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.

The war on Iran is not just a military confrontation between two states or axes, but a pivotal event that could reshape the structure of balances in the Middle East, and perhaps also leave its mark on the trajectory of ongoing transformations in the international system. This war, with its intertwining of regional geopolitics and the global struggle for influence, opens the door to multiple scenarios: from the re-establishment of American-Israeli hegemony, to the region sliding into extended chaos, or the emergence of new balances under an international system gradually moving towards greater multipolarity. Israel between the Superiority of Power and the Erosion of Legitimacy. In one of the potential scenarios, Israel may emerge from the war more confident in its ability to impose its military will on the region. Weakening Iran, whether by striking its nuclear capabilities or undermining its military structure, could strengthen Israel's position as the most militarily superior power in the Middle East, and solidify its role as the primary pillar of American strategy in the region. However, this military superiority intersects with negative internal transformations within Israeli society itself. The deep polarization between extremist religious nationalist currents and liberal currents now reflects a struggle over the state's identity and the limits of using force. Consecutive wars in the region, including the genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, have revealed that tactical military achievements may be accompanied by an increasing strategic cost, whether in the form of growing political isolation or the erosion of Israel's standing among broad sectors of global public opinion, including within the United States itself. Thus, Israel may find itself facing a complex paradox: increasing military superiority countered by a decline or even degradation in its standing on the international stage. The Gulf between Security and Strategic Hedging. Gulf states stand at the heart of this complex equation. If the war leads to a decisive weakening of Iran, some of these states may tend to strengthen their ties to the American security umbrella, and perhaps engage to varying degrees in new regional security arrangements that Israel might be a part of. But the region's experience over the past decades has shown that regional imbalances do not necessarily lead to stability, but may open the door to new waves of uncertainty. Therefore, some Gulf states may seek to maintain a wider margin of maneuver, by balancing their relations between Washington and rising international powers, especially China. The United States between Re-establishing Influence and the Risks of Exhaustion. For Washington, the war on Iran represents an attempt to re-establish its leading position in the Middle East after years of relative decline. Success in weakening Iran could provide it with an opportunity to rearrange the region in accordance with its interests and those of its allies. However, historical experience also indicates that military victories, if they occur, do not always translate into political stability. The possibility of the war sliding into a long or multi-front conflict could turn it into a new factor of exhaustion for American influence, rather than an entry point for restoring hegemony. China and the Transforming International System. In contrast, China views the Middle East from a different angle. It is not concerned with direct military involvement in the region's conflicts, but sees it as a vital space for its economic interests and energy security. Hence, Beijing may seek to capitalize on any decline in Washington's ability to manage regional balances to strengthen its economic and diplomatic presence, in a broader context that reflects the gradual transition of the international system towards greater multipolarity in centers of power. Iran between Strike and Repositioning. Even if Iran suffers severe blows, it is unlikely to disappear from the power equation in the region. Iran is a country with significant geographical and human depth, and possesses a wide network of regional influence tools. Therefore, militarily weakening it may lead to the conflict shifting from direct confrontation to more complex forms of asymmetric conflicts, thereby reshaping the maps of influence in the region instead of ending them. Lebanon: Fragile Balances Amidst Transformations. Lebanon remains one of the most sensitive arenas to the outcomes of the war. If the confrontation leads to a regional weakening of Iran, it is likely to be reflected in the internal balance of power, especially concerning the influence of forces associated with its axis. However, the sectarian nature of the Lebanese system, in addition to its deep economic fragility, makes any sharp shift in these balances fraught with risks of instability. Therefore, the most likely scenario may remain the continuation of Lebanon as an arena of delicate balances between multiple internal and regional forces, with renewed discussion about the future of its political system and the limits of the sectarian formula upon which the state was founded. Turkey, Europe, and Emerging Regional Axes. In this changing context, Turkey may seek to expand its margin of movement as a regional power capable of maneuvering between East and West. Ankara, which combines its NATO membership with its regional ambitions, may see the ongoing transformations as an opportunity to strengthen its political and economic role in the Arab Levant. This may be accompanied by a gradual rapprochement between it and some major Sunni Arab powers. Although such an axis, if formed, will remain constrained by differences in interests and visions, it may reflect an attempt to reformulate the balance of power in the region outside the traditional polarization between Iran and Israel. As for Europe, which has appeared as a hesitant player in the Middle East in recent years, it may find itself compelled to engage more actively in managing the repercussions of these transformations. The stability of the region is directly linked for it to energy security, the reduction of migration waves, and the stability of its southern neighborhood. This may push some European countries to play a more active diplomatic role in managing regional crises, and perhaps also in re-proposing the political path for the Palestinian issue, especially with growing criticism within European public opinion of Israeli policies. The Arab League: Absence and Erosion. Amidst these major transformations, the Arab League appears more like a symbolic framework than an institution capable of managing regional crises. The deep disparities between Arab states, and the reliance of many of them on bilateral or narrow regional alliances, have greatly limited its ability to influence the ongoing transformations in the region. A Major Regional Moment... And the Palestinian Question. The outcomes of the war on Iran may not only determine the shape of the Middle East but may also contribute to accelerating the ongoing transformations in the international system. The region stands today at the intersection of two intertwined conflicts: a regional struggle for influence and the redrawing of power balances, and a broader global struggle over the shape of the international system in the twenty-first century. From this perspective, the Palestinian issue may re-emerge as one of the central knots of regional instability, especially with increasing global criticism of Israeli policies. However, such a possibility does not materialize automatically. History shows that major international moments do not turn into political opportunities unless a national condition capable of reading them and formulating a comprehensive project to invest in them emerges. Here arises the most pressing question: Do Palestinians, amidst deep division and the erosion of the legitimacy of their institutions, have the ability to deal with the requirements of such a historical moment? Or does the magnitude of the ongoing transformations necessitate, above all else, the rebuilding of the political and social foundations of the Palestinian national project itself? The answer to this question is no longer merely an internal Palestinian matter, but has become part of a broader equation related to the Palestinians' ability to transform the ongoing global variables into a historical opportunity. Without restoring the national capacity for political action, and what that requires in terms of rebuilding the entire political system, these transformations may pass as previous pivotal moments in the region's history; moments that open doors of possibilities, but the key question awaits someone who has the ability to seize it and formulate it into a national 'socio-political' project that moves us into the future, starting from networks and initiatives to frame different social groups and involve them in meeting their daily needs, enabling them to survive and endure, and at the same time capable of addressing the world without arrogance or inferiority.

The US Embassy complex in Baghdad's Green Zone was subjected to a large-scale aerial attack by suicide drones early Tuesday morning. Security sources reported that air defense systems successfully intercepted and shot down three drones in the embassy's airspace, while a fourth drone fell in a nearby area, triggering a state of maximum security alert in the fortified zone.

Field sources and eyewitnesses reported that one of the drones managed to penetrate the airspace and actually fell inside the embassy complex, where columns of smoke and flames were seen rising from the site. Security observers described this attack as the most intense and dangerous since the recent military confrontations erupted in the region, indicating a qualitative shift in the nature of mutual targeting between armed factions and US forces.

In a related development to the field escalation, five people were killed as a result of an airstrike targeting a residential house in the Jadriyah area in the heart of Baghdad. Civil defense teams and police forces rushed to the scene to control the massive fire that broke out in the targeted house, amid a state of panic among local residents who tried to assist in extinguishing and rescue operations.

The attacks were not limited to the Green Zone and Jadriyah; other drones targeted the logistical support camp near Baghdad International Airport, in addition to targeting the vicinity of the Al-Rashid Hotel. Initial reports confirmed that these strikes did not result in human casualties or significant material damage, but they reflect the widening scope of targeting within the Iraqi capital and the multiplicity of vital targets.

In the provinces, sites belonging to the Popular Mobilization Forces and armed factions were subjected to a series of concentrated airstrikes in various areas. These strikes included a military headquarters in the Jurf al-Sakhar area north of Babil province, as well as a security checkpoint in the border city of Al-Qaim in the west of the country, resulting in injuries and damage to the infrastructure of those sites.

In the Kurdistan Region, international coalition defenses announced the thwarting of similar drone attacks targeting Erbil city and its international airport. Defensive systems confronted hostile targets before they reached the airport premises, a move that coincided with the attacks witnessed in Baghdad, suggesting broad coordination in the military operations currently taking place in the Iraqi arena.

This escalation comes a day after Kata'ib Hezbollah in Iraq announced the killing of its prominent security official, Abu Hussein al-Hamidawi, known as 'Abu Ali al-Askari'. The Popular Mobilization Forces had earlier mourned eight of its members who were killed in an airstrike targeting a security site in Al-Qaim district in Anbar province, holding the Israeli occupation responsible for this attack.

The region has been in a state of military turmoil since late February, with regionally supported armed factions exchanging strikes with American and Israeli interests. Sources confirm that the pace of current operations warns of an open confrontation, especially with the continued mutual shelling that has targeted command and control centers and diplomatic representations in various Iraqi cities.

The attack is the most intense since the start of direct confrontation on February 28.

The Middle East region is currently witnessing an intense struggle between three main entities, each seeking to assert its existence by attempting to exclude the other. This conflict, which transcends traditional political boundaries, combines the legacy of ancient Persian civilization, the emergent occupying entity in the region, and the rising political and ideological components that reject Western hegemony.

Iran considers itself the heir to a civilization deeply rooted in history, basing its current stance on an ideological vision that places the liberation of Jerusalem and Palestine at the top of its priorities. Tehran believes that its role in the region extends beyond political empowerment to religious empowerment, especially in light of the division experienced by the official Arab system regarding the Palestinian issue.

In contrast, the Israeli occupation views the growing Iranian power as an existential threat that cannot be coexisted with, which has led it to strengthen its international alliances, particularly with the United States. This entity seeks to exploit American support to undermine Iranian influence before it becomes an uncontrollable force in the near future.

The current Israeli vision is characterized by the dominance of the religious right, which blends politics with biblical prophecies, promoting the idea of a holy war against adversaries. This approach finds wide resonance among evangelical currents in the West, transforming the conflict from a geopolitical competition into a zero-sum confrontation based on the principle of 'us or them'.

The third party in this equation is Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has found itself involved in the heart of this existential confrontation. Despite attempts at deterrence and containment, it has managed to emerge from international and local pressures to redefine its role as an effective military and political force in confronting Israeli ambitions.

Observers believe that Hezbollah fully realizes that the current battle is not only about geographical borders but about its existence as an ideological entity targeted for annihilation. Therefore, its involvement in fighting alongside its allies comes as a preemptive step to protect its political and military gains in the Lebanese and regional arenas.

The complexity of the current scene stems from the intertwining of historical dimensions with religious myths and contemporary strategic interests. With each party insisting on eliminating the other, the Middle East remains an open arena for a major struggle of wills whose outcomes will shape the political map of the region for decades to come.

The occupation knows today that its time has come according to its biblical prophecies, and therefore fights fiercely in a war it considers existential and holy.

By: Said Arikat

March 17, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C- On Sunday’s appearance on the CBS program Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi offered a revealing comment about the aftermath of last summer’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. A significant portion of Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to roughly sixty percent purity, he said, was not destroyed. Instead, the material remains buried beneath the wreckage of the bombed sites.

By saying the uranium was “still under the rubble,” Araghchi underscored that the material had neither been removed nor surrendered after the attacks. It is physically trapped beneath collapsed buildings, twisted steel, and shattered concrete. Because Iran has not granted the International Atomic Energy Agency full access to inspect the damaged locations, officials in Tehran say they cannot yet determine how much of the stockpile survived intact.

What Araghchi emphasized, in effect, was uncertainty. The uranium has not been recovered, but neither has it been definitively destroyed. It may be contaminated, damaged, or perfectly usable; no one outside Iran can yet say. For now, the material simply lies somewhere beneath the debris of facilities that once formed the core of the country’s enrichment program.

That ambiguity is not accidental. In nuclear politics, uncertainty can function as a form of leverage. By leaving open the question of how much enriched uranium survived the strikes, Tehran preserves both deterrence and negotiating space. Adversaries must assume that at least some of the material remains recoverable.

Yet Araghchi’s remarks also illuminate a deeper strategic dilemma for policymakers in Washington and elsewhere. Destroying nuclear infrastructure is one challenge; accounting for nuclear material is another entirely. Bombs can demolish centrifuge halls, laboratories, and support buildings, but uranium enriched to sixty percent purity does not simply disappear when structures collapse.

Typically stored in reinforced cylinders, enriched uranium can survive even severe structural damage. If later retrieved, material already enriched to sixty percent can be brought to weapons grade, around ninety percent purity, far faster than uranium starting from its natural state. This technical fact shapes the debate now unfolding among security analysts.

Before the strikes, international inspectors believed Iran possessed hundreds of kilograms of uranium enriched to that level. In theory, such quantities could be further processed to produce material for several nuclear weapons. Even smaller amounts matter: roughly forty two kilograms enriched to sixty percent could ultimately yield enough weapons grade uranium for a single bomb.

The implication is stark. Airstrikes may delay Iran’s nuclear program by damaging equipment and facilities, but they may leave the most critical element untouched. As long as a stockpile of highly enriched uranium exists, the possibility of renewed enrichment and weaponization cannot be entirely dismissed.

This reality has led some commentators to discuss what they call the ultimate endgame: physically seizing Iran’s enriched uranium and removing it from the country. In theory the idea appears simple. If the material itself disappears, the most direct route to a nuclear weapon disappears with it.

In practice, however, such proposals verge on fantasy. Recovering nuclear material inside Iran would demand far more than a limited military strike. It would require forces on the ground, including specialized units capable of locating, securing, packaging, and transporting radioactive material under hostile conditions.

The logistical difficulties alone would be formidable. Nuclear material cannot simply be loaded onto a truck and driven away. It must be handled by trained technicians, sealed in specialized containers, and moved with extraordinary caution to avoid contamination, accidents, or proliferation risks.

More importantly, any such mission would require penetrating one of the most heavily defended states in the Middle East. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is dispersed across numerous locations, some buried deep underground and protected by hardened bunkers, air defenses, and layers of security.

Attempting to seize uranium from these sites would almost certainly trigger direct military confrontation. At that point the operation would no longer resemble a limited strike; it would begin to look like a full scale invasion.

Even then success would remain uncertain. Intelligence about the precise location of nuclear material is rarely complete. Some stockpiles may have been moved before the strikes occurred, while others could be hidden at undisclosed sites beyond the reach of inspectors or satellites.

A mission intended to eliminate every gram of enriched uranium could therefore fail while simultaneously igniting a wider regional war. The risks would be immense, and the outcome far from assured.

For Tehran, meanwhile, the uncertainty surrounding the buried uranium serves a clear strategic purpose. By neither confirming nor denying how much material survived, Iranian leaders preserve a measure of deterrence. Adversaries must weigh the possibility that usable enriched uranium still lies beneath the ruins.

Araghchi’s statement therefore carries significance beyond a simple description of damaged facilities. It signals resilience, hints at retained capability, and reinforces the ambiguity that has long surrounded Iran’s nuclear posture. In the language of strategy, uncertainty itself becomes leverage.

For policymakers in Washington and other capitals, the lesson is sobering. Military strikes can damage infrastructure and delay progress, but they cannot easily erase nuclear knowledge, industrial capacity, or material already produced. The debate over seizing Iran’s uranium should therefore be approached with extreme caution.

What appears decisive on paper could in reality prove dangerously reckless. Efforts to remove the uranium might transform a contained confrontation into a broader conflict whose consequences would be impossible to control.

Beneath the rubble lies uranium and a still unresolved dilemma.

Washington – Said Arikat - 3/17/2026

A poll published by NBC News on Monday revealed a striking shift in public opinion among registered American voters towards Israel, with negative views now clearly outweighing positive views for the first time in recent years.

According to the poll results, 39 percent of registered American voters currently view Israel negatively, compared to only 32 percent who hold a positive view. This shows a significant decline compared to 2023, when 47 percent of opinions were positive versus 24 percent negative.

This shift is particularly evident among independent voters, who represent an influential voting bloc in American elections and played a significant role in Donald Trump's election to the White House in the 2024 presidential election.

In 2023, 40 percent of this group held a pro-Israel view, compared to only 22 percent with a negative view. But by 2026, negative attitudes had almost doubled to 48 percent, while positive attitudes dropped to only 21 percent.

This shift comes in the context of the dramatic developments in the Middle East conflict since October 7, 2023, when "Hamas" launched an attack on southern Israel that killed about 1,200 people, according to claims by the Israeli government. Israel responded with a war that lasted more than two years on Gaza until the ceasefire on October 10, 2025, resulting in the deaths of more than 72,000 Palestinians, according to estimates circulated in international reports. The United Nations, a number of human rights experts, and international leaders have concluded that the Israeli war may have included acts that could be classified as genocide.

It is worth noting that Israel continues its aggression on Gaza, having killed more than 800 citizens in the besieged strip since then.

The war in Gaza was accompanied by a broader regional escalation, including Israeli attacks in Lebanon and Syria, in addition to aggression against Qatar with the aim of assassinating Hamas leaders in Qatar. The United States and Israel also waged a devastating war on Iran that is still ongoing, harming neighboring Arab countries.

Rising Sympathy for Palestinians

In parallel with the decline in Israel's image among American voters, the poll shows a clear increase in levels of sympathy for Palestinians.

The results showed that 40 percent of participants said they sympathize with Palestinians, compared to 39 percent who expressed sympathy for Israel in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This represents a significant shift compared to 2013, when the same network, NBC News, conducted the first similar poll among registered voters; at that time, the percentage of those sympathetic to Palestinians did not exceed 13 percent.

The shift appears even clearer among American Democrats, where 67 percent of registered Democratic voters said they stand with Palestinians, compared to only 18 percent in 2013. In contrast, only 17 percent of registered Democrats now declare their support for Israel.

Among Republicans, support for Israel remains relatively strong, at 67 percent, a figure close to the 69 percent recorded in 2013. However, other polls indicate a growing gap between young and older Republicans in their assessment of Israel. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center and published in April 2025 showed that 50 percent of Republicans under the age of 50 are now inclined to adopt a less supportive stance towards Israel.

Sharp Decline Among Young Voters

This trend is reinforced by the NBC News poll, which indicates a significant decline in the level of support for Israel among young voters in the United States.

The poll showed that only 13 percent of voters aged 18 to 34 hold a positive view of Israel, while 63 percent view it negatively. In 2023, 37 percent of this group held a negative view, compared to 26 percent positive, while 37 percent remained neutral.

The decline is not limited to young people alone, as a decrease in positive views was recorded across different age groups. The most significant decline was among voters aged 50 to 64; where the percentage of positive views decreased from 58 percent in 2023 to 37 percent in 2026, while the percentage of negative views almost doubled from 15 percent to 30 percent.

These indicators suggest that the shift in American public sentiment towards Israel is no longer just a temporary reaction to specific political or military events, but rather appears to be gradually moving towards a more entrenched pattern over time. A comparison between 2013, 2023, and 2026 data reveals a cumulative trajectory of increasing sympathy for Palestinians versus a decline in positive views of Israel. This trajectory reflects the impact of multiple factors, including the spread of information through social media, the growing presence of human rights discourse in American political discussions, in addition to demographic shifts within electoral blocs.

The data also suggests that the ongoing change is not confined to one political category, but is gradually extending across the American partisan spectrum, albeit to varying degrees. While support for Israel remains strong among Republicans, polls reveal a widening age gap within the party itself, with younger voters showing an increasing tendency to criticize Israeli policies. As this intergenerational gap continues, this trend may become a long-term factor reshaping the nature of American political attitudes towards the Middle East conflict over the next decade.

From a broader perspective, these results can be interpreted as part of a deeper cultural and political transformation within American society, where human rights and international justice issues have become more prominent in shaping public opinion. With the increasing direct and immediate coverage of conflicts through digital media, images of wars and their humanitarian consequences are having a greater impact on public perception. If these dynamics continue, the change in attitudes towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is likely to become more pronounced and stable over time.

Palestinian medical and official sources announced the martyrdom of the 17-year-old boy, Salim Sami Salim Faqha, after occupation forces opened fire on him near the town of Sinjil, north of Ramallah. The General Authority for Civil Affairs confirmed that the occupation authorities detained the martyr's body, while another citizen was moderately wounded during the same incident.

In a simultaneous field escalation, local sources reported that the occupation army deployed large military reinforcements to the town of Sinjil, where soldiers began raiding and searching a number of homes and commercial shops. Occupation forces prevented Palestinian Red Crescent Society teams from reaching the injured near the town's intersection, hindering the provision of necessary first aid.

The bloodshed did not stop in Ramallah, as official bodies announced the martyrdom of the 16-year-old boy, Nidal Wael Abdul Karim Shaghnoubi, by occupation army bullets in the town of Burqa, Nablus Governorate. The targeting of Shaghnoubi occurred during an incursion carried out by occupation forces into the area on Monday evening, amidst intense firing of live and rubber-coated bullets.

Nablus city witnessed other incursions into the Old Askar refugee camp, where a foot patrol raided the camp's alleys and stormed residential homes, causing panic among residents. A citizen was also hit by a rubber-coated metal bullet in the head, and others suffered severe suffocation due to inhaling toxic gas during confrontations in the Khallat al-Amoud area.

In occupied Jerusalem, occupation forces escalated their repressive measures against worshippers around Bab al-Sahira, coinciding with the evening and Tarawih prayers. Jerusalemite sources reported that occupation soldiers fired sound and gas bombs at groups present in the area and carried out an arrest campaign targeting a number of Palestinian youths.

As part of the policy of restricting Al-Aqsa Mosque guards, the occupation authorities issued a decision to remove guard Ahmed Al-Awar from his workplace in the mosque for a week, renewable. This decision comes in the context of a systematic targeting of personnel working in Al-Aqsa to reduce the official and popular Palestinian presence within the blessed mosque's courtyards.

In a move targeting Ramadan charitable work, the occupation authorities threatened to close 'Al-Nasr Restaurant' located in Khan al-Zeit market in the Old City. Occupation forces prevented the restaurant owner from preparing and distributing hot meals provided by donors to residents and passersby in the Bab al-Amoud area, a solidarity initiative that Jerusalemites are accustomed to during the holy month.

The occupation authorities continue to completely close the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque for the seventeenth consecutive day, preventing thousands of worshippers from reaching it under security pretexts. The occupation links these strict measures to the regional tension and the ongoing war, which has led to the emptying of the mosque of its worshippers during the holiest days of the year for Muslims.

Reports indicate that this ban is a historical precedent that has not occurred since 1967, as worshippers were forcibly absent from performing the last Friday prayer of Ramadan. Palestinians were also deprived of observing Laylat al-Qadr and performing I'tikaf in the precincts of Al-Aqsa Mosque, after the city of Jerusalem and its Old City surroundings were transformed into a closed military barracks.

The Jerusalem Governorate warned of the seriousness of these measures, which coincide with the escalation of rhetoric from extremist organizations targeting the status quo in Al-Aqsa Mosque. Sources confirmed that the continued siege imposed on the holy sites aims to impose a new reality that changes the Arab and Islamic identity of the holy city, amidst international silence regarding these violations.

Occupation forces prevented ambulance crews from reaching the injured near the Sinjil intersection and detained the martyr's body.

Field sources reported that the Israeli occupation authorities released, early Monday morning, a new batch of Palestinian prisoners classified as 'cubs'. The release took place through the gate of the Ofer military detention center, located on the lands of Beitunia city, west of Ramallah and Al-Bireh Governorate in the occupied West Bank.

The area around the detention center witnessed a gathering of dozens of citizens and families of the prisoners who waited for long hours to receive their liberated children. Despite the strict security restrictions imposed by the occupation forces around the prison, the families were able to meet their children amidst an atmosphere of joy mixed with concern for the rest of the detainees.

This step comes at a time when warnings are escalating about the difficult detention conditions faced by prisoners inside occupation prisons, especially the young ones. International human rights organizations continue to issue repeated demands for the necessity of ending the detention of children and women, and stopping the systematic violations practiced against them behind bars.

Ofer prison is considered one of the largest detention centers used by the occupation to imprison hundreds of Palestinian children from various areas of the West Bank. These minors face military trials that lack the simplest international standards of justice, as they are dealt with within a judicial system belonging to the occupation army that lacks integrity.

It is worth noting that the issue of child prisoners represents one of the most sensitive issues in the Palestinian street, given the psychological and physical abuse they are subjected to during their detention. Human rights institutions confirm that the continued detention of minors violates all international conventions and laws that guarantee special protection for children in conflict and occupation zones.

These releases come amid harsh conditions experienced by prisoners inside prisons, with continuous international human rights demands for the release of all child and women prisoners.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi categorically denied reports of direct communication channels with the United States since the latest military escalation began on February 28. Araghchi clarified that claims promoted by Western media about an exchange of messages with the American side are unfounded and aim to manipulate global energy markets and mislead international public opinion.

In official statements, the Iranian minister indicated that the last contact with US envoy Steve Witkoff preceded the US administration's decision to launch what he described as illegal military attacks against Iranian territory. Araghchi considered this military attack a death blow to the diplomatic efforts that had been made in previous periods, emphasizing that his country does not negotiate under the weight of ongoing aggression.

In contrast, American media sources, quoting informed officials, revealed that Washington had received text messages from the Iranian side centered on mechanisms to end the ongoing war. These sources claimed that US President Donald Trump is open to reaching a comprehensive deal that would allow Tehran to reintegrate economically into the international community and benefit from its oil revenues in exchange for specific conditions.

Despite these American claims, informed sources in Tehran confirmed that the initiative for messaging came from US envoy Steve Witkoff, but the Iranian leadership made an official decision to ignore those messages and not respond to them. The sources stressed that Tehran also received messages from the White House through international mediators, but the Iranian position remained firm in rejecting any direct dialogue under the current circumstances.

Iranian sources explained that the window for direct negotiations with Washington has been completely closed by a decision from the country's supreme authorities, noting that any talk of a ceasefire is the exclusive prerogative of the Supreme Leader. They affirmed that the foreign minister or any other government official does not have the authority to make strategic decisions of this magnitude without referring to the supreme leadership that manages the confrontation file.

Regarding the field situation, Tehran informed countries that attempted to mediate for de-escalation that it would not accept any agreement that does not guarantee a complete and comprehensive cessation of American and Israeli attacks on its sovereignty. It stressed that any settlement must ensure that aggressions are not repeated, considering that current proposals do not meet the minimum legitimate Iranian demands for self-defense.

Iran is currently adopting a military strategy based on diversifying confrontation fronts and carrying out qualitative operations against American and Israeli interests over a long and unspecified period. This plan, according to sources close to decision-making circles, aims to gradually exhaust the enemy's capabilities and drain its military and economic resources through scattered and effective strikes in various spheres of influence.

The Iranian leadership believes that continuing the approach of armed resistance and directing precise strikes at the vital interests of adversaries is the only way to create suitable conditions for imposing a sustainable and just ceasefire. Tehran affirms that field pressure is the trump card that will force other parties to retreat from the policy of military escalation and recognize Iranian rights in the region.

For his part, US President Donald Trump stated that Iran appears willing to end the conflict and reach an agreement, but he expressed his confusion about who currently represents the actual decision-making authority in Tehran. Trump affirmed that the United States will not negotiate from a position of weakness and will not back down from the strategic goals that led it to enter this direct military conflict.

It is worth noting that the region has witnessed an unprecedented escalation since late February, where mutual military operations have resulted in hundreds of casualties, amid Tehran's continued use of ballistic missiles and drones to target what it describes as hostile sites. Arab countries accuse Tehran of targeting civilian objects and vital installations on their territories, which has further complicated the regional and international scene.

Any claims of communication are only intended to mislead oil traders and deceive public opinion, and the last contact with the US envoy was before the decision to launch the illegal military attack on Iran.

The Arabian Gulf region experienced a night of escalating security tensions, following a series of missile and drone attacks targeting several countries in the region. Official sources reported that air defense systems were activated to confront these threats, which targeted vital facilities and various residential and military areas.

In Doha, the Qatari Ministry of Defense revealed that the country was subjected to an attack by 14 ballistic missiles in addition to a number of suicide drones. The ministry confirmed that air defenses successfully intercepted 13 missiles and destroyed all drones, while one missile fell in an uninhabited area without causing any casualties.

As for the United Arab Emirates, local authorities in Abu Dhabi announced a fire at the strategic 'Shah' oil field. The fire resulted from a direct hit by a drone, with firefighting and risk control teams continuing to deal with the flames to ensure they do not spread within the vital facility.

The Shah field is considered one of the main pillars of the Emirati energy sector, located 230 kilometers south of the capital Abu Dhabi. The production capacity of this field is about 70,000 barrels of crude oil per day, making its targeting a qualitative development in the ongoing military escalation in the region.

In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Defense announced a massive number of aerial interceptions, with 92 drones destroyed since early Monday morning. These defensive operations were distributed over wide geographical areas including the capital Riyadh, the Eastern Province, and Al-Kharj Governorate in the center of the Kingdom.

Saudi sources explained that air defenses initially shot down three drones, followed by the interception of 76 other aircraft that were intensively targeting the Eastern Province. The ministry concluded its statements by indicating the destruction of an additional 13 drones in the skies of Al-Kharj, confirming that no human casualties were recorded as a result of these attack attempts.

On the Kuwaiti side, the Government Communication Center monitored hostile aerial movements including four drones and two unmanned aerial vehicles that penetrated the airspace since dawn today. The center stated that military forces managed to destroy one drone, while the remaining flying objects fell in uninhabited areas north of the country and outside the direct threat zone.

The Kuwaiti statement indicated that the defensive operations resulted in debris falling in scattered locations, with the center receiving five new reports in this regard. This brings the total number of registered reports of falling debris and shrapnel since the start of the recent escalation in late February to about 397 official reports.

In a related context, military sources linked to the Revolutionary Guard announced the execution of strikes targeting four US military bases in the region. This announcement coincides with the wave of attacks that hit Gulf capitals, indicating an expansion of the direct confrontation and the multiplicity of fronts involved in the conflict.

These dangerous developments come at a time when the region is experiencing a state of high alert, amidst international calls for restraint and avoiding a slide into a comprehensive war. Military operations rooms in Gulf countries continue to monitor the airspace to repel any potential attacks that may target energy infrastructure or vital centers in the coming hours.

The Qatari Ministry of Defense announced that the armed forces intercepted 13 out of 14 ballistic missiles launched towards the country.

In a recent editorial, the 'Financial Times' asserted that US President Donald Trump is systematically undermining the United States' national security apparatus. The newspaper explained that Washington's recent war on Iran did not undergo the usual stress tests and scrutiny that precede major military decisions, raising questions about the efficacy of these moves.

The newspaper pointed out that Trump engaged in a military confrontation with Tehran without a strategic objective or a clear post-strike plan. This unilateral decision-making and proceeding without sufficient consultation raise major question marks about the effectiveness of constitutional oversight over the president's war-making powers at present.

The editorial believes that resorting to military action should be a last resort after exhausting all diplomatic avenues and possible alternatives. However, the current administration has not only ignored alternatives but has deliberately stripped itself of the tools and expertise necessary to understand the complexities of the regional landscape and achieve its political goals.

These policies, according to the newspaper, have left the US security apparatus in a state of weakness and confusion, negatively impacting the country's ability to manage conflicts. The main reason for this is the administration's pursuit in its second term to eradicate any dissenting voice within national security institutions, prioritizing blind ideological loyalty over professional competence.

American institutions witnessed a widespread wave of dismissals, including thousands of experienced diplomats and civil servants. With their departure, the country lost a significant portion of its institutional memory and specialized knowledge necessary to avoid falling into the trap of wrong decisions and inaccurate intelligence assessments.

This trend was clearly evident in the Iranian nuclear file, where Trump entrusted sensitive negotiations to his envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Despite both lacking any technical background or experience in nuclear affairs, they chose to proceed with negotiations without consulting federal experts specializing in this complex field.

At the State Department, the Under Secretary of State under Marco Rubio dismissed more than 1,300 employees last July in a wide-ranging purge of experts. These dismissals particularly focused on specialists in Middle Eastern affairs, creating a huge knowledge gap at a critical time for the region.

It didn't stop there; the US President recalled about 30 ambassadors last December, leaving Washington with 80 vacant diplomatic posts around the world. These vacancies included allied and pivotal Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, countries that had been urging Washington to exercise restraint towards Tehran.

In contrast, US Ambassador Mike Huckabee stands out as a fierce defender of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's policies in the region. This appointment reflects a clear bias that prioritizes narrow interests over the diplomatic balance required to de-escalate rising regional tensions.

Regarding the administration's structure, Marco Rubio has held the positions of Secretary of State and National Security Advisor simultaneously since last May. Observers believe that merging diplomatic duties with intelligence coordination has led to a lack of thorough scrutiny of military options and the marginalization of the National Security Council's role.

Despite the technical strength of US military strikes, the newspaper points to a lack of planning to confront worst-case scenarios, such as Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz. This strait is the world's oil lifeline, and any disruption there would lead to catastrophic economic repercussions that the administration has not shown sufficient preparedness to face.

At the Department of Defense (Pentagon), Pete Hegseth led a campaign to reduce the workforce, including the dismissal of military judges responsible for legal review of combat orders. The role of the Office for the Protection of Civilians was also curtailed, reflecting a desire to remove any legal or ethical obstacles to the use of excessive military force.

Reports indicate that this approach may be responsible for civilian casualties in Iran, including a missile strike that targeted a girls' school. Critics believe that the focus on the 'warrior spirit' and the marginalization of civilian protection standards have led to a tragic increase in the number of non-combatant casualties during recent operations.

The 'Financial Times' concluded that Trump has openly adopted the principle of 'might is right,' disregarding the rules of international law that Washington claimed to uphold. It affirmed that this frantic pursuit of freedom from military and legal constraints has ultimately weakened the United States' ability to use its power wisely and effectively.

Trump's adoption of the 'might is right' principle has weakened the United States' ability to effectively use its influence and harmed its long-term national interests.

Social media platforms witnessed a wide wave of interaction after a former American soldier, known as 'Emily,' made bold confessions about her role in the American invasion of Iraq. The soldier, who participated in military operations about twenty years ago, affirmed that she no longer feels any pride towards that period of her professional life, but rather views it with regret and moral reconsideration.

In a video she posted on her personal 'Instagram' account, Emily, who today describes herself as a political activist opposing the policies of former President Donald Trump, explained that she belatedly realized the extent of the deception she had been subjected to. She said that the official narrative that pushed her to participate in the war was far from the bitter reality she later witnessed.

The most impactful moment in the clip was when the soldier displayed her old photo in military uniform, accompanied by a phrase she described as 'the shocking truth,' where she said: 'I was the terrorist.' This frank confession reflects a radical shift in the convictions of some veterans who have begun to review their country's foreign policies and their catastrophic effects on other peoples.

The clip gained widespread circulation, exceeding three million views in a short time, which reopened the door to heated discussions about the repercussions of the war on Iraq. Interactors re-highlighted the suffering caused by the invasion, noting that such confessions contribute to exposing the falsehood of the slogans raised at the time under the guise of combating terrorism.

For his part, an Iraqi citizen named Alaa Amer commented on the clip, confirming that what the soldier reached represents the reality that Iraqis lived, saying that the forces that claimed to fight terrorism were the primary source of bringing chaos and destruction. Other commentators praised Emily's courage in confronting her past, considering her confession a step towards restoring the humanity lost in the crucible of wars.

These statements come at a time when the effects of the Iraq invasion still cast their shadow over the region and the world, as historical and political reviews of this conflict continue. Observers indicate that former soldiers resorting to social media platforms to express their regret reflects a growing gap between official military narratives and the individual conscience of those who participated in those wars.

Today, I have to face the shocking truth, I was the terrorist.

The Lebanese Minister of Information, Paul Marqos, issued official directives to state media outlets to refrain from using the term 'resistance' when referring to Hezbollah in news coverage. The ministry clarified that this circular comes within the framework of following up on the implementation of recent cabinet decisions, which emphasized the necessity for concerned institutions and agencies to adhere to the state's new policies.

This decision sparked a wide wave of controversy in the Lebanese street and on social media platforms, where opinions were divided between supporters of the move, viewing it as an affirmation of state sovereignty, and opponents who saw it as undermining the party's role in confronting ongoing Israeli aggressions. This step comes at a sensitive time when Lebanon is witnessing escalating military tensions and increasing internal and international political pressures.

Lebanese Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, had announced at the beginning of March the prohibition of all military and security activities belonging to Hezbollah, describing them as illegal. Salam affirmed that the government decided to confine the party's scope of work to the political aspect only, following rocket attacks carried out by the party towards the city of Haifa, which the government considered a violation of its sovereign decision.

The Prime Minister, in his statements after the cabinet session, emphasized the state's categorical rejection of any military movements originating from Lebanese territory outside the framework of legitimate institutions. He pointed out that the party's monopolization of the decision of war and peace contradicts constitutional principles and puts the credibility of the Lebanese state before the international community at real risk, demanding the necessity of handing over weapons to official authorities.

In the same context, the government had called on the leadership of the Lebanese army in mid-February to immediately begin implementing a security plan aimed at confining weapons to areas located north of the Litani River. The cabinet gave the green light to the military establishment to use all available means to ensure the implementation of this plan and prevent any illegal armed manifestations in those areas.

These rapid developments reflect a radical shift in the Lebanese state's handling of the Hezbollah weapons file, as the government seeks to impose its full control over security and military decisions. Observers believe that these decisions could lead to a complete reshaping of the Lebanese political scene, in light of the challenges the country faces on both security and economic fronts.

The decision of war and peace rests solely with the state, and any military actions outside legitimate institutions are a violation of the law.

Informed media sources revealed that the Israeli occupation authorities intend to keep the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque closed to worshippers during the upcoming Eid al-Fitr holiday and the days that follow. The sources clarified that this decision was officially communicated to the Islamic Waqf Department in occupied Jerusalem, which is the body responsible for managing the mosque's affairs, in the past few days.

This approach comes amid the continued closure of the mosque, which began earlier this month, with the occupation authorities citing the tense 'security situation' resulting from ongoing military confrontations. This closure is considered a dangerous precedent, especially as it coincided with the holy month of Ramadan, depriving thousands of worshippers from accessing their first Qibla.

Field sources reported that this year witnessed the first Ramadan since the occupation of Jerusalem in 1967 where Palestinians were completely prevented from performing Friday prayers inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyards. This measure has sparked widespread condemnation from national and religious bodies, which considered it an attempt to impose a new reality and consolidate Israeli control.

In the context of international reactions, eight Islamic countries had earlier condemned this closure, describing it as 'unjustified,' emphasizing that the occupation has no legal sovereignty over the holy sites. These countries demanded the immediate lifting of restrictions and ensuring freedom of worship, but the occupation authorities continued their intransigence without any change in their field policies.

Reports indicate that Friday and Taraweeh prayers are still completely prohibited, with a heavy deployment of police forces and border guards in the alleys of the Old City and at the mosque's gates. The mosque compound is under strict surveillance, where no more than 25 employees from the Waqf Department are allowed to enter to carry out their administrative and service duties during each work shift.

Sources in the Waqf Department stated that the occupation authorities rejected a request to increase the number of permitted employees, including those from the manuscripts department. The occupation police threatened that if the number of employees increased, they would allow settlers to resume their daily incursions into the mosque, which Waqf officials considered political blackmail.

There is a state of concern within the Islamic Waqf circles that Israeli forces may install advanced surveillance devices and cameras inside the covered prayer halls, including the Dome of the Rock. This step, according to observers, aims to impose continuous and comprehensive electronic surveillance on everything that happens inside the historical prayer areas.

In parallel with the mosque's closure, the occupation authorities have imposed a near-complete siege on the Old City of Jerusalem, leading to widespread commercial and economic paralysis. Entry to the area has been restricted to residents whose IDs indicate they live within the walls, turning the historical markets, which were once bustling with life, into semi-deserted areas.

Despite the stagnation in the Old City, life continues normally in areas controlled by settlers or in West Jerusalem, just a few meters away. This disparity reflects the systematic policy of restriction targeting the Palestinian presence in the heart of the holy city under the guise of security necessities.

For his part, Awni Bazbaz, Director of International Relations at the Waqf Department, warned that these measures might not be temporary as the occupation claims. He expressed his fear that these restrictions could turn into permanent arrangements if the international and local community becomes accustomed to the absence of worshippers from Al-Aqsa Mosque for long periods.

Historically, Al-Aqsa Mosque is subject to what is known as the 'Status Quo,' an international arrangement that preserves the mosque's status as exclusively for Muslims under Jordanian administration. However, Palestinians assert that Israel has been working for decades to undermine this status through repeated incursions and age and time restrictions on worshippers' entry.

International laws consider Israel's control over East Jerusalem and the Old City an illegal act, as the occupying power does not have the right of sovereignty. International agreements stipulate the necessity of preserving religious and cultural landmarks in occupied territories without changing their identity or preventing their owners from accessing them.

Analysts believe that the occupation's exploitation of the current military circumstances to impose a long-term closure on Al-Aqsa aims to break the religious and national link between Palestinians and their holy sites. Fears are growing that this year's Eid al-Fitr will be a sad one for Jerusalemites due to their deprivation from praying in their captive mosque.

Amid this escalation, Islamic bodies in Jerusalem are demanding urgent Arab and international action to pressure the occupation government to reverse its decisions. Jerusalemites affirm that Al-Aqsa Mosque will remain the core of the conflict, and the occupation's measures will not change the reality of its Arab Islamic identity, no matter how severe the restrictions.

The closure raised fears that what is presented as a temporary measure could gradually turn into a permanent or semi-permanent arrangement.

The military and political establishment in the occupation state is facing sharp criticism as the confrontation with Iran and its proxies in the region enters its third week. Media sources have revealed significant gaps between official reports and the reality on the ground. Sources indicated that the occupation army is suffering from a tangible shortage of interceptor missiles, which official bodies quickly denied for fear of eroding deterrence, despite military circles acknowledging the difficult situation and the multiplicity of active fronts.

In a critical reading of the scene, Israeli writer Nir Kipnis affirmed that Israelis are being subjected to systematic deception by their government, which he described as 'incapable.' Kipnis explained that claims promoting the decisive fate of Hezbollah and its retreat behind the borders have evaporated in the face of reality, as military reports confirm that the party has not only not retreated but has begun to re-inject and deploy its forces in border villages and towns in southern Lebanon, posing a direct and continuous threat to northern settlements.

The analysis emphasized that targeting the settlements of Shlomi, Avivim, and Kiryat Shmona with missiles proves the falsity of claims about the destruction of Hezbollah's firepower. The writer considered that politics does not recognize a vacuum, and the continued existence of armed organizations and their ability to deliver strikes after two and a half years of fighting on various fronts is in itself a victory for them, noting that the 'small victories' marketed by official spokespersons are nothing but illusory signs in a list of wrong objectives.

On the regional level, the article pointed to the growing sense of impunity of the Iranian regime, especially with the continuation of demonstrations supporting it and strategic movements in the Strait of Hormuz. Observers believe that the Israeli reliance on absolute American support may clash with the reality that American forces may withdraw at any time, while the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its allies will remain in the region for many years, making any Israeli military achievement temporary and insufficient to change the strategic balance of power.

The writer concluded by calling on Israelis not to be swayed by the numbers and statistics presented by official spokespersons regarding the number of casualties or the extent of destruction in Gaza and Lebanon. He stressed that turning neighborhoods into rubble and assassinating leaders has not succeeded in deciding the battle, warning that continuing to 'sell myths' about regional power will only lead to imminent and more ferocious rounds of fighting, as long as the Israeli leadership remains stuck in a spiral of illusory victories.

No war ends in a draw; if Hezbollah is not completely eliminated, it means they are the victor.

Medical and field sources reported on Monday evening that four Israelis sustained varying degrees of injuries in the coastal city of Nahariya, northern occupied Palestine, after rockets launched from Lebanese territory fell. The sources stated that one of the injured suffered moderate wounds at a vital road junction east of the city, while the other three were transferred for treatment after being injured inside the settlement.

Lebanese Hezbollah officially claimed responsibility for the operation in a statement, indicating that its fighters carried out a complex attack using an intense rocket barrage and a swarm of kamikaze drones. The group clarified that this targeting comes in fulfillment of previous warnings issued to the city of Nahariya, and as part of a series of retaliatory operations against ongoing Israeli aggressions.

Video clips broadcast by Hebrew media documented a massive fire breaking out in a residential building in Nahariya, as a direct result of one of the rockets that air defense systems failed to intercept. The footage showed thick columns of smoke rising from the site, while firefighting and rescue teams rushed to try to control the flames and prevent their spread to neighboring buildings.

For its part, the Israeli ambulance service stated that its teams dealt with a man suffering from shrapnel injuries, whose condition was described as between mild and moderate. Paramedics on the ground confirmed that the explosion occurred in a populated area between two residential buildings, causing extensive material damage and a state of panic among the settlers.

In addition to physical injuries, emergency teams revealed that they provided treatment to six other people who suffered severe suffocation due to inhaling smoke from the fire. Reports indicated that among those suffering from suffocation were two girls and four adults, some of whom were transferred to nearby medical centers for necessary examinations.

In a notable development, official military sources quoted the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation as confirming that the injuries and damage resulted directly from an offensive rocket launched from Lebanon, and not from fragments of interceptor missiles. This statement refutes initial narratives that attempted to downplay the accuracy of the hit, confirming the rockets' success in penetrating the airspace and reaching their targets.

Hebrew press reports indicate a silent crisis related to a severe shortage in the Israeli army's stock of interceptor missiles, which may explain the failure to activate the Iron Dome in some areas. Israeli military censorship imposes a strict blackout on the true extent of human and material losses, and prevents the publication of images showing the accuracy of Hezbollah's rocket hits.

It is worth noting that the pace of border confrontations has sharply escalated since the beginning of March, with Hezbollah intensifying its targeting of military sites and northern settlements. These developments come in response to ongoing Israeli aggression and the assassination of prominent leading figures, amidst an unprecedented state of security tension in the region since the end of last year.

The attack came as part of the warning issued by the Islamic Resistance to Nahariya, and fighters targeted it with a rocket barrage and a swarm of kamikaze drones.

An extensive journalistic investigation has uncovered suspicious activities led by an Israeli organization called 'Ad Kan,' aimed at transferring hundreds of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip to countries outside the Middle East. Sources reported that the organization arranged secret flights, one of which landed in South Africa last November, carrying about 150 residents of the Strip who are suffering from the ongoing war.

Documents and financial data relied upon by the investigation showed that the organization deliberately used an intermediary company called 'Al-Majd' to carry out these operations, with the aim of concealing any direct link between Israeli authorities or right-wing organizations and these flights. This network relied on the cooperation of multiple parties, including Israelis and Palestinians, to facilitate the departure of families through strict inspection procedures before boarding the planes.

For their part, Palestinians who left the Strip via these flights confirmed that they were unaware of the true party behind arranging their travel, noting that their sole motive was to escape hunger and destruction. Travelers explained that the catastrophic humanitarian conditions left by the Israeli aggression for more than two years made staying in Gaza impossible, pushing them to seek any exit, regardless of its destination.

In contrast, these movements raised suspicions among authorities in South Africa, where Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola stated that these flights might fall under ethnic cleansing schemes for Palestinians from their lands. The government there announced the opening of official investigations to determine the circumstances of these groups' arrival, affirming its rejection of its territory being part of forced displacement projects targeting the Palestinian cause.

The investigation indicated that Gilad Ach, the founder of the 'Ad Kan' organization, is one of the most prominent supporters of proposals to resettle Palestinians in foreign countries, ideas that intersect with previous right-wing political proposals. Despite Ach's claim that these flights are purely humanitarian in nature to help those wishing to leave, the timing and mechanism used raise major questions about the political objectives behind these initiatives.

Financial details of the operation included the payment of large sums, with the cost of the trip per person amounting to about two thousand dollars, while the investigation revealed a contract with an American-Israeli businessman named Moti Kahana to arrange evacuation operations for sums up to 750 thousand dollars. These figures reflect the scale of financial investment in population transfer operations and directing them towards distant destinations such as the African continent.

Following these developments, the South African government decided to cancel the visa exemption granted to Palestinians, justifying it by the existence of 'deliberate misuse' by parties seeking to implement displacement agendas. Authorities stressed that the protection of refugees should not be a cover for emptying Palestinian land of its original inhabitants under the pressure of need and difficult living conditions.

The scene in Gaza remains a primary driver of these forced migrations, where citizens find themselves between the hammer of bombing and siege and the anvil of suspicious offers to leave. Although some confirmed that their goal was only to save their families, the discovered facts place these trips in a political context that serves the occupation's strategies aimed at changing the demographic reality in the occupied territories.

These trips may be part of an agenda to cleanse Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank.

US President Donald Trump announced today, Monday, his conviction that the leadership in Tehran seeks to reach an agreement that ends the current military confrontation with the United States and Israel. Trump explained during his speech at the White House that the problem lies in the lack of clarity regarding who represents the Iranian state at present, noting that there are parties wishing to negotiate without revealing their official identity.

The US President touched upon the ambiguity surrounding the leadership structure in Iran, stressing that Washington does not know precisely who makes the final decisions. These statements come at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing dramatic transformations following the initial strikes of the war that targeted power centers in the Iranian capital.

Regarding the successor to the Supreme Leader, Trump referred to conflicting reports about the health condition of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, who was appointed successor to his late father. Trump mentioned that there are reports of him suffering severe injuries or severe deformities, while some estimates suggest the possibility of his death as a result of the airstrikes that targeted leadership positions.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reinforced these doubts last week when he stated that the new leader has not appeared publicly since his alleged injury. Trump affirmed that the absence of any speech or official appearance by Mojtaba Khamenei fuels questions about his ability to perform his duties, or whether he is still alive.

Regarding international navigation, Trump renewed his call for the international community to effectively contribute to securing and reopening the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping traffic. The US President considered that the stability of navigation in this vital waterway represents a common international interest that requires broader cooperation from regional and international powers affected by its closure.

Trump did not hide his displeasure with the stance of some allies, as he strongly criticized countries that did not show sufficient enthusiasm to support US efforts in securing the strait. He pointed out that Washington has provided protection for many years to certain countries against external threats, but found a 'coldness' in the response of those countries when their field contribution was needed.

In a related context, specialized sources monitoring maritime navigation observed the passage of the first non-Iranian oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, broadcasting its identification signals clearly. This development is the first of its kind since the outbreak of hostilities on February 28, which may indicate a partial breakthrough in maritime traffic.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded to the American statements by emphasizing the steadfastness of his country's position in confronting military pressures. Araghchi said that Washington and Tel Aviv must realize that Iran will not hesitate to defend its sovereignty, and that it is prepared to continue the war to the maximum extent imposed by national necessities.

These reciprocal statements reflect a state of complexity in the political and military scene, where positions oscillate between hinting at negotiation and insisting on confrontation. While Trump seeks a clear Iranian partner to strike a deal, Tehran insists on demonstrating its resilience despite the severe blows that have affected its leadership hierarchy.

We don't know who we are dealing with... We don't know who their current Iranian leader is, and there are parties that want to negotiate but we don't know their identity.

Hebrew press reports issued today, Monday, stated that Iranian forces have recently escalated the use of cluster missiles in their ongoing attacks. Sources clarified that this method relies on striking as many targets as possible indiscriminately to expand the scope of targeting.

The sources mentioned that the security establishment had detected indications of Tehran's intention to use missiles capable of carrying small, multiple munitions since the beginning of the confrontation. These developments come amidst severe warnings issued by the Home Front Command about the need for extreme caution regarding the remnants of these missiles.

Military estimates indicate that Iran has launched more than 300 missiles of various types since the outbreak of the current war. It appears that Iran's focus has significantly shifted towards missiles with split warheads, which multiply the area of surface destruction.

Media sources quoted Israeli researcher Yehoshua Kalisky as saying that the current Iranian strategy aims to cause widespread environmental and human damage. He added that these missiles do not follow the traditional point-targeting pattern but rather seek to spread panic over extended geographical areas.

Security data confirms that about half of the recent missile launches were of the split type, reflecting an Iranian awareness of their psychological and material impact. These launches occur almost daily, targeting vital and populated areas deep within.

Local authorities observed clear signs of destruction in several locations extending from the far north to the southern regions in Eilat. The scattered small bombs caused direct damage in major cities such as Tel Aviv, Lod, Ramat Gan, and Bnei Brak.

Military experts explained the mechanism of these missiles, where the warhead opens at an altitude ranging between seven and ten kilometers above the designated target. Once opened, dozens of small bombs, each weighing between two and a half to five kilograms, scatter.

The final explosion process relies on a precise trigger mechanism that activates upon impact with the ground or any solid object in the fall zone. This scattering covers a wide area, sometimes reaching a diameter of ten kilometers.

Kalisky pointed out that the distribution of these bombs does not follow a symmetrical geometric pattern but is directly affected by weather factors and prevailing winds in the upper atmospheric layers. This fluctuation in falling makes it difficult to accurately predict the exact location of each small bomb's explosion.

Sources warned that a percentage of these munitions do not explode immediately upon impact with the ground, turning them into radioactive debris and ticking time bombs. These unexploded bombs pose a grave danger to civilians, as they can explode upon human contact or movement.

Cities such as Rishon LeZion, Ness Ziona, and Be'er Ya'akov are experiencing a state of constant alert to clear sites that have seen the fall of these fragments. Engineering teams are sweeping open areas and residential buildings to ensure there are no unexploded war remnants.

Observers believe that Iran's recourse to this type of weapon represents an attempt to bypass air defense systems by overwhelming them with a large number of small targets. While the parent missile can be intercepted, the process of tracking all scattered munitions remains a significant and complex technical challenge.

In a related context, the Home Front Command confirmed that the structural damage from these bombs might be less than that of large missiles, but their danger lies in their widespread distribution. Authorities urge residents to remain in fortified areas for longer periods even after missile barrages end to ensure the stability of the field situation.

Hebrew sources concluded their report by indicating that the intensive use of this technology reflects Tehran's desire to deplete defensive resources and keep the home front on high alert. Security assessments continue to address this evolving threat that now affects most major cities.

The purpose of cluster missiles is to cause widespread environmental damage, and indiscriminate damage to a large number of targets and casualties.

Sarah Hussain, head of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on Iran, announced that the Israeli airstrike on Evin Prison in Tehran last year amounts to a war crime. The UN official explained during a session at the Human Rights Council on Monday that investigations proved the deliberate targeting of a civilian facility housing hundreds of detainees, which places the attack within the framework of grave violations of international humanitarian law.

The latest UN report revealed horrific details of the attack that occurred last June, with the mission confirming the deaths of 80 people, including one child and eight women, as a result of direct shelling. These findings were based on a comprehensive documentation process that included extensive interviews with survivors, injured individuals, and eyewitnesses, as well as a precise analysis of satellite imagery and field documents that showed the extent of the destruction at the prison, known for holding political opponents.

In a related context, the international mission warned that the continuation of current military operations and aerial bombardment exacerbates the risks of internal repression in Iran. Sarah Hussain pointed out that previous experiences have shown that external military interventions do not lead to accountability or positive change, but rather provide authorities with a pretext to escalate executions and crackdowns on the opposition, which was indeed observed after last year's strikes.

For her part, May Sato, the UN expert on human rights in Iran, expressed deep concern over the fate of detainees inside the damaged prisons, including those arrested during popular protests earlier in the year. Sato confirmed that incoming reports indicate a severe shortage of food and medical supplies, as well as a complete قطع of communication between prisoners and their families, which doubles the suffering of detainees' relatives, including foreign nationals.

The Human Rights Council witnessed a notable Israeli absence, as Israel decided to withdraw from the session and leave its seat vacant, a move that reflects its rejection of the investigations conducted by the Council regarding its violations. This stance comes at a time when international pressure is increasing to document the effects of aerial military operations on civilian infrastructure in the region and ensure the protection of the most vulnerable groups in detention centers.

In an intervention before the United Nations, Iranian Ambassador Ali Bahreini called on the international community to explicitly condemn the aerial attacks launched by international and regional powers on his country. Bahreini noted that the death toll from these operations has exceeded 1,300, considering that international silence regarding the targeting of civilian facilities encourages the continued violation of international laws without deterrence.

There is international concern about the fate of dual-national detainees, including a British couple held in Evin Prison, which suffered severe damage to its structures and roofs. Human rights organizations are demanding the provision of safe corridors for the International Red Cross to inspect the conditions of prisoners and ensure their physical safety amid ongoing military tensions that threaten the lives of civilians and detainees alike.

We found reasonable grounds to believe that Israel, by carrying out airstrikes on Evin Prison, committed a war crime by deliberately directing attacks against a civilian object.

The animosity between Iran and Israel, and sometimes the United States, is often presented in political discourse as a deep and entrenched conflict in the region. However, a careful reading of history reveals that this relationship is not as static as it seems, but rather has been shaped by complex political and ideological transformations, starting from Iran's cooperation with Israel before the Islamic Revolution, to the current conflict after the establishment of the Islamic Republic.

Before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was not hostile towards Israel. Under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, it maintained undeclared cooperative relations with Israel that included economic and security spheres, while the United States considered Iran a strategic ally in confronting Soviet influence and balancing power in the Middle East. This relationship was part of a shared pragmatic vision, transcending religious or ideological considerations, and focused on common strategic interests.

However, the scene changed dramatically with the victory of the Islamic Revolution and the rise of Ruhollah Khomeini's leadership. The Islamic Republic redefined the identity of the Iranian state on a Shiite religious basis, making the ideological dimension the core of domestic and foreign policy, and linking the conflict with Israel and sometimes the United States to the Iranian revolutionary project. The Palestinian issue became a symbolic and political tool to enhance the regime's legitimacy, and enmity towards Israel and the United States became part of the Islamic Republic's identity, as they are viewed as colonial powers targeting the Islamic nation and its balances.

Iran's identity, fundamentally built on Shiite religion, made the Palestinian issue a central tool in achieving the goals of its ideological project. The new Iranian regime, established under the umbrella of the Supreme Leader, links regional policies to the religious dimension, and invests in Palestine to enhance the legitimacy of its revolutionary and Shiite project. From the perspective of the Iranian leadership, this path is not merely a political choice, but a religious duty, derived from beliefs related to the fulfillment of divine promises, including the anticipation of the appearance of the awaited Mahdi.

This ideological dimension has driven Iran to pursue policies that transcend the limits of its traditional interests, including supporting Shiite forces in the region, and expanding influence in holy Islamic sites, which puts it in constant conflict with some traditional Sunni states, and makes its stance on Israel more severe. Thus, the Palestinian issue transforms into a dual tool: a symbol of religious justice and ideological conflict, and at the same time a political and strategic tool to enhance regional influence.

In the context of this project, Iran has worked to build a network of regional alliances with various forces. The alliance of Palestinian Islamic movements is one of the most prominent examples of Iran's endeavor to market its religious project beyond state borders. Support for factions such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad is not merely a political or military alliance, but a means to promote Iran's Shiite religious project in the region, and to give it political and religious capital in the Islamic world, while highlighting the Palestinian issue as both a symbol and a strategic tool.

However, a part of the political discussion puts forward a different hypothesis, which is that the enmity between Iran on the one hand, and Israel and the United States on the other, is not inherently inevitable. Recent history provides an example of the possibility of different relations between the two sides, as happened during the Shah's rule. From this perspective, some analysts believe that the religious ideological dimension of the Iranian regime played a decisive role in transforming the relationship with Israel and the United States into an open conflict. If Iran were a state acting according to purely pragmatic logic, far from the revolutionary religious dimension, relations with Israel and the United States could have developed in the pattern of the pre-Shah relations, and religious doctrine has become a fundamental element in the current conflict.

February 28, 2026, marks a new turning point, as a war on Iran began with the assassination of Supreme Leader Khamenei, opening up files of internal and regional conflict. Some suggest that the military and political strategy towards Iran carries implicit messages that go beyond mere traditional military conflict. The failure to directly target the Iranian president, while focusing on senior religious figures such as the Supreme Leader, may reflect an attempt to weaken the religious dimension in the structure of the Iranian regime, without affecting the executive structure of the state. From this perspective, it can be understood that the goal is not only to confront Iran as a state, but to confront the religious ideological project that has been formed since the Islamic Revolution, and to try to limit its influence internally and externally, including in its policies towards the region and the Palestinian issue.

In light of this, some observers raise a broader question regarding the future of this relationship: Can the nature of the conflict between Iran on the one hand, and Israel and the United States on the other, change if Iran undergoes political transformations that redefine the state's role and its ideological identity? Some believe that any deep transformation in the structure of the Iranian political system could open the door to a reformulation of regional relations, including the relationship with Israel and the United States.

However, such scenarios remain within the framework of political assumptions, because the reality of the Middle East shows that conflicts there are rarely explained by only one factor. Ideology, strategic interests, and regional balances all intertwine in shaping state policies.

Therefore, understanding the relationship between Iran, Israel, and the United States requires going beyond simplistic interpretations that reduce the conflict to a single religious or political dimension. The more likely truth is that this enmity was formed through a complex interaction between ideology and interest, between the revolutionary nature of the Iranian regime, and regional and international power balances.

At the heart of this equation, the Palestinian issue remains strongly present, as a liberation issue for many, and a political and strategic tool for the Iranian regime to enhance its regional legitimacy, making it an inseparable center from reading the roots of enmity between Iran on the one hand, and Israel and the United States on the other.

The American administration's efforts to mobilize international military support in the Gulf region have faced significant obstacles, after several of Washington's most prominent allies explicitly refused to send naval vessels to the Strait of Hormuz. These stances come amidst escalating tensions that have led to the closure of the strategic waterway through which about 20% of global energy supplies pass.

Influential European countries, primarily Germany, Spain, and Italy, affirmed that they have no immediate plans to participate in any military operations aimed at forcibly opening the strait. This approach reflects the Old Continent's desire to distance itself from the White House's escalatory policies towards Tehran and avoid sliding into an all-out confrontation with uncertain outcomes.

For his part, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius sharply criticized the American demands, questioning the military utility of sending limited European frigates compared to the immense capabilities of the US Navy. Pistorius stressed that his country would not be drawn into a conflict it did not ignite, describing the current situation as 'not our war'.

In the same context, the German government spokesman clarified that Berlin was not consulted by Washington or Tel Aviv before the outbreak of the current confrontations. He pointed out that the United States had previously stated that European assistance was unnecessary, making the current request surprising in German political circles.

In Rome, the Italian position was firm regarding the risks of military involvement, with Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini stating that sending warships to an active conflict zone is an explicit declaration of entering into war. Salvini affirmed that Italy is not hostile to any party and will not risk its soldiers in a complex regional conflict.

On the European diplomatic front, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas revealed a desire to strengthen existing naval missions, but without expanding their geographical scope. Kallas explained that foreign ministers agreed to keep Operation 'Aspides' within its current boundaries, refusing to include the Strait of Hormuz in its mandate.

Greece, which leads the 'Aspides' mission, announced that its military activity would remain confined to the Red Sea region only. This stance confirms the European apprehension about approaching Iranian coasts, where direct confrontations and missile threats that have disrupted navigation are concentrated.

In London, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer adopted more diplomatic language, yet not without caution, indicating that his country would work on collective plans to ensure freedom of navigation. However, Starmer stressed that Britain would not be drawn into a wider war, hinting at the possibility of contributing only technical systems for mine detection.

Denmark, meanwhile, called for the necessity of keeping diplomatic channels open and working to de-escalate, despite dissatisfaction with developments on the ground. Its foreign minister considered that Europe's contribution should primarily aim to calm the situation and prevent a full-blown explosion in the vital region.

In the Netherlands, Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen considered that making decisions about military missions in the Gulf requires a precise timeframe and legal framework within NATO. Berendsen affirmed that these decisions are 'crucial' and cannot be made hastily, noting the absence of a concrete proposal for discussion at present.

On the international level, Beijing entered the crisis by holding intensive talks with all concerned parties with the aim of achieving comprehensive de-escalation. The Chinese Foreign Ministry indicated that the stability of the Strait of Hormuz represents a supreme international interest, and that dialogue is the only way to end the closure that harms the global economy.

US President Donald Trump had called on the international community to assume its responsibilities in securing navigation, after Iran succeeded in paralyzing tanker traffic. Tehran, in response to American-Israeli attacks, used a mix of drones and ballistic missiles, in addition to deploying naval mines in narrow passages.

Observers believe that the European rejection represents a blow to Washington's efforts to build a military 'maximum pressure' alliance against Iran. European capitals prefer to adhere to legal and international paths, away from engaging in alliances led solely by the United States outside the framework of the United Nations or collective consensus.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a major arena of international contention, as its effective closure has led to disruption in global energy markets and increased pressure on oil-importing countries. With continued European refusal to intervene, American options remain limited between unilateral escalation or seeking a political settlement that ensures the reopening of the waterway.

This is not our war, and we did not start it; what does Trump expect a handful of European frigates to do that the powerful US Navy cannot?

The leadership landscape in many totalitarian regimes, particularly in Iran, shows a clear dominance of the older generation, with officials under the age of sixty rarely seen in positions of influence. This phenomenon is not merely about biological age; it reflects a deliberate freezing of the leadership cycle within the regime's structure, transforming desired stability into a state of chronic stagnation.

Confining decision-making to a limited elite for decades leads to institutions becoming closed circles that exclude new generations and prevent them from having real influence. In this context, accumulated experience transforms from a tool for development into an obstacle that resists change, initiating a process of internal erosion that affects vital state joints and deprives them of their flexibility.

In contrast, vibrant nations adopt a logic of periodically renewing elites, allowing new political languages and tools to emerge that are compatible with contemporary societal transformations. Western democracies have seen leaders in their thirties and forties ascend to power, such as Rishi Sunak in Britain and Emmanuel Macron in France, reflecting these systems' capacity to inject new blood.

Looking at the Iranian experience, we find that the upper echelons of decision-making remain hostage to the generation of the revolution that rose in 1979, with a clear absence of institutional succession mechanisms. This situation has led to a noticeable slowness in adapting to international changes, resulting in defensive decisions lacking a spirit of initiative, which is clearly evident in recent tactical failures.

Totalitarian regimes inherently fear internal competition, and therefore prefer absolute loyalty over professional competence, choosing monotonous continuity instead of creative renewal. Over time, these regimes transform into entities that reproduce themselves and their crises, instead of innovating real solutions to the challenges facing their young societies.

The dilemma of aging leadership is not limited to states; it extends to traditional ideological movements that fail to seize the appropriate historical moment for change. In Jordan, Islamist leaders are preoccupied with marginal organizational and legal disputes over party names, at a time when regional realities demand deeper and more contemporary strategic visions.

In the Egyptian case, a sharp division emerges within the Muslim Brotherhood between elderly historical leaders who refuse to step down and a rising generation that possesses different tools. This fragmentation hinders the organization's ability to formulate a political narrative capable of resonating with the aspirations of a street that moves at a much faster pace than its traditional leaders.

On another note, field experiences in conflict zones such as Syria, the Gaza Strip, and Yemen have proven that the presence of youth in centers of action was a decisive factor. Young field leaders emerged, demonstrating greater boldness in decision-making and an exceptional ability to use modern technology in organization, media, and politics.

The failure of systems in institutional learning is due to the absence of real accountability that allows for acknowledging mistakes and correcting deviant paths. Moreover, the absence of power transfer deprives institutions of changing incentives and breaking the circles of narrow interests that form around historical leaders who refuse to leave the scene.

When generational renewal paths are closed, the system becomes a prisoner of its past decisions and revolves in a vicious circle of justifying failure instead of learning from it. This political deadlock inevitably leads to doubling down on the same tools that proved ineffective in the past, accelerating the collapse of popular legitimacy.

It must be emphasized that youth alone is not an automatic guarantee of success; there must be institutions that balance the enthusiasm of youth with the experience of elders. The successful equation lies in creating a true partnership between generations, where experience becomes a wise guide and the energy of youth becomes a driving force towards the future.

The fundamental question that political elites should ask is not about the age of the leader, but about the vitality of the idea and its ability to renew and keep pace with the times. Regimes that close their doors to new generations are, in fact, announcing the beginning of their end, because they lose the ability to understand the language and needs of the era.

History always proves that survival is for those most capable of adapting and transforming mistakes into cumulative knowledge that serves the public good. In light of the rapid transformations the world is witnessing, leadership renewal is no longer a political luxury that can be postponed, but has become an imperative necessity to ensure the stability of nations and protect them from erosion.

In conclusion, the growing gap between young societies and aging leaders represents a ticking time bomb that threatens the stability of totalitarian regimes. Opening up to youth and transferring leadership is the only way to overcome stagnation and ensure the building of a future based on competence and innovation instead of loyalty and rigidity.

History does not forgive regimes that fear their youth, and renewal is not a political luxury but a fundamental condition for survival and continuity.

Media sources reported that the Israeli occupation authorities decided to continue the closure of the strategic gas platforms 'Leviathan' and 'Karish' for more than two consecutive weeks. This step comes amid escalating military tensions and direct confrontation with Iran, as the government seeks to reduce security threats that could affect vital energy facilities in the country.

Economic reports stated that the closure decision stems from serious concerns about targeting these platforms, which are considered among the most expensive national assets, with the cost of building a single platform estimated between 1 billion and 1.5 billion dollars. This precautionary measure aims to ensure that the facilities are not subjected to total destruction in the event of precise missile attacks, which could make their repair impossible.

As a result of the halt in natural gas flow, the Israeli Electric Corporation was forced to revert to using more expensive and polluting alternatives such as coal and diesel to secure energy needs. This shift has caused heavy financial burdens, with estimates indicating that the economic losses resulting from this halt amounted to approximately 300 million shekels per week.

The total losses over the past two weeks reached approximately 600 million shekels, equivalent to about 192 million US dollars. These figures reflect the extent of economic pressure facing the Israeli energy sector amid continued security uncertainty and the absence of a clear timeline for resuming operational activities.

The repercussions of the closure were not limited to the Israeli domestic market but also extended to regional gas supplies destined for both Egypt and Jordan. Observers believe that this interruption sends negative signals to international investors about the reliability of the Israeli energy sector and its ability to fulfill its contractual obligations in times of crisis.

For its part, the occupation's Ministry of Energy clarified that these measures fall within the risk management policy during wartime to reduce the level of potential threats. Experts confirmed that the damage that could be inflicted on platforms while they are shut down is limited and can be technically dealt with, unlike the catastrophic explosions that could occur if they were targeted at the peak of their production.

Despite this strategic halt, sources confirmed that domestic demand for electricity remains stable so far without widespread outages. This is due to the intensive reliance on reserve stocks of alternative fuel, despite the exorbitant costs this imposes on the state's general budget.

It is worth noting that this is the third time Israel has been forced to close gas platforms since the outbreak of confrontations on October 7th. The recurrence of these incidents raises widespread debate within Israeli political and economic circles about how to balance the protection of strategic assets with reducing the ongoing financial bleeding.

The closure of the platforms aims to reduce security risks, as their destruction during operation could lead to catastrophic consequences compared to their shutdown.

Coinciding with the Pentagon's decision to send 2,500 Marines to the Strait of Hormuz, the American-Israeli coalition carried out airstrikes targeting Iran's Kharg Island, the vital artery that processes about 90% of Tehran's oil exports. These developments come amidst an international mobilization that included the European Union expanding its 'Aspides' naval mission, Britain sending thousands of interceptor drones, in addition to South Korean and Ukrainian reinforcements to the region.

Field data indicates that the US administration may move beyond an air bombardment strategy towards the option of direct ground control over strategic islands such as Kharg, Larak, Hormuz, and Qeshm, with the aim of tightening its grip on the strait and encircling Bandar Abbas port. This approach comes despite internal military warnings that controlling these islands would require thousands of soldiers and complex supply lines, as well as the risks of confronting hundreds of thousands of Revolutionary Guard elements in an open combat zone.

Media sources reported that US President Donald Trump ignored warnings from military leaders, led by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Kin, regarding Tehran's ability to disrupt the global shipping lane using mines and drones. In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is promoting the idea of a 'quick victory,' based on the results of previous operations, which raises concerns about a gap between political ambitions and the field reality that could end in a catastrophic war of attrition for the global economy.

Amidst this escalation, varying scenarios emerge within decision-making circles in Washington; while some push for gradual involvement in a ground invasion, other advisors, such as David Sacks, propose a strategy of 'declaring victory and withdrawing' to avoid getting bogged down in a long-term conflict, which places the region at a dangerous crossroads that could reshape the map of influence in the Gulf.

The decision to call up Marines indicates that the Trump administration is preparing to transition from the idea of destroying Kharg Island through air bombardment to subjecting it to direct American occupation.

The occupied city of Jerusalem and its western suburbs experienced a state of alert following the sounding of sirens for the second time on Monday, after a wave of missiles launched from Iranian territory was detected. Field sources reported hearing loud explosions shaking the city, resulting from air defense systems attempting to intercept hostile targets in the region's sky.

In the Beit Shemesh area, west of Jerusalem, large missile shrapnel fell, causing panic among settlers. Hebrew media reports confirmed that this shrapnel was a result of aerial interception operations. Medical teams did not report any direct human casualties at this location, despite the repeated falling of missile remnants in the same area in recent days.

Israeli authorities impose strict military censorship on the extent of material and human losses resulting from these strikes, with media outlets prohibited from circulating videos documenting the exact impact locations. Observers suggest that this blackout may reflect a desire to conceal the true extent of damage to sensitive sites deep within Israeli territory.

For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard officially announced that the missile attack directly targeted David Ben Gurion Airport in Lod, in addition to a group of military bases and facilities belonging to the Israeli army. These statements come at a time when journalistic sources confirmed the detection of missile parts falling in about ten different locations within the greater Tel Aviv area.

Technical reports indicated the possibility of using cluster warhead missiles in the recent attack, as parts of them fell in the vicinity of Ben Gurion Airport and other vital areas in the center. Competent authorities are conducting field investigations to examine the nature of the projectiles that managed to penetrate the atmosphere and reach their targets despite the activation of defenses.

On the medical front, sources stated that the ambulance system did not record fatal injuries in recent hours, but Israeli hospitals daily receive between 150 to 200 cases of varying injuries since the escalation began. According to Ministry of Health data, the total number of injured on the Israeli side has risen to approximately 3,400 people since the outbreak of the confrontation.

In contrast, Iran is experiencing difficult humanitarian conditions due to continuous attacks launched by Israel and the United States since late February. According to available statistics, these raids have resulted in the martyrdom of at least 1,332 people, including hundreds of children and women, amid massive destruction to infrastructure and civilian facilities.

The Iranian arena had suffered a major political and military blow with the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei during the ongoing military operations, which prompted Tehran to escalate the pace of its missile responses. Sources confirm that the number of injured inside Iran has exceeded 15,000 people, amid a severe shortage of medical supplies and the ability to deal with the extent of the destruction.

The open confrontation between the two sides continues in the absence of any prospect for de-escalation, as both sides exchange intensive missile and aerial strikes. International circles are awaiting the outcomes of this unprecedented escalation, which has moved from shadow wars to direct confrontation affecting capitals and strategic airports.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard confirmed that the missile attack targeted Ben Gurion Airport and vital Israeli military facilities.

The Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq announced this evening that a number of its fighters were killed in an aerial attack that targeted one of its security headquarters in the western Anbar province. The PMF clarified in an official statement that the bombing targeted the 'Martyr Haider checkpoint' located in the Al-Qaim district, adjacent to the Syrian border, resulting in human and material losses at the site.

According to initial reports from official sources, the attack resulted in the death of at least six elements and the injury of four others with varying degrees of wounds. The PMF directly pointed fingers at Israel, describing the operation as a 'treacherous Zionist aggression' that targeted a regular force performing its security duties within the structure of the Iraqi armed forces.

The PMF stressed in its statement that these repeated attacks will not deter it from continuing its duties in protecting Iraqi sovereignty and defending the country's security. It affirmed that the targeting of its official headquarters represents a blatant violation of international norms, indicating its fighters' insistence on steadfastness in their positions despite increasing security challenges.

This escalation comes at a time when the PMF revealed bloody statistics of the bombings it has been subjected to since the beginning of March. Reports indicated the death of 27 and the injury of nearly 50 of its members due to a series of airstrikes previously attributed to US forces, reflecting the extent of military pressure the PMF has recently faced.

Informed sources stated that the total number of airstrikes targeting PMF headquarters reached approximately 32 since the beginning of the current month. These strikes are distributed across different regions of the country, especially in border areas witnessing intense activity by armed factions operating under the banner of the 'Islamic Resistance in Iraq'.

The region has been experiencing a state of security turmoil since late February, as Iraqi factions have been carrying out daily drone and missile attacks against what they describe as 'enemy bases'. These actions come in response to military operations launched by the United States and Israel in the region, turning the Iraqi arena into a field for settling regional scores.

It is worth noting that the Popular Mobilization Forces were established in 2014 as an auxiliary force to fight the Islamic State organization, before being officially integrated into the Iraqi military establishment. The PMF includes various factions, some of which have close ties with Iran, and operates under the command of the Commander-in-Chief of the Iraqi Armed Forces according to local law.

The Martyr Haider checkpoint in Al-Qaim district, Anbar province, was subjected to a treacherous Zionist bombing that targeted an official security site belonging to the PMF.

Ministry of Finance and Planning holds consultations with civil society on the 2026 cash budget

- The cash budget will not harm the poor and focuses on the sustainability of essential services

Minister of Finance and Planning, Dr. Stefan Salameh, reviewed before representatives of civil society organizations the general features of the 2026 emergency budget, which is based on spending available cash flows to the public treasury, according to priorities that will address existential risks and current regional challenges.

This came during a consultation workshop held by the Ministry of Finance and Planning today, Monday, during which Salameh stressed that the government will remain committed to disbursing a percentage of employees' salaries according to the financial capabilities available each month, with a focus on the education, health, and security sectors.

The Minister of Finance and Planning affirmed the government's approach of conducting the broadest community consultations on public policies, ensuring the preparation of a budget responsive to the current Palestinian reality, noting that the Israeli government continues for the tenth month to withhold Palestinian clearance funds, which constitute about 70% of the Palestinian government's revenues, in addition to the absence of serious international commitments – at this stage – to support the public treasury.

Salameh stressed before civil society representatives that the budget draft takes into account the poor and low-income groups, explaining that the basic pillars adopted by the Ministry of Finance and Planning in its preparation ensure the sustainability of essential services under difficult circumstances, control operational expenses, achieve tax justice, and combat evasion and smuggling.

Furthermore, the consultation workshop witnessed an in-depth discussion with civil society representatives, in order to reach a transparent budget that reflects local, regional, and international changes, and meets basic needs to enhance the steadfastness of citizens in the face of unprecedented challenges.

International speculation has recently escalated regarding the possibility of the United States carrying out special military operations or occupying the Iranian island of Kharg. These expectations come in the context of recalling Washington's military history, which relies heavily on airborne landings as a strategic tool to decide battles and change the balance of power in record time.

The abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on January 3rd is the latest controversial example in this context. A US commando force of about one hundred soldiers carried out a surprise landing in the capital Caracas under intense air cover, leading to his arrest and capture in an operation that shocked international political circles.

In the Syrian arena, US forces have adopted an airborne landing strategy since 2014 to pursue leaders of the Islamic State organization. Among the most prominent of these operations was the one that resulted in the killing of the organization's leader, Abu Ibrahim al-Qurashi, in the northwest of the country, operations that rely on extreme speed and accurate intelligence to achieve their objectives.

The operation that changed the face of the conflict with Al-Qaeda was at dawn on May 2, 2011, in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. US commandos were able to eliminate Osama bin Laden in a special operation that did not exceed 40 minutes, reflecting Washington's ability to reach its targets deep within other countries' territories.

Returning to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the 'Airborne Dragon' operation emerged as one of the largest preliminary landing operations for the ground invasion. Special units were deployed in strategic areas within Iraqi territory to secure roads and facilitate the advance of main ground forces towards the capital Baghdad to ensure its rapid fall.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Afghan mountains were the scene of landings by US special units in support of local armed factions. These operations aimed to undermine the Taliban's rule at the beginning of what later became known as the longest war fought by the United States in its military history outside its borders.

However, the history of US landings has not always been fraught with easy success, as the Somali capital Mogadishu witnessed a major setback in October 1993. The operation, known as 'Black Hawk Down,' turned from a quick arrest mission into a bloody street battle that resulted in the deaths of 18 American soldiers and injuries to dozens, which constituted a major embarrassment for the US administration at the time.

In late 1989, Washington carried out the invasion of Panama through large-scale airborne landing operations that included the capital Panama City and other vital areas. The mission aimed directly at overthrowing the rule of Manuel Noriega, who was wanted by the US judiciary on charges related to drug trafficking and international extortion.

These operations are an integral part of the American military doctrine that prefers the use of special forces and airborne landings to achieve rapid political and military results. These tactics allow Washington to overcome geographical complexities and traditional fortifications of adversaries, making them the first choice in explosive international crises.

Reports indicate that reliance on this type of operation reduces human casualties among attacking forces compared to comprehensive traditional wars. However, the success of these operations remains dependent on the accuracy of intelligence information and the ability to deal with field surprises that may arise during execution.

Finally, the question remains whether the circulating scenarios regarding Iran will join the list of these historical operations. While Washington works to use these threats as political leverage, the option of military landing remains on the table for American decision-makers as a decisive tool in confronting regional challenges.

Landings have never been merely a tactical option, but rather an expression of a military doctrine aimed at neutralizing adversaries with lightning speed.

Hebrew media reports have highlighted the growing economic challenges facing Israel, warning of a state of 'escalating deficit' in the general budget. Sources indicated that the continuation of military confrontations on multiple fronts, especially with Iran, has led to an unprecedented depletion of financial resources, exceeding all previous estimates.

Military expert Ami Rochkes Dumba criticized the Israeli government's decision to increase the financial deficit for 2026 to 5.1% of the GDP. Dumba considered this approach to reflect a lack of strategic planning and responsibility towards the exorbitant economic price that the Israeli public will bear in the coming years.

Informed sources explained that the government was forced to make emergency adjustments to the budget because the ongoing military operation expenses were not included in the initial forecasts. Official documents acknowledge that the state is obligated to spend huge sums that were not hedged when previous financial laws were drafted, putting immense pressure on the public treasury.

The data indicates that the government based its budget on illusory assumptions that the current year would pass without large-scale fighting, despite the security tensions existing since October 2023. This failure in estimation shows a deep gap between the reality on the ground and financial plans that ignored years of direct and indirect conflict.

According to economic analyses, the jump in the deficit from 3.4% in 2025 to 5.1% in 2026 reflects the addition of between 20 to 25 billion shekels above what was planned. This increase is a dangerous indicator of government spending spiraling out of control in the absence of a horizon for the end of military operations.

In a related context, the public debt to GDP ratio has risen alarmingly, jumping from 60% before the outbreak of confrontations in 2023 to about 66%. Reports predict that this ratio will approach the 70% barrier soon, which represents a long-term burden on the Israeli economy and its borrowing capacity.

Sources confirm that every additional percentage point in the debt ratio increases the annual interest cost by amounts ranging from 1.5 to 2 billion shekels. These huge sums will be financed directly from the pockets of settlers through cuts in future government services or the imposition of new and burdensome tax increases.

Even if a quick calm is reached, military expenditures will not stop immediately due to the urgent need to replenish depleted weapon stockpiles. The army will have to complete deferred equipment purchases and rehabilitate defense systems that were consumed during months of long fighting.

The initial cost of rebuilding the military system alone is estimated at an additional 20 to 30 billion shekels, to be distributed over several fiscal years. This means that the defense budget will continue to drain the largest share of national resources at the expense of education, health, and social welfare sectors.

Circles within the government coalition are trying to promote optimistic scenarios claiming the ability to return to fiscal discipline within four to six years. However, economic experts confirm that these estimates lack realism, and that recovery from the effects of this war may take a full decade.

Observers believe that the widening deficit, while necessary to finance the military campaign, carries warning signs for international financial institutions and credit rating agencies. A country that enters major confrontations without sufficient reserves risks its overall financial stability and puts its economic future at stake.

The current financial policy reveals Israel's unpreparedness to face realistic scenarios, where crises and costs are deferred to future generations. The current decision to increase spending is not merely a response to an emergency, but an implicit acknowledgment of entering a conflict without a full understanding of its deep economic consequences.

The Israeli public now faces the repercussions of these policies through a decline in purchasing power and rising living costs associated with financing the war effort. Concerns are growing that the continuation of this approach will lead to a long-term economic recession that will be difficult to exit without radical and painful reforms.

In conclusion, the Israeli economy remains hostage to developments on the ground, as promises of stability evaporate in the face of escalating deficits and accumulated debts. Questions remain about the government's ability to balance increasing security requirements with maintaining the minimum financial balance needed to prevent collapse.

The gap between assumptions and reality is not just an error in judgment, but evidence of a dismal failure in financial planning to confront war scenarios.