care, chemotherapy drugs, and supportive services. Field sources confirmed that the health system is in a state of near-total collapse due to continuous targeting and siege, turning medical beds into mere waiting areas without providing real treatment protocols to save the lives of those affected.

Sources quoted patient Manal Zagout, one of the cancer sufferers, as saying that the hope that emerged weeks ago with the opening of the crossing quickly dissipated after the recent military escalation, leading to a decline in chances of survival. Zagout explained that patients are currently forced to use alternative, non-specialized types of medication in a desperate attempt to cope with their pain amid the absence of available treatment options within the besieged Strip.

The continued closure of crossings and the deprivation of Gazans' right to treatment and medicine come as part of the occupation's policy of restriction, which disregards humanitarian obligations and truce requirements. Human rights activists and medical bodies appeal to the international community to pressure for the sustainable flow of medical aid and the exit of the injured, away from military complexities that put the lives of thousands at stake.

Our chances of exiting, whether for survival or treatment, have diminished, and we are classified as life-saving cases in the absence of health services.

The intensity of criticism directed at the Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has escalated, with observers and military analysts accusing it of launching a systematic misinformation campaign regarding the true military capabilities of Lebanese Hezbollah. These criticisms come at a time when the party continues to launch intensive missile barrages towards northern settlements, disproving the official narrative that promoted the end of the threat.

Security sources reported that the government, which is now run by one person and a group of loyalists, made a grave error in estimating the numbers related to the party's arsenal. The sources clarified that the political leadership chose to present 'half-truths' to the public, focusing on tactical achievements while deliberately concealing the failure to curb the party's rapid recovery capability.

Despite the strong blows Israel dealt to the party's infrastructure in southern Lebanon during 2024, and the assassination of prominent leaders, professional estimates indicate that the organization has not been eliminated. The party still retains thousands of long-range missiles and command and control capabilities that enable it to accurately target the Israeli interior.

Reports indicate that Iran and Hezbollah exploited periods of relative calm to reorganize their ranks and develop new tactics to conceal launch platforms north of the Litani River. This preparation enabled them to launch coordinated attacks, which is currently being translated on the ground through the daily fall of hundreds of missiles on the Galilee and surrounding areas.

Israeli media sources criticized the insistence of political figures on using resonant phrases such as 'absolute victory' and 'decisive blow'. They considered that these terms aim to create a false sense of deterrence capability, while the reality on the ground proves that the party still holds the initiative in the ongoing war of attrition.

It appears that Israeli public opinion has begun to lose confidence in these assessments, especially with Hezbollah's continued ability to launch a heavy barrage of missiles at any time it chooses. Analysts believe that Netanyahu's political interest requires promoting an image of 'the victor' to escape the repercussions of previous failures that occurred in confronting Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Military sources confirmed that there is a stark contradiction between the government's narrative claiming 'deterring Hezbollah' and the reality that witnesses a gradual paralysis of life in the north. While the party was tactically weakened in border villages, it maintained its strategic capabilities, which pose an existential threat to settlements far from the border.

Professional reading of the scene indicates that the high command in Tel Aviv was aware of the size of the remaining arsenal with the party, but preferred to manage a misleading 'political narrative'. The aim was to show quick achievements to the public and postpone the inevitable confrontation with the bitter truth that the residents of the north live daily.

Observers described the mini-security cabinet as having turned into a mere 'tool' in the hands of the prime minister, where hardly any member dares to express an opinion contrary to the official narrative. This singularity in decision-making led to the creation of a 'virtual reality' that clashed with the rock of complex Lebanese reality and continuous field surprises.

Criticism also extended to the method of budget management, where billions of dollars were allocated for objectives described as 'illusory' and not serving the real war effort. Analysts considered that building strategies on 'self-deception' makes Israel vulnerable to repeated surprises from enemies who still possess the ability to attack.

Israel is currently suffering from the absence of a clear 'exit plan' on any of the ignited fronts, which plunges it into an endless cycle of fighting without specific political goals. This confusion reflects a deliberate detachment from reality by the political leadership that prioritizes its own interests over the security of the settlers.

Experts believe that Israel historically was not prepared to fight long wars of attrition, and always sought to resolve battles quickly and decisively. However, current policies are pushing the state towards long-term attrition that destabilizes internal stability and exhausts both the economy and the army.

External considerations and political pressures within the government coalition have become the primary driver of military decisions, far from accurate intelligence assessments. This approach has led to an erosion of trust between the public and the leadership, especially in light of the continued fall of missiles and the government's failure to return northern residents to their homes.

In conclusion, the question remains about how long this misleading narrative can continue before reality fully imposes itself. Field facts indicate that the confrontation with Hezbollah is far from decisive, and the prices Israel will pay in the future may be very high.

The Israeli government chose to inform the public of only part of the picture, showing achievements and hiding weaknesses in the face of Hezbollah's recovery rate.

International media sources have revealed American diplomatic moves aimed at involving the Syrian state in the process of disarming Hezbollah within Lebanese territory. Reports, citing five informed sources, stated that Washington presented a proposal to Damascus that includes sending Syrian military forces to the eastern Lebanon region to assist in stripping the party of its military arsenal.

Data indicates that the Syrian government is dealing with this American offer with extreme caution, showing clear hesitation to engage directly in this mission. The Syrian leadership fears that this step could draw the country into a broader regional confrontation, or cause an explosion of internal sectarian tensions that are difficult to control at present.

The proposal, conveyed through communication channels between officials from both countries, was first put forward last year before being reactivated with the escalation of military confrontations in the region. Syrian sources and informed officials confirmed that the discussions took place in complete secrecy due to the extreme political sensitivity of the issue and its repercussions on regional alliances.

In a related context, Western intelligence sources confirmed that Washington strongly re-tabled the idea concurrently with the outbreak of direct confrontation between the United States and Israel on one hand, and Iran on the other. This move aims to tighten the noose on Tehran's proxies in the region, foremost among them Hezbollah, which is facing unprecedented pressures at both local and international levels.

On the Lebanese side, the government, headed by Nawaf Salam, took decisive decisions that included an immediate ban on all security and military activities affiliated with Hezbollah. The government decision also obligated the party to hand over its weapons to the state, a step that reflects a radical shift in the official Lebanese stance towards the party's weapons, which has been a subject of controversy for decades.

These political developments came in the wake of a significant field escalation, where Hezbollah launched barrages of rockets and drones towards Israeli targets. This response came after the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and the subsequent intensive Israeli raids that targeted various locations deep inside Lebanese territory.

On the ground, the Israeli occupation army continues to launch a series of violent raids that have affected wide areas in Lebanon, causing severe human and material losses. According to data from the Lebanese Ministry of Health, the death toll from the aggression since the beginning of March has risen to hundreds of martyrs and thousands of injured, amidst a severe deterioration in humanitarian conditions.

For its part, a leading source in Hezbollah stated that the party's fighters are engaged in fierce battles on the border using advanced combat methods aimed at depleting the occupation forces. The source explained that the party possesses changing tools in the field confrontation, stressing that any Israeli attempt to expand the military operation will be met with harsh and unexpected responses.

The leading source in the party criticized the recent Lebanese government's directives, considering that the demand for disarmament at this time represents an alignment with the objectives of the aggression. He affirmed that the party categorically rejects the principle of negotiation under military pressure, calling on the Lebanese authorities to uphold the country's rights and demand an immediate cessation of Israeli raids instead of making security concessions.

As part of the new administrative procedures, the Lebanese authorities issued an official decision prohibiting the use of the term 'resistance' to refer to Hezbollah in official correspondence and statements. This measure reinforces the new government approach aimed at ending the party's special military status and integrating all forces under the authority of the state and law.

Negotiating under fire is unacceptable for the party, and the Lebanese state must demand a halt to the aggression instead of making concessions.

Hebrew press reports indicated today, Tuesday, that the ground operation being carried out by the Israeli occupation army in southern Lebanon does not include, among its realistic objectives, completely preventing rocket fire. Sources clarified that the military leadership realizes that the ground maneuver, no matter how extensive, will not end the threat of rocket barrages targeting Israeli territory.

According to "Haaretz" newspaper, the fundamental goal of the ground movement is to remove Hezbollah elements from the border area and dismantle their close-range offensive capabilities. Through this step, the army seeks to thwart any potential plans by the party to carry out ground incursions into the occupied territories or launch anti-tank missiles directly.

These military assessments come at a time when political pressures are escalating within the Knesset and the Israeli government to expand the scope of fighting. Extremist ministers are demanding a comprehensive ground operation that guarantees a complete ceasefire, which the army views as a difficult goal to achieve through military means alone, given the region's geography.

Sources indicated that Hezbollah still maintains a huge military arsenal estimated at about 15,000 rockets and drones, despite intensive strikes. The majority of this arsenal consists of medium-range rockets reaching up to 50 kilometers, in addition to hundreds of high-quality long-range rockets that can threaten all areas.

Regarding field positioning, occupation forces began to penetrate the second line of Lebanese villages located south of the border. This movement aims to destroy the military infrastructure and weapons depots that the party has established over the years in both open and built-up areas.

Estimates within the defense establishment suggest that permanent stability in the north will not be achieved through a long military presence inside Lebanese territory. These circles believe that the only solution lies in a political settlement that includes negotiations with the Lebanese government to strengthen the role of its army in the south.

Despite the occupation's focus on the Iranian front as a primary arena, the army is preparing for the possibility of Lebanon becoming the central arena for fighting. The Northern Command has begun to significantly reinforce its forces in anticipation of the confrontation developing into a long-term war of attrition or a further expansion of operations.

The occupation army is currently seeking to return to the pattern of operations that prevailed before November 2024, where forces operated more freely in areas south of the Litani. This tactic aims to inflict the maximum possible damage on Hezbollah's defense system before entering into any political negotiations.

Reports stressed that the military leadership does not intend, at the current stage, to re-establish a permanent security zone inside Lebanon, as was the case previously. Plans for troop deployment are designed to allow field units to withdraw quickly once a political decision is issued in this regard, to avoid getting bogged down in the Lebanese quagmire.

In a related context, military officials tried to downplay the severity of Army Minister Yisrael Katz's statements in which he spoke of a large-scale operation. Sources clarified that the currently adopted plans remain within the scope of a "limited entry" aimed at protecting border settlements and destroying nearby weapons depots.

The Israeli government faces increasing criticism about the feasibility of the ground operation if it does not lead to the safe return of northern residents to their homes. Observers believe that the continued fall of rockets weakens the official narrative about the success of the military operation in achieving its stated goals for the Israeli public.

Reports also noted that the biggest challenge lies in the anti-tank missiles targeting residential areas near the border fence. The current ground operation is an attempt to create a belt that prevents direct visibility and precise targeting of these communities by Hezbollah fighters.

Tension remains dominant amidst the continued Israeli military buildup on the northern front and ongoing intense air raids. Political circles are awaiting whether these military pressures will actually push the parties towards the negotiating table or lead to a wider regional explosion.

In conclusion, field data confirm that the occupation army balances its desire to deliver a decisive blow to Hezbollah with its fears of getting involved in a long-term occupation. The effectiveness of this strategy remains dependent on the party's ability to withstand and continue launching rocket barrages into the interior.

The army believes that the ground operation may reduce rocket fire, but it will not be able to prevent it completely.

Washington – Said Arikat – 3/17/2026

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center in the United States, announced his immediate resignation from his position in a letter addressed to President Donald Trump, in which he expressed his categorical rejection of the continuation of the American war in Iran, considering it to lack direct security justification and to represent a deviation from the principles upon which the administration's foreign policy was founded.

In his letter, the resigning official stated that he could no longer "in good faith" support the ongoing war, asserting that Iran "did not pose an imminent threat" to the United States. He added that the decision to engage in the war was a result of Israeli pressure and the influence of pro-Israel lobbies within the United States, in an explicit accusation of external factors influencing American decision-making.

He pointed out that he had been a supporter of the policies adopted by Trump during his election campaigns and in his first term, which focused on the principle of "America First" and avoiding entanglement in long wars in the Middle East. He noted that the President, until mid-2025, understood that these wars drained American lives and resources without achieving tangible strategic gains.

The former official reviewed what he considered previous successes of the administration in using military force in a "decisive and limited" manner, citing the operation to kill Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, as well as the defeat of ISIS, as examples of avoiding being drawn into open conflicts.

In a scathing critique, he spoke of a "disinformation campaign" led by high-ranking Israeli officials alongside influential figures in the American media, which he said contributed to undermining the "America First" approach and pushing the administration towards war. He considered this campaign to have portrayed Iran as an imminent threat and promoted the idea of achieving a "quick victory," which he described as "deception" similar to what happened before the Iraq War.

The official affirmed that, as a military serviceman who served in 11 combat missions, and as a husband who lost his wife in a war he described as "fabricated," he cannot support sending a new generation of Americans to a war that does not serve the interests of the American people and does not justify its human cost.

He concluded his letter by calling on the President to reconsider the current course, warning that the continuation of the war could lead the United States towards "decline and chaos," and emphasizing that the decision to change direction still rests with the President.

This resignation reveals a crisis of confidence within American national security institutions regarding the definition of an "imminent threat." This concept has long been used to justify military interventions, but in this case, it is being challenged from within the system itself. This raises questions about the mechanisms of intelligence decision-making and the extent to which they are affected by political considerations or external pressures. It also reflects the division between professional assessment and political decision, a division that could erode the credibility of institutions in the eyes of the public and weaken the administration's ability to rally domestic and international support for any future military action.

The resigning official's reference to the role of Israel and its lobbies opens a sensitive door in the American debate about the influence of allies on sovereign policies. While the American-Israeli partnership is a strategic pillar, such accusations reflect growing concern that this influence is exceeding its natural limits. It also highlights the role of the media in shaping an environment supportive of war, raising questions about the independence of media discourse. This debate could deepen internal divisions and re-raise the question of who determines national security priorities: institutions, allies, or a complex mix of both.

The letter evokes the specter of the Iraq War as a cautionary example against repeating mistakes, a recall with deep political and moral implications. Long wars in the Middle East have had a profound impact on American society, in terms of human losses and economic costs. Re-engaging in a new conflict could reopen these wounds, especially in the absence of a clear national consensus. Furthermore, linking the current decision to past experiences reinforces the narrative of strategic failure and places the administration before a difficult test between continuation or retreat, with all the domestic and foreign consequences that both options entail.

US President Donald Trump expressed his strong displeasure with the stance of the United States' allies in NATO, indicating that Washington had received official notifications from most of them stating their unwillingness to engage in ongoing military operations against Iran. Trump affirmed that this stance extends to other allies outside the Atlantic Alliance, such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea, who in turn rejected American requests for assistance.

In a post on 'Truth Social', Trump downplayed the operational significance of this rejection, claiming that US forces had achieved significant military successes that made them independent of NATO countries' assistance. He clarified that he had not wanted that assistance in the first place, although he later described the allies' stance as unsupportive in subsequent statements from the White House.

The US President described the allies' refusal to secure the Strait of Hormuz, which is suffering from closure due to military tensions and reciprocal attacks, as a 'stupid mistake' that lacks fairness towards the American role. He indicated that he had expected European minesweepers to be sent to contribute to securing the vital waterway, but considered that their absence would not pose a significant obstacle to his plans.

Trump's criticisms were not limited to collective positions but also included a personal attack on British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, expressing his disappointment with London's current direction. Trump noted that bilateral relations between Washington and London were in a much better state before Starmer assumed the premiership of the British government, indicating a growing gap in coordination between the two traditional allies.

For his part, French President Emmanuel Macron quickly denied Trump's claims about Paris's readiness to participate in the military force, affirming that France would not be part of any operations aimed at opening the Strait of Hormuz by force. Macron stressed that his country is not a party to the ongoing armed conflict, and therefore its military involvement in this context is completely out of the question.

Macron's statements contradict what Trump had previously mentioned about French-American understandings, as the US President had given his French counterpart a high rating for his supportive stance. However, Macron clarified during a cabinet meeting that the French position is firm in maintaining neutrality from direct military escalation in the region.

In a related context, responsible sources in Paris revealed French efforts to form an alternative international coalition aimed at securing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz away from American leadership. This proposal aims to create an escort system for commercial vessels once security conditions stabilize and major combat operations cease, reflecting a European desire for independence from Washington's orientations.

The French President concluded his remarks by emphasizing that any future role for France in the region must pass through channels of dialogue and diplomacy, especially with the Iranian side. He considered that assuming responsibility for the international escort system necessarily presupposes calming the field situation first, and conducting comprehensive political discussions that ensure the sustainability of security in international waterways.

Many NATO countries' refusal to assist the United States in securing the Strait of Hormuz is a stupid and unfair mistake.

Sadness cast a pall over the occupied city of Jerusalem during the holy month of Ramadan, after the Israeli occupation authorities completely closed the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque since the outbreak of the recent military confrontations. The repressive measures allowed only five people to be present inside the mosque to perform prayers: the Imam, the Muezzin, the prayer leader, the pulpit guard, and the mosque director, a scene the holy city had never witnessed before.

The alleys of the Old City surrounding the Noble Sanctuary became like a military barracks, with hundreds of Israeli soldiers and police officers heavily deployed at all entrances and axes. This security mobilization aims to prevent Jerusalemite citizens from reaching Al-Aqsa Mosque, imposing a suffocating siege that isolates the first Qibla of Muslims from its popular and religious surroundings.

Despite these strict restrictions and direct threats from the occupation army, a number of worshipers insisted on reaching the closest possible point to the mosque. Hundreds gathered at the walls of the Old City, where they performed their prayers in the streets and public squares, affirming their adherence to their right to access their holy sites and their rejection of the policy of forced closure.

For its part, the Jerusalem Governorate issued a statement warning of the serious repercussions of this closure, describing it as having political and strategic dimensions aimed at changing the status quo. The Governorate indicated that the occupation authorities, through this step, seek to impose a new reality within the mosque and undermine the powers of the legitimate administration responsible for it.

The Governorate stressed that this is the first time Al-Aqsa Mosque has been closed and I'tikaf prevented during the month of Ramadan by an occupation decision since the occupation of the city in 1967. It considered this measure a blatant assault on freedom of worship and a transgression of all red lines and international conventions that guarantee the protection of holy sites.

In a related context, informed sources reported that the occupation authorities intend to keep the gates of Al-Aqsa Mosque closed even during the blessed Eid al-Fitr days. This decision would deprive tens of thousands of Palestinians from performing Eid prayers in the mosque's courtyards, increasing the state of tension and popular anger in the occupied territories.

On the social media front, digital platforms were abuzz with expressions of dissatisfaction and warnings against Israeli schemes targeting the identity of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Commentators considered that the international community's silence on these violations encourages the occupation to persist in its measures aimed at emptying the mosque of worshipers and facilitating subsequent incursions.

Activists pointed to the great paradox between the millions of people who used to flock to Al-Aqsa in previous years and the forced silence imposed by the occupation today. They affirmed that transforming the mosque from a place bustling with worshipers during the last ten days of Ramadan into deserted squares is a crime against faith and Palestinian history.

Observers warned that closing the mosque under the pretext of security conditions and a state of emergency could be a prelude to more dangerous steps aimed at the temporal and spatial division of the mosque. They called for urgent action at all official and popular levels to break this siege and protect the mosque from ongoing Judaization schemes.

For its part, the Arab League entered the crisis, affirming in an official statement that the occupation has no right to take any measures that prevent Muslims from practicing their religious rituals. The League called on the international community to take a firm and strict stance that obliges Israel to stop its continuous violations against Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem.

The occupation authorities began implementing this comprehensive closure on February 28, citing the declaration of a state of extreme emergency. This measure coincided with escalating regional tensions, making Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Old City completely isolated areas from the outside world by military decision.

The scene in Jerusalem remains open to all possibilities in light of the occupation's insistence on keeping worshipers away from their mosque, and the Jerusalemites' insistence on staying at the closest possible point. Palestinian calls continue for the necessity of traveling to Al-Aqsa and challenging the occupation's measures to ensure that the call to prayer and prayers remain present in its courtyards.

Closing Al-Aqsa Mosque carries serious political and strategic dimensions, and is an attempt to impose a new reality in the mosque and undermine the legitimate administration.

The Israeli occupation army continues to escalate its aggression on Lebanese territories, issuing open evacuation orders for residents of southern villages, while avoiding disclosure of a timeline or ultimate goals for the officially announced ground operation. These field movements raise international and local concerns about Israeli intentions to reoccupy parts of southern Lebanon, repeating previous scenarios that ended with withdrawal in 2000.

Israeli Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, announced the launch of what he described as a new 'ground operation,' claiming it aims to remove threats and secure residents of settlements in the Galilee and the north. This announcement coincided with the deployment of massive military reinforcements, including infantry and armored brigades, towards the northern border, indicating the occupation's intention to expand the scope of confrontation.

In a significant field development, the occupation army confirmed the 36th Military Division's participation in combat operations, indicating the execution of a 'focused' ground activity targeting sites within Lebanese territory. Attacks are currently concentrated on strategic axes, as Israeli forces seek to establish a foothold in the rugged border areas.

Field sources reported that the town of Khiam was subjected to intense and concentrated Israeli artillery shelling, in an attempt to pave the way for advancing forces. The Khiam area is considered a vital stronghold in Lebanese defenses, making the conflict over it extremely fierce from both sides.

For its part, a leading source in Hezbollah stated that fighters are engaged in difficult battles in the Khiam axis, confirming that field movements are subject to assessments of changing combat conditions. The source warned that the occupation's insistence on carrying out a wide-ranging ground operation would open the door to a long-term attrition of its forces, which are now within range of the resistance's fire.

Military analysts in the Hebrew press believe that the immediate goal of the operations is to push Hezbollah forces beyond the Litani River to prevent targeting the Galilee. Analyst Avi Ashkenazi explained that forces have already entered areas such as the Ramim heights, but he noted that there is a state of ambiguity about whether Israel seeks to impose a permanent 'security zone.'

Media reports quoted official sources in Tel Aviv as saying that the battle in Lebanon is not time-limited, neither in its aerial component nor the ongoing ground maneuver. The sources indicated that the political level has given the green light to destroy the first line of homes in border villages, as a tool to pressure the Lebanese government.

In a related context, military analyst Amos Harel doubted the ground attack's ability to achieve the goal of completely eliminating Hezbollah's military capabilities. Harel pointed out that widespread deployment could lead to continuous and ineffective friction, especially since a large part of the missile attacks originate from areas north of the Litani River.

On the diplomatic front, France is leading intensive efforts to reach a settlement that ends the military escalation, amid leaks about proposals that include controversial political clauses. Hebrew media reported that the French proposal might include Lebanese recognition of Israel, which was met with a categorical denial from official circles in Beirut.

A high-ranking Lebanese source affirmed that talk of normalizing relations or recognizing the occupation is premature and not currently on the table. The source stressed that the Lebanese priority is focused exclusively on an immediate ceasefire and the initiation of field steps that guarantee the security of Lebanese sovereignty.

The Lebanese initiative proposed by President Joseph Aoun includes four main points, starting with the declaration of a humanitarian and military truce to pave the way for negotiations. This initiative aims to address outstanding security issues and ensure the implementation of relevant international resolutions, foremost among them Resolution 1701.

On the ground, the occupation continues its scorched-earth policy, with air raids and artillery shelling targeting wide residential areas in the Nabatieh and Sidon districts. These attacks have caused large waves of displacement of residents towards safer areas deep within Lebanese territory.

Statistics issued by the Lebanese Ministry of Health indicate that 912 martyrs have fallen since the start of the widespread aggression on March 2nd. Among the victims are a large number of children and women, reflecting the extent of the systematic targeting of civilians and Lebanese infrastructure.

The scene in southern Lebanon remains open to all possibilities, given the occupation's insistence on continuing its military operations and the resistance's affirmation of its steadfastness. With the continued military buildup on both sides of the border, international circles are awaiting the outcome of diplomatic moves in the coming days.

The battle in Khiam is difficult, and movement is carried out according to field conditions, and the occupation's readiness for a wide operation will open the door to its attrition.

Israeli circles believe that the assassinations of political and security elites in Tehran aim to deepen divisions within the supreme leadership. However, there is concern that these strikes could backfire by strengthening the grip of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on state institutions, especially with its consolidating ties with the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Raz Zimmt, director of the Iran program at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, considered the assassination of Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, and Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani, as an escalation in the strategy aimed at destabilizing the regime. He pointed out that Larijani was not just an ordinary official, but a fundamental pillar in the governing structure for many years.

Larijani has a rich political history, having headed the Shura Council for eight years, handled the sensitive nuclear negotiations file, and led the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB). He is classified within the conservative current that recognized the necessity of adapting revolutionary thought to international changes and contemporary reality, making him a pivotal figure in internal balances.

During his presidency of parliament, Larijani supported the policies of former President Hassan Rouhani, which brought him widespread criticism from radical currents. Despite being excluded from running for presidential elections in two consecutive terms, his political role did not diminish; rather, he continued as one of the close associates of the high decision-making circles.

In late 2024, Larijani's role emerged as a high-level diplomat and special envoy for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to Syria and Lebanon before the fall of the Assad regime. He also led an official delegation to Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, reflecting the great trust he enjoyed in managing complex foreign affairs.

Following the June 2025 confrontations, known as the 12-day war, the Supreme Leader reappointed Larijani to the top of the government hierarchy to benefit from his long experience. This step came within the framework of the Iranian leadership's desire to involve seasoned politicians to confront the increasing security challenges and successive Israeli strikes that targeted the first line of leadership.

Sources reported that Larijani was one of the most prominent planners of the Iranian responses during the recent confrontations with Israel. He had expressed in previous statements his commitment to the strategic concepts that Tehran had drawn from that war, emphasizing the need to develop defensive capabilities to confront any future rounds of conflict.

Larijani focused his military vision on addressing the gaps that appeared in Iran's air defense systems during previous attacks. He believed that Iran's possession of strong missile capabilities forced adversaries to accept a ceasefire, calling for strengthening strong points and objectively correcting technical and field failures.

Analysts indicate that Larijani's departure will leave a significant void in the regime's ability to maintain administrative continuity and effective control. The danger of this absence is compounded by its timing, coming after the transfer of power to Mojtaba Khamenei, which could disrupt the command and control system at a critical moment in the Republic's history.

Larijani represented a realistic voice within the Iranian leadership despite his commitment to the principles of the Islamic Revolution. With his absence, observers fear the control of more extremist elements over the decision-making process, which could push Tehran towards adopting more radical policies regarding the nuclear program and regional ambitions.

Security assessments predict that the assassination of the most important political official in Tehran will strengthen the IRGC's influence unprecedentedly. The IRGC, which has close ties with the new Supreme Leader, may find the way paved to impose its hardline vision on the state's military and political doctrine in the coming phase.

The Israeli army described Larijani as the 'de facto guide of the terror regime,' referring to his weight in managing strategic operations. This operation is part of the 'decapitation' strategy adopted by Tel Aviv to disrupt the Iranian system and weaken its ability to coordinate with its allies in the region.

Reports confirm that the strike that targeted Larijani and Soleimani in the heart of Tehran was extremely precise and coincided with heavy shelling. These operations aim to send a clear message that the depth of the Iranian regime is no longer immune, and that the command and control structure is under continuous Israeli intelligence scrutiny.

In light of these developments, the question remains about Iran's ability to replace these leading cadres in a short time. While Tehran possesses pressure tools such as ballistic missiles and control over waterways, the loss of 'masterminds' like Larijani could change the course of the entire regional confrontation.

Larijani's assassination represents another stage in the ongoing efforts to undermine the regime's stability, but it may strengthen the IRGC's position in the absence of realistic figures.

Fears are escalating in the Gaza Strip of the return of the specter of famine to cast a shadow over the lives of citizens as Eid al-Fitr approaches, with supermarket shelves completely empty of basic goods. Residents are helpless in the face of the insane rise in prices, which has deepened the fragility of their living conditions amid continued strict Israeli restrictions on the entry of aid.

Field sources reported that the occupation authorities, since the outbreak of the recent military confrontations, have closed most vital crossings, limiting the movement of goods to only one crossing and in very scarce quantities. This measure has prompted international organizations to warn that the policy of 'trickling' supplies directly aims to reproduce the crisis of acute hunger in all areas of the Strip.

For its part, the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor warned against Israel's continued use of starvation policies as a weapon within the crime of genocide it is committing against Palestinian civilians. The Monitor explained that the occupation completely controls the quantity and quality of foodstuffs allowed to enter, which reduces the flow of humanitarian and commercial aid to unprecedented levels.

In a recent statement, the Monitor indicated that Israel is exploiting international preoccupation with regional tensions to tighten its siege on Gaza, having completely closed crossings during critical periods before partially reopening them. The statement affirmed that reducing the number of trucks allowed to pass exacerbates the humanitarian catastrophe and entrenches the effects of the widespread destruction witnessed in the Strip for months.

On the ground, social media platforms were flooded with complaints from citizens who confirmed that food prices have soared to levels beyond the purchasing power of any family. Local residents stated that the price of some basic vegetables reached $10, while meat, poultry, and eggs completely disappeared from local markets.

Activists reported painful testimonies of children sleeping on empty stomachs due to the lack of food options, amid a state of complete international silence regarding their suffering. Activists stressed that what is happening is not just a temporary price hike, but a systematic push of an entire city towards the brink of starvation, calling on the world to break the barrier of silence regarding this crime.

Citizens in Gaza described the current situation as 'heart-wrenching oppression,' where fathers find themselves unable to provide even one meal for their hungry children. Testimonies confirmed that goods evaporate from markets as soon as they arrive, and prices have jumped unprecedentedly, making it almost impossible to secure daily sustenance under the current circumstances.

In a related context, economic reports explained that the price explosion is due to a severe shortage of supply against increasing demand as the Eid season approaches, which is imposed by the repeated closure of crossings. Observers agreed that these indicators point to an imminent food catastrophe that could get out of control if the crossings are not opened fully and immediately.

Israeli authorities had reopened the Kerem Shalom crossing on March 3rd, but limited shipments to restricted quantities of fuel and some aid coming through Egypt. In contrast, the transfer of vital aid coming from the West Bank and Jordan remained suspended for long periods, depriving residents of essential resources.

Despite the resumption of some commercial imports through the same crossing, the quantities entered represent only 40% of the share previously agreed upon under ceasefire understandings. This severe shortage keeps markets in a state of permanent paralysis and makes it difficult for traders and citizens to secure the minimum necessities of life.

The residents of the Gaza Strip remain in a daily confrontation with uncertainty and the specter of hunger that harshly knocks on their doors, amid the continued Israeli siege and restrictions. Eyes are turned towards the international community to pressure for the unrestricted entry of humanitarian and commercial aid, to save what can be saved before it is too late and a major humanitarian catastrophe occurs.

The specter of black famine has returned to knock harshly on Gaza's doors, and prices have turned into a monster devouring helpless families.

A leading source in Hezbollah emphasized that the party adopts a military strategy based on evolving tools and methods in border confrontations with the Israeli occupation army. The source clarified that the primary goal of these tactics is to inflict the greatest possible human and material losses on the aggressor forces, asserting that any attempt to expand the military operation will lead to widespread field attrition for the occupation.

Regarding the political track, the leader affirmed that the principle of 'negotiating under fire' is completely unacceptable in the party's calculations. He called on Lebanese state institutions to take a firm stance demanding an immediate cessation of aggression, warning against aligning with Israeli pressures or making political concessions under the weight of the ongoing military escalation on various fronts.

On the ground, the source described the ongoing battles in the town of Khiam as 'difficult' and violent, indicating that the field command manages movements according to the evolving developments and conditions of the battle. These statements come at a time when the southern front is witnessing an unprecedented escalation in the pace of clashes and mutual shelling between the two sides along the Blue Line.

Officially, the Lebanese Army Command announced the martyrdom of three of its personnel due to two airstrikes carried out by the Israeli occupation in two separate areas in the south of the country. Despite targeting army centers, the Israeli army spokesperson claimed that military operations do not directly target the Lebanese armed forces but rather focus on Hezbollah's infrastructure.

Beirut, the capital, witnessed a renewal of violent raids at dawn on Tuesday, targeting the southern suburb, where missiles struck residential buildings and civilian facilities. Local sources also reported that occupation aircraft carried out a raid targeting a town in the Sidon district after issuing evacuation orders for residents, causing panic and forced displacement of the population.

In a significant development, an Israeli raid targeted an area very close to Rafic Hariri International Airport on the airport road, resulting in the martyrdom of one citizen and the injury of nine others with varying degrees of severity. Despite the nearby shelling, the head of the Civil Aviation Regulatory Authority confirmed that the airport is still operating normally and that air navigation and the roads leading to it have not been affected.

The occupation army continued its policy of forced displacement by issuing warnings to residents of large areas south of the Zahrani River to evacuate immediately. According to reports issued by the Norwegian Refugee Council, these orders now cover approximately 14% of the total area of Lebanese territory, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in the country.

In the town of Aaramoun, airstrikes resulted in the injury of an Ethiopian woman, while the National News Agency continued to monitor the targeting of residential buildings in the town of Arab al-Jall. These attacks are part of a series of continuous day and night raids, which included towns and villages deep in southern Lebanon and the Beqaa.

Politically, there are differences in Lebanese positions, as President Joseph Aoun had proposed an initiative last week calling for direct negotiations with Israel under international auspices. The proposed initiative aims to achieve a comprehensive truce that guarantees a cessation of all Israeli aggressions, which intersects with the complexities on the ground and Hezbollah's rejection of negotiations amidst ongoing shelling.

Finally, the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health revealed tragic statistics for the victims of the ongoing aggression since the beginning of March, with the number of martyrs rising to 912 people. The ministry added in its statement that the number of wounded and injured reached 2221, amidst warnings of a collapse of the health sector if the current pace of escalation continues.

Negotiating under fire is unacceptable to us, and the Lebanese state must demand a cessation of aggression instead of making concessions.

The intensity of the Israeli aggression on Lebanese territories escalated on Tuesday, as intense airstrikes resulted in the martyrdom of six people, including a member of the Lebanese army. The attacks focused violently on the Nabatieh Governorate and areas in the South and the capital Beirut. Field sources confirmed that the town of Jmaijmeh witnessed the fall of two martyrs due to a direct targeting, while warplanes continued to bomb civilian homes and infrastructure.

The Lebanese army mourned one of its soldiers who succumbed to severe injuries sustained earlier, following a raid that targeted a vehicle and a motorcycle he was riding with four of his colleagues in the Qaaqaiyet al-Jisr area in the Nabatieh Governorate. This incident joins a series of targetings that have affected the Lebanese military establishment in recent days, leading to human losses among soldiers while performing their duties.

In the city of Bint Jbeil, an airstrike targeting a populated house led to the martyrdom of three citizens and the injury of others with varying degrees of wounds. The bombing also hit a commercial cooperative on the road between Burj Qalaouiyeh and Ghandoorieh. These attacks left widespread destruction of property and residential buildings, amid the continued low-altitude flight of reconnaissance and drone aircraft in the region's skies.

The capital Beirut was not spared from the escalation, as warplanes launched a series of raids on the Southern Suburb, specifically targeting the Jammous and Laylaki areas. The old airport road in the Burj al-Barajneh area also came under a third raid, causing panic among residents and the rise of smoke plumes that covered the sky of the area due to violent explosions.

Local sources reported that Israeli artillery shelling did not stop on the towns of Zibqin, Jabal al-Butm, Arayd, and Marjayoun, in addition to the outskirts of the border town of Ayta al-Shaab. This shelling coincided with airstrikes targeting the towns of Kharayeb, Taybeh, Kafr Tibnit, Ayteet, and Jibshit, which led to the severing of roads between southern villages and isolating some areas from their surroundings.

In another field development, drones carried out precise attacks using guided missiles, targeting a motorcycle at the eastern entrance of the town of Doueir, resulting in the injury of its driver. A similar attack occurred at the Wadi intersection in the town of Deir al-Zahrani, targeting another motorcycle, and ambulance teams transported the injured from the scene to nearby hospitals for treatment.

The areas of Qusaybeh, Abba, and towns surrounding the districts of Tyre and Bint Jbeil witnessed a series of successive raids that led to the complete destruction of buildings and severe material damage to public facilities. Clashes and intermittent shelling continue on the southern and central axes, amid occupation attempts to establish new advanced points within Lebanese territories.

On the military front, the Israeli occupation army announced the deployment of new reinforcements to the northern front, with the 36th military division joining the ongoing ground operations. This move aims to expand the scope of the incursion into southern Lebanon, amid reports indicating that Israeli forces have reached a depth of between 7 and 9 kilometers in some border axes.

This field escalation comes the day after Israel officially announced the start of a new phase of ground operations, which was met with fierce resistance on the ground. These movements coincide with intensified airstrikes that have not spared any area in the South, reaching the Beqaa and the Southern Suburb, in an attempt to exert direct military pressure.

Official statistics issued by the Lebanese authorities indicate that the total toll of the aggression has exceeded 880 martyrs, with thousands of civilians injured since the start of the latest escalation. Military operations have also caused an unprecedented wave of displacement, with more than one million Lebanese forced to leave their homes and seek refuge in safer areas or overcrowded shelters.

Relief and medical teams face extreme difficulties in reaching targeted areas due to continued shelling and targeting of main roads. Humanitarian organizations warned of the worsening living and health crisis amid a severe shortage of basic resources, as Israel continues to target vital and civilian facilities in various Lebanese governorates.

The Lebanese army announced the martyrdom of one of the injured soldiers who succumbed to wounds he sustained with 4 of his colleagues in an Israeli raid in the Qaaqaiyet al-Jisr area.

Official sources revealed a prominent field development in the course of ongoing military operations, as the launch of the fifty-fourth wave of "True Promise 4" operation was announced. This phase witnessed the use of the long-range "Sejil" ballistic missile for the first time since the beginning of the confrontation, which represents a shift in the type of weapons used in attacks directed deep into enemy territory.

Military data confirmed that the strikes accurately targeted air operations command centers and decision-making centers of the occupation, in addition to vital facilities in the defense industries sector. The sources explained that the attack also targeted military troop gathering points, indicating that the use of this missile system comes within the strategy of deterrence and expanding the scope of offensive operations.

The "Sejil" missile is classified as one of the most prominent weapons in the Iranian missile arsenal, which is the largest of its kind in the Middle East region. The missile's length reaches about 17.57 meters, while its total weight is 23,000 kilograms, and it is designed to carry heavy warheads weighing about 500 kilograms of highly destructive conventional explosives.

The propulsion technology for this missile relies on a dual propulsion system, where the first stage engine operates on solid fuel, giving it rapid launch speed, while the second stage operates on liquid fuel to ensure accuracy. Technical reports confirm that the missile is capable of flying at an enormous speed exceeding 17,000 kilometers per hour, which makes the task of intercepting it by air defenses extremely complex.

The operational capability of the "Sejil" missile extends to cover distances ranging between 2000 and 2500 kilometers, placing it in the category of cross-border missiles capable of reaching any point in the region. These capabilities raise widespread concern among Western powers, who see the development of these systems as a direct threat to regional stability and military power balances.

It is worth noting that ballistic missiles rely on initial rocket propulsion in their trajectory before following a free-fall path towards their designated targets. Tehran continues to enhance its missile capabilities as part of its defensive doctrine, while international warnings are increasing about the possibility of developing these missiles to become capable of carrying unconventional warheads in the future.

We successfully used strategic Sejil missiles to strike Israeli air operations command centers and troop gathering points.

Amidst the international community's preoccupation with regional military escalation, Israeli settlers have intensified their systematic attacks against Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Khirbet Humsa, located in the northern Jordan Valley, witnessed a brutal assault by dozens of masked settlers, targeting the Abu al-Kibash family's residential compound in the late hours of the night.

Field sources reported that the attackers deliberately abused family members and foreign volunteers who were present in the area to provide civil protection. Approximately seventeen people, including seven children, were rounded up inside a single tent under threat of weapons and severe beating, in an attempt to terrorize them and force them to leave.

Testimonies documented the settlers' use of plastic handcuffs to restrain both men and women, before proceeding to beat them with batons and knives. The attackers also poured cold water on the restrained victims, a method aimed at physical and psychological humiliation in front of their children, who were forced to watch their relatives being abused.

One of the victims, a 40-year-old citizen, confirmed that settlers surrounded his home at 1 AM and attacked him with sharp objects, causing him cutting injuries. He indicated that the attackers opened the sheep pens and scattered the sheep in the open, which is the family's sole source of livelihood in that arid region.

Crimes were not limited to physical assault but also included explicit threats of killing, burning, and rape if residents continued to remain on their lands. Eyewitnesses stated that some settlers spoke in Arabic to deliver direct threats of burning homes and killing children in future attacks.

For her part, an international activist who was attacked revealed horrific details, including sexual assaults and verbal and physical harassment against those present in the tent. She said that settlers pulled female activists by their hair and shouted vengeful phrases in English, while the Palestinian father was severely beaten, resulting in a serious eye injury.

The activist explained that a state of terror prevailed when settlers began pouring liquids that the victims thought were incendiary materials, before it turned out to be cold water used for torture. This process lasted for more than an hour, during which mobile phones, passports, and sums of money were stolen from the victims and activists.

Four Palestinians and two international volunteers were transferred to the Turkish Governmental Hospital in Tubas for treatment, where their injuries were described as moderate to minor due to direct beating. This incident comes in the context of continuous pressure exerted by settlers with implicit support from the occupation forces to empty the Jordan Valley of its indigenous inhabitants.

Khirbet Humsa is one of the resilient communities that has been subjected to repeated demolition operations since 2021, yet residents insist on staying despite the shrinking grazing areas. Herders in these areas suffer from daily harassment that prevents them from accessing pastures, completely threatening their livelihood.

Reports indicate that these attacks increased after the integration of extremist elements from 'Hilltop Youth' groups into military units that were operating in the West Bank. Despite the official closure of some of these units, the practices of their members shifted to organized militia work under the guise of pastoral settlements.

In recent weeks, this aggressive policy has led to the forced displacement of at least four Palestinian villages, after it became impossible for their residents to secure their lives and the lives of their children. Settlers exploit the absence of international oversight and media preoccupation with other issues to implement plans for the de facto annexation of 'Area C' lands.

The attacks were not limited to physical abuse but also targeted the simple infrastructure of the khirbet, where surveillance cameras and communication devices were destroyed to isolate residents from the world. This systematic sabotage aims to prevent the documentation of crimes committed in the dead of night away from the eyes of human rights organizations.

Observers believe that the international community's silence on these violations gives a green light to settlers to continue the policy of silent 'ethnic cleansing' in the Jordan Valley. The testimonies of children who were heard whispering prayers during the attack remain a stain on the international legal system, which is unable to protect them.

In conclusion, the case of Khirbet Humsa stands out as an example of what dozens of Palestinian communities face as they resist displacement under harsh conditions and incessant attacks. The steadfastness of these families remains the only obstacle to settlement expansion aimed at complete control over Palestine's food basket in the Jordan Valley.

Today we will take your sheep, but next time we will burn homes, kill children, and rape women.

The Israeli occupation army announced on Tuesday morning the assassination of Ali Larijani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, and Gholamreza Soleimani, commander of the Basij forces affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard. The military statement clarified that the operation was carried out through a precise aerial raid targeting sites in the capital Tehran yesterday, Monday, describing Larijani as one of the oldest and most prominent leading figures in the Iranian regime and from the close inner circle of the Supreme Leader.

These developments come amidst international press reports indicating that Larijani was playing the role of the de facto leader of the country at the current stage, especially after the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his son Mojtaba taking the reins. According to military sources, the attack was not limited to Larijani but also included the commander-in-chief of the Basij forces, Gholamreza Soleimani, as part of a broad aerial campaign aimed at undermining the leadership structure of the Revolutionary Guard.

In a related context, informed sources confirmed that the Israeli raids did not stop at the capital Tehran, but extended to include other major cities such as Shiraz and Tabriz, with the participation of dozens of warplanes. These attacks targeted vital military infrastructure, facilities dedicated to developing missiles and drones, as well as headquarters belonging to the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, amidst the sound of violent explosions shaking parts of the capital.

Before his assassination was announced, Ali Larijani had sent a harsh message to the Islamic world, accusing the United States and the Israeli occupation of launching a deceptive aggression aimed at dismantling the Iranian state. In his message, Larijani criticized the silence of many Islamic countries, considering their stance to be contrary to the prophetic principles calling for supporting Muslims, and indignantly questioned the nature of Islam followed by those countries while Tehran was subjected to aggression.

Larijani also touched in his recent statements on the issue of using American bases in neighboring countries to attack Iranian territory, questioning which side those countries stood on. He affirmed that Iran does not seek to dominate its neighbors, but rather defends its sovereignty against a coalition led by Washington and Tel Aviv, calling on the peoples of the region to reflect on their future in light of the common threats posed by the occupation.

For his part, the Chief of Staff of the occupation army, Eyal Zamir, affirmed that Israeli forces continue to carry out assassinations described as important and sensitive deep inside Iran. Hebrew media reports circulated claims about attempts to target prominent Palestinian leaders in the city of Qom, including Akram al-Ajouri and Mohammed al-Hindi from the Islamic Jihad movement, as part of expanding the circle of confrontation that began in late February.

As of this moment, no official comment has been issued by the authorities in Tehran to confirm or deny the occupation's claims regarding the fate of Larijani and Soleimani, despite Larijani's office previously announcing an anticipated message. The comprehensive military confrontation between the two sides continues, with Iran continuing its daily missile responses targeting strategic interests, while the field is witnessing an unprecedented escalation that threatens to drag the region into a comprehensive regional war.

Is Iran expected to stand idly by while American bases in your countries are used to attack it?

The United Nations has issued strong warnings regarding the deteriorating humanitarian and human rights situation in the occupied West Bank, demanding that Israeli occupation authorities immediately cease all settlement activities. The international organization affirmed that the accelerating pace of settlement construction fuels fears of widespread forced displacement operations against the Palestinian population, threatening the fragile stability in the region.

A report issued by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, covering the period up to the end of October 2025, revealed the displacement of more than 36,000 Palestinians in just one year. The report described this wave of displacement as representing forced displacement on an unprecedented scale, indicating the possibility of a systematic Israeli policy aimed at the mass forced transfer of indigenous populations.

The UN Commission expressed its grave concern that these practices may amount to 'ethnic cleansing,' in light of the frantic settlement expansion witnessed in the occupied territories. The report clarified that Israeli authorities approved the construction of approximately 37,000 housing units in East Jerusalem, in addition to more than 27,000 other units distributed across various areas of the West Bank.

In a related context, international sources monitored the establishment of 84 new settlement outposts during the reporting period, a record number not previously recorded in similar timeframes. This increased the total number of settlement outposts in the West Bank to more than 300, tightening the noose on Palestinian communities and increasing the frequency of daily friction and attacks.

Statistics indicate that the West Bank is home to about three million Palestinians living in the face of continuous expansion by more than half a million settlers residing in facilities considered illegal internationally. These areas have witnessed a sharp escalation in violence since the start of the aggression on the Gaza Strip in October 2023, with an increase in organized attacks carried out by settlers under military protection.

Medical and human rights sources reported that the number of martyrs in the West Bank since the outbreak of the war has exceeded 1045 Palestinians, who fell by the bullets of the occupation forces or during settler attacks. Reports also noted the killing of six Palestinians since the beginning of March, a clear indication of the continued field escalation and direct targeting of civilians in their villages and towns.

The UN report concluded that the continuation of these settlement and displacement policies undermines any future opportunities for achieving peace or establishing a geographically contiguous Palestinian state. The United Nations stressed the need for international community intervention to put an end to these violations that contravene international humanitarian law and push the region towards further explosion and mass displacement.

This displacement represents forced displacement of Palestinians on an unprecedented scale, and may reflect a coordinated Israeli policy of mass transfer.

US authorities have ended the detention of Palestinian activist Liqa Kurdi, 33, after a judicial decision to release her on financial bail from an immigrant detention center in Texas. Kurdi is the last of the pro-Palestinian activists who remained in detention as part of a widespread campaign targeting participants in protests against the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.

The legal team for the Palestinian citizen, whose origins are from the occupied West Bank, confirmed that she left the 'Pryorland' detention center in Alvarado on Monday. Liqa is scheduled to travel to New Jersey to reunite with her family after a forced absence of more than twelve months behind bars.

The details of the case date back to 2024, when US police arrested Liqa Kurdi while she was participating in a student sit-in at Columbia University condemning the Israeli aggression. Although immigration authorities claimed she overstayed her study visa, her lawyer stressed that she was in the process of obtaining permanent residency before her arrest.

During a brief press conference after her release, Kurdi expressed her overwhelming joy at freedom with a smile that never left her face, noting the difficulty of the experience she went through. She said that her feeling of freedom is indescribable after spending a full year in harsh detention conditions, affirming her steadfastness despite all the pressures exerted against her.

For its part, Amnesty International revealed a humanitarian tragedy that compounded the suffering of the Palestinian activist, as she lost 175 members of her family due to continuous Israeli raids on Gaza since October 2023. Her case has garnered widespread sympathy, with members of Congress and human rights organizations demanding an end to her arbitrary detention.

The release decision issued by the immigration judge last Friday was conditional on the payment of a financial bail of $100,000, with the consideration of her deportation case ongoing. In her ruling, the judge described the arguments presented by the US government to prevent her release as 'deceptive' and not based on solid legal grounds.

Liqa's health had significantly deteriorated last month, as she was transferred to the hospital after suffering an epileptic seizure resulting from psychological stress and ill-treatment. The Palestinian activist described the detention environment as 'dirty and inhumane,' which prompted political figures such as the Mayor of New York to intervene directly with the US administration.

This incident comes in the context of a broader repressive campaign launched by President Donald Trump's administration against the student and popular movement supporting Palestine in American universities. This campaign included threats to deport foreign protesters and withdraw funding from educational institutions, under claims of combating 'anti-Semitism,' which activists see as an attempt to silence critics of the occupation.

I don't know what to say.. I am finally free after a full year of detention.

The least of words can relieve distress, and for it and because of it, wars ignite, so calamities crowd in a "deep sea covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds, darknesses one above another," and the world chokes, markets are disturbed, supplies dwindle, and Trump, who entered the war without calculations, wishes for countries to extend a helping hand to him to ensure the flow of movement in the waters of the strait, which looks like a bottleneck, to which ships flock from every deep ravine, awaiting a traffic signal.Alongside "Hormuz," which connects the Arabian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, two other straits in the region are no less important; the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, and the Strait of Gibraltar, which connects the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea.Trump does not seem to be bothered by the closure of the strait, perhaps the opposite, as he considers the closure of Hormuz to hit the Chinese economy, which relies on about 40% of Iranian oil supplies, while the United States has large quantities of oil produced from its fields in Alaska and elsewhere, as well as what it gets from its neighbor Canada, in addition to Venezuelan oil which is now under its control.Trump goes to strike "Kharg" Island in response to the closure of Hormuz, while he vainly tries to form the nucleus of an international alliance to help him open the strait, which seems to be Iran's strong card to expand the area of impact and double the costs on global markets, to push affected countries to pressure Trump to end the war.Striking "Kharg" Island brings to mind the tanker war during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, which would push everyone to look for an emergency exit to limit the repercussions of the war.When the waters in Hormuz are disturbed, the passages in Bab al-Mandab and Gibraltar tremble, for geography is indivisible in the calculations of the "arc of fire" open to more destruction.

Recent international reports have revealed a striking escalation in military cooperation between Moscow and Tehran, with Russia emerging as a key strategic supporter of Iran amidst rising tensions in the Middle East. Informed sources indicated that the Kremlin has begun providing the Iranian side with sensitive intelligence and precise satellite imagery related to American military movements in the region.

This technical support includes sharing real-time field data on the locations of US warships and aircraft, enhancing Tehran's monitoring and tracking capabilities. The sources clarified that this coordination is not new but rather the result of ongoing cooperation that has deepened since the recent confrontations in the region, aimed at undermining American influence.

Russian space capabilities play a pivotal role in this alliance, with Moscow placing advanced surveillance systems at the service of Iranian objectives, most notably the satellite known as 'Khayyam'. This system provides high-resolution optical and radar images, allowing Tehran to pinpoint the locations of American and Israeli military assets with unprecedented accuracy.

In addition to informational support, Russia has transferred its field expertise gained from the war in Ukraine to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, especially concerning drone tactics. These consultations include how to launch synchronized swarms of drones and alter their trajectories to deceive advanced air defense systems, which explains the high precision of recent Iranian strikes.

In a related context, reports indicated that the United States has taken steps to ease some restrictions on Russian oil sales in an attempt to control global energy prices. However, this move faced sharp criticism from Washington's allies, who warned that increased financial revenues for Moscow would directly contribute to funding its ongoing military operations.

For his part, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky warned of the danger of this alliance, noting that Russian support for Iran might not stop at information and drones. Zelensky suggested that cooperation could extend to providing Tehran with ballistic missiles and advanced air defense systems, fundamentally altering the balance of power in the region.

Despite this extensive support, military experts believe that Moscow still prefers to avoid direct involvement in Middle East combat for now. However, statements by Russian officials indicate a clear bias, with the Russian ambassador in London asserting that his country is not neutral in the ongoing conflict.

Analysts believe that the precision demonstrated by recent Iranian attacks on command centers and radars is directly attributable to the 'comprehensive effort' by Russian intelligence. This technical cooperation has enabled Iran to overcome its previous technological shortcomings and achieve an advanced level of precise targeting strategies adopted by major armies.

Economically, the rise in oil prices resulting from instability in the Middle East benefits the Russian treasury, providing it with financial cover to counter Western sanctions. European capitals are closely monitoring this economic and military overlap, considering that any leniency in pressuring Moscow will prolong conflicts on multiple fronts.

In this regard, Britain and France expressed firm stances rejecting the easing of sanctions on Russia, emphasizing that Moscow's exploitation of regional crises threatens international security. Paris stressed that threats related to international waterways, such as the Strait of Hormuz, should not be a pretext for making political or economic concessions to the Kremlin.

The German Chancellor also considered any easing of restrictions at this time to be a 'wrong step,' warning against Russia's exploitation of the war in the Middle East to weaken Ukraine's position. This view aligns with the concerns of Western intelligence agencies that see Russian-Iranian coordination as a serious attempt to reshape the international order and challenge Western hegemony.

Field data indicates that Russia has evolved its support from mere general information exchange to a strategic level involving joint operational planning. This development reflects Putin's desire to engage the United States on multiple fronts, reducing Washington's focus and military support for Kyiv in its war, which has entered its fifth year.

Amidst these developments, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his full support for the leadership in Tehran, describing his country as a 'reliable partner' that does not abandon its allies in crises. This statement reinforces the hypothesis of undeclared defense agreements ensuring the continued flow of Russian military technology into Iran in exchange for continued cooperation on other issues.

In conclusion, observers believe that the world is approaching a phase of broader conflict where regional and international alliances are intertwined in an unprecedented way. The increasing coordination between Moscow and Tehran presents the international community with complex security challenges, as wars are no longer separate but have become interconnected arenas where Russian technology influences Iranian decisions.

Moscow is not neutral in this conflict, and Russian space capabilities have provided Tehran with targeting precision previously unavailable to it.

The recent American bombing of Iran's Kharg Island has revived an old threat made by President Donald Trump nearly four decades ago, with the island emerging as a strategic target that could determine the course of the current confrontation. Control of this coral island is seen as the most realistic option to undermine the Iranian regime's financial resources, despite the risks of sliding into a direct ground confrontation.

Kharg Island holds immense importance as the main engine of the Iranian economy, with approximately 90% of the country's oil exports flowing through it to global markets. The island is located 25 kilometers off the Iranian coast, making it a vital pivot point for controlling Tehran's financial revenues and its ability to fund its military institutions and allies abroad.

Historically, Trump stated in an interview with 'The Guardian' in 1988 that he would strike Kharg Island and assert control over it if he were the decision-maker in Washington at the time. It appears that the American president has begun to partially fulfill this promise, having recently announced the destruction of military targets on the island, describing it as the 'crown jewel' that must be dealt with decisively.

Sources reported that the recent attacks focused precisely on air defenses, the 'Joshan' naval base, and airport facilities, while avoiding targeting oil infrastructure at this stage. Trump clarified via his 'Truth Social' platform that not destroying oil facilities was an optional decision, but he hinted at doing so if Tehran threatened the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

For its part, Tehran increased its oil exports from the island to record levels before the attack, with banking memos revealing the shipment of more than three million barrels per day. These moves reflect the Iranian regime's sensing of imminent danger and its attempt to secure as much cash as possible before the vital port is disrupted by ongoing military operations.

Iran's reaction was sharp, with the military leadership vowing to turn American oil interests in the region to ashes if oil facilities in Kharg were touched. The spokesman for the 'Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters' affirmed that any aggression against energy infrastructure would be met with a devastating response that would extend beyond Iran's geographical borders to include Washington's allies in the region.

Analysts believe that ground control of the island could be an alternative to destroying it, with the aim of financially suffocating the regime without causing an environmental catastrophe or a crazy jump in global oil prices. However, this option faces opposition within American decision-making circles that fear a repeat of 'quagmire' scenarios in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially given the island's proximity to sensitive nuclear facilities.

Statements from the Trump administration regarding sending ground troops are contradictory, with the president describing the matter on occasions as a 'waste of time' given the dilapidated state of the Iranian navy. But he later affirmed in other statements his readiness to deploy soldiers 'if necessary' to monitor uranium stockpiles or secure strategic points, reflecting a state of strategic hesitation regarding ground intervention.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth tried to distinguish between the current war and previous wars, noting that Washington does not seek to build democracy in Iran or engage in 'stupid rules of engagement'. Hegseth affirmed that the goal is to achieve specific military objectives related to American national security and protecting international navigation, far from costly nation-building projects.

Economic reports indicate that the fall of Kharg Island into the hands of American forces would immediately lead to a halving of Iranian oil production and a complete halt to exports. This scenario could push Tehran to carry out its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, which would ignite an unprecedented global energy crisis and put the international economy on the brink of collapse.

Kharg Island, originally built by the American company 'Amoco' decades ago, remains the fatal weakness in the Iranian body and the most tempting target for military planners in Washington. While air strikes continue, the question remains whether these operations are a prelude to a limited naval invasion that would seize Iran's lifeline.

Trump has set four main objectives for his military campaign, including destroying missile and nuclear capabilities and preventing the funding of 'terrorist armies' in the region. Observers believe that achieving these goals may not require a full occupation of Iran, but rather control of vital economic and military hubs such as Kharg Island to impose surrender terms on Tehran.

Given the cohesion of the Iranian leadership hierarchy after the selection of a new supreme leader, the American bet on a rapid internal collapse of the regime may be delayed, increasing the likelihood of military escalation. 'Kharg' remains the trump card that Trump is waving to pressure the Iranian leadership to back down from its rigid positions and enter into negotiations under fire.

In conclusion, the coming days will reveal the seriousness of American threats to move to the ground phase on Kharg Island, amid international anticipation of the repercussions on Gulf security. The transformation of the island from an oil hub to a direct confrontation arena places the entire region at a historical turning point that could redraw the map of influence in the Middle East for many years to come.

I will reconsider destroying the oil infrastructure if Iran does anything that obstructs the safety of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.