Washington – Saeed Arikat - 12/3/2026

News Analysis

The strike that targeted an elementary school for girls in the city of Minab, southern Iran, in the early hours of the US-Israeli war against Iran on February 28, raises profound questions about the nature of war management and the limits of political and military responsibility in the use of force. According to a preliminary US military investigation and leaks reported by The New York Times, the United States appears to bear responsibility for bombing the school, an attack that resulted in the deaths of 175 people, most of them children.

Initial information indicates that the US Central Command relied on outdated intelligence data to identify the target. The building hit by the missiles was part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps facility in the past, but it was converted into a school between 2013 and 2016. This transformation apparently was not reflected in the intelligence database used during target identification.

The seriousness of this incident lies in its revelation of a structural flaw in the military decision-making mechanism, not just an isolated tactical error. Modern warfare increasingly relies on the integration of artificial intelligence and human intelligence analysis to identify targets. However, the preliminary investigation suggests that the strike was most likely the result of “human error,” despite the use of advanced systems to assist in target selection.

Satellite images reviewed by the newspaper showed clear changes at the site, such as the removal of old watchtowers, the opening of public entrances to the building, and the reconfiguration of courtyards into school playgrounds. These indicators were sufficient — in principle — to raise doubts about the military nature of the site, which raises a question about the level of scrutiny that preceded the strike.

The tragedy of the incident is compounded by reports of two separate strikes on the site. According to medical accounts reported by Middle East Eye, a number of children took refuge in the school's prayer hall after the first strike, but a second strike hit the same location, leading to a large number of casualties among those sheltering there.

Despite these reports, no official American confirmation of two strikes has been issued yet. However, the timing analysis published by the newspaper indicates that the nearby Revolutionary Guard base was targeted again about two hours after the first strike, leaving open the possibility of a second attack in the area.

Politically, the repercussions of the incident were no less significant than its humanitarian dimensions. From the first moments, US President Donald Trump tried to blame Iran for the explosion, even going so far as to claim that Tehran possessed “Tomahawk” missiles. But this claim was quickly met with widespread skepticism, and the president later had to admit that he did not have enough information to support this claim.

When later asked about The New York Times report, Trump said he was unaware of it, which in turn raised questions about the level of briefing the president receives regarding ongoing military operations. At the same time, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth refrained from confirming or denying the US military's responsibility, merely stating that the incident was “under investigation.”

But Hegseth's previous statements during the military campaign add a troubling dimension to the scene. He affirmed that the US military operates “without ridiculous rules of engagement” and “without mercy,” a rhetoric that reflects a shift in the political language accompanying the war and raises concerns about the erosion of traditional constraints on the use of force.

When this incident is placed in a broader context, it becomes clear that it reveals a growing dilemma in modern warfare: the excessive reliance on outdated intelligence databases in a rapidly changing operational environment. The problem is not only the existence of outdated information but also the mechanism for verifying it before carrying out strikes. If a building has been converted into a civilian facility for nearly a decade, the military system's failure to detect this reflects an institutional flaw in the information gathering and analysis cycle. Such a flaw not only leads to tactical errors but also undermines the credibility of American discourse about so-called “precision strikes.”

The way the American leadership dealt with the incident after it occurred also raises sensitive political questions. Instead of opening a transparent investigation from the outset, official discourse first tended to try to shift responsibility to Iran. This pattern of crisis management reflects a priority of protecting the political narrative of the war at the expense of admitting error. However, such strategies seem short-lived in an era of open satellites and unprecedented information flow, where it becomes difficult to conceal facts for long without their political cost rebounding later.

On a broader strategic level, the Minab incident could become a turning point in the image of the war itself. Wars are not measured solely by their military outcomes but also by their ability to maintain a degree of moral legitimacy in the eyes of international public opinion. The killing of over a hundred children in a single strike — even if it was the result of an error — could change the nature of the global discussion about this war. In past conflict experiences, such incidents were enough to gradually shift political and diplomatic momentum against the force that carried them out, regardless of their original military objectives.

In a broader context, it is noted that the pattern of American justification that emerged in the Minab incident closely resembles the approach repeatedly used by Israel during its war on Gaza. In many cases, schools, hospitals, and health facilities were bombed, and thousands of Palestinian children were victims, while the strikes were justified by saying that these sites were used by Palestinian fighters or concealed military structures. Attempts to blame the Palestinians themselves were also repeated. The similarity of rhetoric and justification in both cases raises profound questions about the transfer of this model in war management and the interpretation of civilian losses.

Writer and political analyst Amir Makhoul believes that the results and repercussions of the ongoing military confrontation between the American-Israeli alliance and Iran will determine the features of the future international system. Makhoul explained that this war, which erupted on February 28, transcends its immediate geographical objectives to become a struggle to consolidate a unipolar system and prevent the rise of competing international powers.

Makhoul pointed out that the United States views Iran as a crucial geopolitical link that hinders its projects of hegemony over waterways and global energy supply routes. In this context, Israel emerges as an advanced striking force fully integrated into the American strategy, making the current war a direct rebound of the events of October 7 and an expansion of the conflict in Gaza to a comprehensive regional scale.

On the ground, the halt of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz entered its tenth day, leading to severe disruptions in oil prices, which ranged between $86 and $119 per barrel. These developments come amidst widespread Iranian responses, including the launch of more than 2,000 missiles and drones, resulting in human losses among Israeli and American forces, following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Regarding regional security, Makhoul believes that the war exposed the falsehood of claims that American bases protect Gulf states, proving instead that they are a source of instability and direct targeting. He warned that the peoples of the region are being used as shields for these bases, which may push regional countries in the future to reconsider the presence of these military installations on their territories.

Concerning regional relations, Makhoul expected that this war would push Gulf states to mend fences with Tehran to protect their common commercial and oil interests in 'OPEC'. He affirmed that provocative Israeli actions have brought the 'Abraham Accords' into question and doubt, especially with Tel Aviv's attempts to drag the region into a conflict that does not serve its stability.

On the Palestinian front, Makhoul warned that the Palestinian cause is often the first victim of regional wars waged by Israel. Recent days have seen the killing of 6 Palestinians in the West Bank, five of them by settler gunfire, who have escalated their attacks to more than 109 since the start of the confrontation with Iran.

The political analyst stressed that Israel is exploiting regional preoccupation to undermine the foundations of life and political entity in the West Bank and occupied Jerusalem. This policy, according to Netanyahu's doctrine, aims to prevent geographical linkage between Palestinian territories and impose full sovereignty to ensure that a Palestinian state does not emerge in the future.

Despite the challenges, Makhoul called for adherence to the 'two-state solution' as it enjoys international legitimacy and UN resolutions that constitute a source of legal strength for Palestinian rights. He considered that the failure of military wars to achieve their political goals always brings the issue of Palestine back to the forefront as a fundamental condition for achieving any lasting stability in the Middle East.

Domestically in the United States, opinion polls showed increasing public opposition to military action, with 53% of Americans expressing their rejection of the war. Nevertheless, Washington continues to strengthen its military presence, recently requesting interceptor drones and experts from Ukraine to protect its bases in Jordan from ongoing missile attacks.

Makhoul concluded that Israeli policy based on security and military solutions does not end conflicts but rather increases their permanence and expands their scope. He affirmed that the strategic alliances Israel builds with powers outside the Arab and Islamic sphere aim to impose a regional encirclement, which requires a unified Palestinian and Arab strategy to confront these existential challenges.

The resolution of the Palestinian issue remains the basis for regional stability and security, and adherence to international legitimacy is the source of strength in the face of Israeli denial.

The Anbar province in western Iraq witnessed a bloody military escalation, as American warplanes launched a series of raids targeting three headquarters belonging to the Popular Mobilization Forces. Security sources reported that the attack resulted in the death of about 30 people and the injury of 50 others, in an initial toll that is likely to rise due to the severity of the injuries.

The airstrikes focused on the border district of Al-Qaim, where the targeted sites were completely destroyed due to the intense bombing. Ambulances rushed to the scenes of the explosions to retrieve the victims and transport the wounded to nearby hospitals, amidst a state of widespread security alert in the region.

In a simultaneous development, another Popular Mobilization Forces headquarters in the city of Kirkuk, northern Iraq, was subjected to an airstrike on Thursday morning. Field sources confirmed that the bombing led to the death of at least two elements and a massive fire at the site, while rescue teams continue search operations under the rubble.

The sources indicated that security forces imposed a tight cordon around the targeted site in Kirkuk, specifically in areas near the city's airport. These movements come amid fears of renewed attacks or an expansion of the scope of air targeting to include other military sites.

Reports indicate that this escalation comes in the context of increasing tensions that the region has witnessed since late last February. Several headquarters belonging to Iraqi factions have been subjected to scattered strikes in recent weeks, resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries among their ranks.

According to available data, the number of deaths among faction members since the start of the latest wave of escalation exceeded 22 elements before the last attack. These figures reflect the scale of the direct confrontation that the Iraqi arena has become a stage for between regional and international powers.

The Popular Mobilization Forces are an official part of the Iraqi military system since their integration by government decision, after their role in the battles against the Islamic State organization in 2014. However, some brigades within the authority maintain close ties with regional powers and operate within the framework of what is known as the Islamic Resistance.

These factions adopt periodic attacks using drones and missiles, targeting what they describe as enemy bases in the region. These movements put the Iraqi government in an awkward position, as it tries to balance its international obligations and its national sovereignty over its territories.

Iraq has been living for years in a state of political and military tug-of-war as a main arena for competition between Washington and Tehran. Baghdad is striving to maintain a delicate balance that spares the country from sliding into an open conflict whose results or repercussions it cannot control.

With the regional fronts ablaze, the Iraqi authorities found themselves at the heart of a wide-ranging conflict that transcends its geographical borders. Despite the extent of the destruction and casualties, the parties carrying out the strikes often maintain official silence, which further complicates the political and security landscape.

Medical sources in Anbar confirm that most of the injured in the recent attack suffer from severe wounds and severe burns. Medical staff are working at full capacity to deal with the influx of wounded, amid a shortage of capabilities in some border health centers that received the first cases.

The Iraqi street remains in anticipation, awaiting official reactions from the government and political forces. These attacks are expected to spark a new wave of demands to end the foreign military presence in the country, and to intensify efforts to protect national sovereignty from repeated violations.

The airstrikes caused extensive damage to the targeted headquarters, and rescue operations are still ongoing to save the injured, most of whom are described as being in critical condition.

The war stops when Trump decides, and its fire subsides when the "Lord of the White House" decides to extinguish it. He who started the fire puts it out, and he who started the war ends it. Trump, "alone and without a partner in his government," is the one who decides the beginning and sets the finish line.This is how Trump's ministers and advisors stroke the President's ego, flatter his narcissism, and feed his inflated self with a flood of praise and compliments, even wearing shoes of a brand bearing his name to curry favor and avoid his wrath.Whoever does not flatter Trump is isolated. It has been said that the most crowded place with American employees is the cafeteria at the State Department, where senior diplomats and advisors whom Trump dismissed for refusing to compliment him and align with his narrative gather.Trump says that there are no targets left to bomb in Iran, and that the war is nearing its end. However, what is being said by his advisors, and the movement of warships in warm waters, and fighter jets that do not stop "nursing" on energy supplies in the skies crowded with smoke plumes over the Persian plateau, contradicts everything Trump propagates to ensure market stability, curb price inflation, and prevent stock market collapses. These factors will cause the man of finance and business to seek a way out to stop the war… The coming days are decisive.

Ahmed Rafiq Awad: Trump, through this speech, tried to calm financial and energy markets, especially after the significant decline in the prices of many stocks on the stock exchanges. Dr. Saeed Shaheen: The entry of international parties into mediation reflects the United States' readiness to negotiate, not from a position of victory, but from the principle of minimizing losses. Dr. Tamara Haddad: These statements can be understood in the context of pressure, as major powers use the rhetoric of "the approaching end of the war" to prepare the ground for potential negotiations. Dr. Osama Abdullah: Trump's statements are an attempt to declare an early victory, as the White House seeks to create a narrative of victory before military operations actually end. Dr. Aql Salah: The continuation of the war will strengthen Iran's military and political position and reduce the ability of the United States and Israel to talk about the achievements of the first strike. Dr. Reham Odeh: The reality on the ground does not match Trump's rhetoric, as the war is still in its early stages and has not yet achieved its declared goal of changing the Iranian regime. Ramallah – Exclusive to "Al-Quds" – US President Donald Trump's statements about the approaching end of the war on Iran raise controversy about their true objectives and timing, amid ongoing military operations and mutual escalation, even if these statements carry economic and political messages and the possibility of paving the way for potential negotiations. Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", believe that these statements cannot be read in isolation from the economic and political pressures facing the US administration internally and externally, in addition to the war's impact on energy markets and the global economy. They point out that these statements are seen as an attempt to calm financial markets and reassure investors, amid fears of the war's continuation and its impact on the American economy and international trade, especially with the threats related to the Strait of Hormuz and its repercussions on global shipping traffic. They believe that talking about the approaching end of the war may constitute a political prelude to finding a gradual way out of the conflict, especially after the initial bets on achieving rapid war goals, such as weakening the Iranian regime or pushing it to collapse, faltered. They note that the continuation of the war may lead to increasing political and economic losses for the United States and Israel, which pushes for the search for political settlements or potential negotiation paths, although the field data indicates the continuation of the confrontation and the absence of decisive indicators of its imminent end. Calming the American debate about the legitimacy of the war Political writer and analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad believes that the most prominent objectives of US President Donald Trump's statements that the war is nearing its end are an attempt to calm the growing debate and objections within the American street regarding the legitimacy of the war, especially with voices considering it an Israeli war that does not serve the direct interests of the United States, and is not based on a direct Iranian threat to America. Awad explains that the statements also carry a clear economic dimension, as they came amid rising oil prices, which reached about $110 per barrel, which negatively affected global markets and the American economy. Awad confirms that Trump, through this speech, tried to calm financial and energy markets, especially after the significant decline in the prices of many stocks on the stock exchanges, noting that this step reflects a clear commercial mindset in Trump's handling of political and economic crises. Awad believes that the most important implication of these statements may be an attempt to pave the way for the US administration to exit the war, especially if it has become involved in an escalation it did not expect to reach this level. Justifying the declaration of victory Awad points out that Trump's talk about destroying Iranian missiles and capabilities and weakening the Iranian regime may be an attempt to justify declaring victory and beginning the search for a political settlement, allowing Washington to "climb down from the tree" gradually. Awad confirms that Trump's latest speech was characterized by a clear contradiction, as it combined talk about the approaching end of the war with a call for the surrender of the Iranian regime and the presentation of ideas related to its dismantling. Awad points out that Trump's statements are often characterized by volatility and sometimes differ from the positions of his ministers, which makes it difficult to deal with them as final positions or decisive indicators of the war's trajectory. Awad notes that the reality on the ground does not support these statements, amid ongoing military operations and American-Israeli coordination in managing the war, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plays a pivotal role in pushing the war forward and pressing for its acceleration with the aim of weakening or dismantling the Iranian regime. Awad believes that Trump's statements should be dealt with with extreme caution, because they carry a propaganda, political, and perhaps economic character, and do not necessarily reflect an accurate assessment of the war's trajectory or a confirmed indicator of its imminent end. Failure to overthrow the Iranian regime Dr. Saeed Shaheen, Professor of Political Communication at Hebron University, believes that US President Donald Trump has come to the conviction that the war on Iran will not achieve its main goal of regime change, despite betting on the fifth column and pushing Iranian youth to overthrow the regime, similar to the models of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Venezuela. Shaheen points out that the war, instead of accelerating the collapse of the Iranian regime, began to hit American interests, military bases, and its economy, with Hezbollah entering the confrontation, which confused Israeli and American calculations. Shaheen explains that American and Israeli intelligence estimates indicated the fall of the Iranian regime within the first four days, but reality later proved the difficulty of achieving this goal, while internal movement in the United States against the war escalated, with demands to stop it due to its high economic costs borne by American taxpayers. Strengthening the Iranian position through negotiation Shaheen points out that Iran insists on continuing the war to force the hostile party to negotiate, which strengthens its position to reach an agreement that guarantees its right to possess peaceful nuclear energy and missile defense, which the war confirmed is not negotiable. Shaheen notes that the continuation of the war for a longer period may create a new equation that affects domestic politics in the United States and Israel, including the decline in Trump's popularity, who resorted to propaganda methods to justify his policies, and the decline in the popularity of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu due to the extent of losses and damages resulting from Iranian attacks and Hezbollah missiles that targeted Israeli depth, turning Israelis into hostages of extremist government policies. Shaheen believes that the entry of international parties into mediation reflects the United States' readiness to negotiate, not from a position of victory but from the principle of minimizing losses, given Trump's and Netanyahu's understanding that continuing the war will not be sustainable. Shaheen points out that the visit of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and his senior advisor Steve Witkoff to Israel is a clear indication of Washington's desire to get Israel out of its predicament in coordination with Tehran to end the war while saving face for both sides. Shaheen believes that the current data confirms the war's failure to achieve its strategic goals, and that its continuation may lead to significant economic and geopolitical consequences, with the possibility of imposing a new political reality in the region that reorders American and Israeli priorities. An attempt to show American and Israeli superiority on the ground Political writer and researcher Dr. Tamara Haddad believes that US President Donald Trump's statements about the approaching end of the war are linked to a political narrative through which he seeks to show the superiority of the United States and Israel on the ground, especially after his talk about the decline of Iranian military capabilities, including naval and air capabilities and communication networks, which he presents as evidence that the war has reached its final stage after achieving its basic goals. Haddad points out that these statements also carry a direct pressure message to Iran, implying that American-Israeli military decisive action is imminent, with what resembles a veiled threat that the time has come to surrender and stop Tehran's interference in Middle East issues. A speech with an economic dimension According to Haddad, at the same time, these statements indicate that the speech has a clear economic dimension, as it came amid rising oil prices to about $100 per barrel, with fears of it reaching $200 if the war continues, which negatively affects the American citizen and the global economy through rising energy prices and inflation. Haddad points out that the price of oil declined after these statements to about $88 per barrel, indicating the impact of political messages on markets. Haddad confirms that Trump's statements carry a message to the American public that he is close to achieving victory, although the military reality does not clearly indicate that, especially amid statements talking about continued fighting and the pursuit of decisive action on the ground, with Iran relying on a strategy of managing time and prolonging the conflict with the aim of exhausting the United States, Israel, and even neighboring countries. Reassuring American and international public opinion Haddad notes that these statements also carry a psychological and media dimension aimed at reassuring American and international public opinion and showing that the conflict is under control and will not turn into a long regional war. These statements can also be understood, according to Haddad, in the context of political and negotiating pressure, as major powers often use the rhetoric of "the approaching end of the war" to prepare the ground for potential negotiations or political settlements. Despite this, Haddad points out that the field and political data do not provide decisive indicators of the imminent end of the war, especially with the continuation of military operations and statements by some military officials that the fighting is still in its early stages, which reflects a gap between political rhetoric and military assessment. Haddad points out that the war's objectives themselves are still not entirely clear. While Trump spoke of neutralizing Iran's nuclear program and missile capabilities, he also hinted at the possibility of seeking to change the Iranian regime, which is a larger and more complex goal that is difficult to achieve in a short war, especially given the complexities of conflicts in the Middle East and the multiplicity of parties involved. Words are not spoken in vain Political researcher and academic Dr. Osama Abdullah stresses that US President Donald Trump's statements that the war "is nearing its end" must be read in the context of American political discourse, as words are not spoken in vain, and are often used as part of a political battle and not merely a description of the military reality. Abdullah points out that Trump's statement that military operations are "very advanced on schedule" and "largely complete" does not reflect an actual end to the war, but aims at several political and strategic objectives. Narrative of victory before the end of military operations Abdullah explains that the first of these implications of Trump's statements is an attempt to declare an early victory, as the White House seeks to create a narrative of victory before military operations actually end. Abdullah points out that Trump confirmed that Iranian military capabilities, including naval, communications, and air force, were "largely destroyed," to solidify the image of achieving the military objective. Abdullah believes that the speech aims to prepare American public opinion for withdrawal or reduction of military operations, reflecting historical experience in using the phrase "nearing the end" as a political tool, especially amid increasing economic and political pressures on the US administration. A clear deterrent message to Iran Abdullah points out that Trump's statements carry a clear deterrent message to Iran, as he linked the end of the war to conditions such as not disrupting oil navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, threatening a "much harsher" response if the equation changes. Abdullah explains that Trump's statements have an economic dimension, as oil prices fell immediately after his speech, which clarifies that the speech is not only military but also a management of the economic and political narrative of the war. When comparing these statements with the reality on the ground, Abdullah confirms a significant discrepancy: the war continues with mutual strikes and drone and missile attacks, and Iran has not declared any readiness to surrender, while there is no political agreement or official truce indicating the end of the conflict. Trump's contradictory speech Abdullah notes that Trump's speech itself is contradictory, as it combines saying that the war is "close to the end" with emphasizing that it will not end before the "decisive defeat of the enemy," which reflects the nature of political discourse more than an accurate description of the military reality. Abdullah believes that Trump's statements should be dealt with cautiously, as they are a tool for managing the political and economic narrative, to calm markets and public opinion, and to send deterrent messages, and are not a real indicator of the approaching end of military operations. An Iranian message of resilience and confrontation Political writer, researcher, and professor of comparative political systems, Dr. Aql Salah, believes that the current war on Iran clearly differs from previous conflicts, including the June war last year, which lasted 12 days. Salah points out that the current war showed Iran's ability to withstand and overcome the initial shock of the American-Israeli strike, which aimed to assassinate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of first-rank military leaders, which did not achieve the expected goal for US President Donald Trump and Israel of the collapse of the Iranian regime and rapid internal chaos. Salah explains that Iran was able to inflict strong and devastating blows on American bases in the Gulf and the Arab world, especially on radar systems, and also targeted the heart of Israel, including Tel Aviv, which constituted a political and military shock for the Israeli and American sides. Salah points out that the popular and political level in Iran united with the regime against the external threat, while the military leadership maintained its discipline and ability to continue, despite the assassination of leaders, and a new leader was elected quickly, which represents a strong message that Iran is capable of resilience and continuing the confrontation. Reducing American losses and paving the way for negotiations Salah confirms that Trump's statements that the war "is nearing its end" carry several political and strategic implications: the first is the military implication, as Trump seeks to portray that he destroyed Iranian military capabilities, including the naval fleet, aviation, and communication system, and that the Iranian leadership has been weakened. Salah points out that there is another strategic implication based on the concept of "quick victory" or a lightning strike, which is an attempt to end the war quickly as happened in previous conflicts to reduce American losses, and to pave the way for negotiations according to American conditions. Calming global markets Salah notes the economic dimension, as the statements aim to calm global markets, especially oil markets, and restore stability to stock exchanges, as the price of a barrel of oil fell from $110 to $80 after Trump's statement. Salah points out the contradiction in Trump's own speech, which combines saying that the war is nearing its end and emphasizing that the end will not be achieved before the "complete defeat of the enemy," which reflects the volatile nature of Trump's speech that mixes threat and psychological reassurance, while seeking to impose his conditions on Iran. Salah believes that the continuation of the war will strengthen Iran's military and political position, and reduce the ability of the United States and Israel to talk about the achievements of the first strike, which necessitates paving the way for a gradual cessation of the war, according to the policy of "climbing down from the tree," while preserving what Trump considers his previous achievements. Trump and facing internal pressures Political writer and analyst Dr. Reham Odeh explains that US President Donald Trump's statements about the approaching end of the war on Iran primarily reflect economic and commercial pressures, more than a field assessment of the military situation. Odeh points out that Trump faced increasing pressure from within the United States, especially from shipping and transportation companies that were affected by rising fuel prices and the high cost of shipping services, which negatively affected American citizens and businessmen. Odeh notes that the war also affected international trade due to Iranian threats to the Strait of Hormuz, which prompted Trump to use rhetoric to calm markets and the global economy, emphasizing that the war "is nearing its end," with the aim of easing tension in the oil sector and reassuring international shipping companies and American business owners, which contributed to a slight decrease in oil prices after his statements. Declaring the end of the war unilaterally is not possible However, Odeh confirms that the reality on the ground does not match Trump's rhetoric, as the war is still in its early stages and has not yet achieved its declared goal of changing the Iranian regime, and may continue until the end of March, until an agreement is reached between Washington and Tel Aviv regarding ending operations after claiming to have destroyed most of the military arsenal of the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian army. Odeh explains that declaring the end of the war unilaterally is not possible, because there is a clear partnership between the United States and Israel in this military operation, which necessitates agreement between the two parties before any official announcement. Odeh points out that Trump's statements should be read in the context of managing international economic and political pressures and calming markets, and not as a real indicator of the end of the military conflict on the ground, as the field and political data indicate that the war is still ongoing and its end is linked to subsequent political and strategic developments.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is facing the most severe crisis in its history since its establishment after the 1948 Nakba. The crisis currently afflicting the agency is no longer merely a transient financial deficit or surmountable operational difficulties; rather, it has become part of a broader political battle targeting its role and legal symbolism, as the living international witness to the ongoing and unresolved issue of Palestinian refugees in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions.UNRWA was established by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 302 to provide relief and essential services to millions of Palestinian refugees until a just solution to their plight is found. Since then, the agency has become more than just a humanitarian institution, as its existence has been directly linked to international recognition of the refugee issue and the rights affirmed by international legitimacy, foremost among them the right of return and compensation as stipulated in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194. Therefore, targeting UNRWA today cannot be separated from an attempt to undermine the legal and political basis of the refugee issue itself.What is happening against UNRWA comes in the context of a highly critical Palestinian moment, where the Palestinian issue as a whole is subjected to unprecedented pressures aimed at reshaping it in a way that bypasses the historical rights of the Palestinian people, and at its heart, the right of return. The attack on the agency coincides with a devastating war on the Gaza Strip, with escalating settlement policies in the West Bank, and with attempts to impose new political realities that seek to liquidate the essence of the Palestinian issue and transform it from a cause of a people uprooted from their land into merely a manageable or containable humanitarian crisis.In this context, the crisis facing UNRWA takes on a complex character. On the one hand, the agency suffers from a serious financial deficit due to the reduction or freezing of contributions from a number of donor countries under clear political pressure, which threatens the continuity of its vital services for millions of refugees who depend on it for education, healthcare, and food aid. On the other hand, incitement and questioning campaigns led by the Israeli occupation authorities, with the support of political circles in the United States, are escalating in a clear attempt to delegitimize the agency and undermine its UN mandate.This campaign has gone beyond political pressure to take on a direct field character, represented by the closure of UNRWA offices in Jerusalem and attempts to disrupt its work in the Gaza Strip, in a move that reflects an organized effort to end the agency's role or replace it with alternative arrangements that strip the refugee issue of its political and legal content. The very existence of UNRWA reminds the world that the refugee issue has not yet been resolved, and that millions of Palestinians still live in camps awaiting the implementation of their right to return to their homes from which they were displaced in 1948.The gravity of these developments is compounded by the unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip as a result of the ongoing war, where UNRWA has become the backbone of relief and humanitarian work. At a time when the population's needs for food, medicine, shelter, and education are increasing, the agency itself is subjected to suffocating financial and administrative pressures, which have even affected its employees, with hundreds of workers being dismissed and a portion of their salaries deducted, threatening the agency's ability to continue performing its essential tasks.Weakening UNRWA or reducing its role will not be merely an administrative or financial measure, but will have profound repercussions on the lives and future of Palestinian refugees. Millions who depend on the agency's services may suddenly find themselves without schools, clinics, or food aid, threatening to exacerbate poverty and unemployment and to deteriorate social conditions within the camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria.More dangerously, undermining UNRWA's role could be used as a political entry point to try to bypass the refugee issue itself, by proposing alternatives or formulas that seek to end the refugee status without addressing its political and legal roots. The absence or weakening of the agency could be interpreted as a decline in international recognition of Palestinian refugees and their rights affirmed by the United Nations.For this reason, the battle currently raging around UNRWA is not just a financial or administrative battle, but a battle over the political and legal memory of the Palestinian issue. The agency represents, in its essence, a continuous international recognition that the refugee issue has not yet been resolved, and that the international community still bears a moral and legal responsibility towards millions of Palestinians who were displaced from their land.Hence, the importance of broad political and diplomatic action to protect the agency and ensure the continuation of its work, including mobilizing international support to secure the necessary funding for it, and emphasizing adherence to its UN mandate until a just and comprehensive solution to the refugee issue is reached in accordance with international references. Popular and official efforts also gain special importance in defending UNRWA and rejecting any attempts to reduce its services or replace them with alternative mechanisms that diminish refugee rights.Defending UNRWA is, in essence, defending the cause of Palestinian refugees and their historical and legal right to return to their homes. The agency is not just a relief institution, but an international witness to one of the greatest tragedies of the twentieth century, whose chapters are still open today. Therefore, preserving its role and continuing its work are an essential part of the battle to protect Palestinian national rights and prevent the obliteration of the refugee issue or its transformation into merely a humanitarian matter that can be bypassed.Until a just solution based on the implementation of the right of return is achieved, UNRWA's existence will remain a political, legal, and humanitarian necessity, and an international witness that the Palestinian refugee issue has not and will not be forgotten by the passage of time.

It is not easy to directly interpret what is happening in the Middle East. The scene portrayed by major headlines – tension, threats, reciprocal strikes, and linguistic escalation that almost touches the brink of war – does not always present the full truth. For many decades, this region has ceased to be merely a geography of conflict; instead, it has become a complex space where balances are managed as much as confrontations are fought.As soon as one war ends, another ignites, as if the Middle East is condemned to a restless cycle. The region, from which the messages of prophets originated, has not known true tranquility for over a century, as the Arab world has lived with a heavy sense of defeat and humiliation, giving rise to tensions, conflicts, and various political and intellectual currents that reject this reality and contend over it. However, the essence of the conflict goes beyond the religious or ideological rhetoric sometimes invoked to inflame emotions; at its core, it is a struggle for influence, sovereignty, and world management in a region where strategic geography intersects with natural resources, transforming it into a constant arena of competition among major powers.When there is intense talk of a major confrontation between competing regional powers, the picture at first glance seems to be heading towards an explosive moment. However, a closer examination of the course of events often reveals a different pattern: a conflict that advances one step and retreats another, escalates in rhetoric then de-escalates in action, and ultimately remains governed by an unstated ceiling of control and containment.This pattern is not new in the history of international relations. Many major conflicts have not always moved towards resolution, but rather towards managing tension. In such cases, the conflict itself becomes a political tool; a tool that reshapes internal alignments, produces new legitimacies, and justifies security and economic policies that might be difficult to pass under normal circumstances.At the level of political discourse, the feeling of external danger plays a known role in uniting societies behind authority or major national narratives. The constant sense of threat also creates an environment that allows for increased military spending and the dedication of long-term security priorities. Conversely, this climate allows international powers to re-establish their strategic presence under the banners of protection, stability, or balance of power.In this sense, tension itself becomes part of the structure of the political landscape, not merely a fleeting outcome of it. Limited escalation, calculated strikes, and symbolic military messages are all tools sometimes used to manage the regional political sphere without sliding into an all-out confrontation.Perhaps what makes this equation possible is the realization by most actors that a major war in this region would be an event entirely different from anything that preceded it. Today's Middle East is not merely a theater for a bilateral or limited regional conflict; rather, it is a geopolitical nexus where energy routes, global trade, military alliances, and international balances intersect.Therefore, any widespread confrontation could quickly extend its effects to the global economy, energy markets, shipping lanes, and perhaps to the structure of the international system itself. For this reason, many military movements in the region seem to be treading a delicate edge: the edge of escalation without explosion.However, focusing solely on the balance of power may obscure a deeper question related to the nature of the place where these balances are managed. A striking observation in the region's modern history is that many major power struggles are conducted over its geography, while their final equations are formulated in other centers of the world.The region has, to varying degrees, become a testing ground for strategic power: regional powers seeking to expand their sphere of influence, other powers working to consolidate their military or political superiority, and international powers keen to maintain balance within limits that serve their broader interests.Amidst these complex equations, local communities – despite being the most affected – appear to have less presence in the regional decision-making process. Conflict is often managed in the language of security, power, and influence, while questions related to development, human stability, and cultural identities remain secondary.However, history teaches us that conflicts managed for too long without addressing their roots do not remain static forever. Equations that seem stable can be disrupted by small changes in the balance of power, internal transformations within states, or errors in estimating reactions.In such moments, conflict may shift from a phase of management to a phase of explosion, because delicate balances, however well-crafted, ultimately remain temporary balances. History, however, is less patient than long-term strategic calculations.Therefore, the real question remains: Will the Middle East remain merely an arena for managing international conflicts, or will it one day succeed in transforming into a space where its interests and balances are shaped autonomously, from within rather than from without?

Republican Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, sparked a wide wave of controversy in American political circles following his violent and unprecedented attack on prominent conservative broadcaster Tucker Carlson. Cruz accused Carlson of working to spread conspiracy theories and promote antisemitic rhetoric within the ranks of the right-wing movement in the United States, reflecting a deep division within party bases.

Cruz's statements came during a speech he delivered at a specialized conference to discuss the phenomenon of antisemitism, organized by 'National Review' magazine in cooperation with the Republican Jewish Coalition. The senator described the former broadcaster as 'the most dangerous demagogue in the country,' considering that his media influence has become a direct threat to the values embraced by conservatives.

Cruz, as reported by media sources, acknowledged that the past year and a half have witnessed a worrying escalation in the tone of hostility towards Jews within the political right. He indicated that he had not imagined, until recently, that the dialogue within the party would reach this level of deterioration, especially among the rising generations of conservatives.

The Republican senator affirmed that he made a decisive decision to confront Carlson openly and directly, refusing to remain silent about what he described as intellectual deviation. He strongly criticized Carlson for opening his media platform to those he described as 'sleeping professors' who are striving to reframe the events of World War II in a distorted manner.

Cruz explained that some of Carlson's guests went to shocking levels of claims, portraying the late British Prime Minister Winston Churchill as a 'real villain.' He also pointed to allegations promoted by that platform stating that the United States was supposed to side with Nazi Germany during World War II.

Cruz expressed disgust at the way Carlson deals with these guests, merely looking at them with admiration without playing any critical role. He considered that not questioning these illusory claims gives them false legitimacy before millions of followers from the conservative fan base.

Cruz's attack was not limited to Carlson alone, but also included the far-right activist Nick Fuentes, whom he explicitly described as a 'Nazi' and Holocaust denier. Cruz criticized the blatant contradiction in Fuentes' positions, who combines admiration for Adolf Hitler with celebrating the birthday of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.

Cruz sarcastically asked the audience about the nature of a person who would celebrate Stalin's birthday, describing Fuentes as insane. He expressed his strong anger at Carlson hosting this activist, pointing out that the broadcaster did not object when Fuentes stated that his primary goal was to fight what he called 'global Jewry.'

The senator considered Carlson's silence or his mere nodding in agreement with those statements to be a major moral and professional lapse. He believed that this behavior contributes to legitimizing extremist discourse and making it an acceptable part of public political debate within the Republican camp.

Cruz touched upon a deeper crisis within the Republican Party, represented by the fear of some politicians to criticize Carlson for fear of their political future. He said that the willingness of some to condemn Fuentes while avoiding mentioning Tucker Carlson's name reveals much about the state of weakness and opportunism within the party's ranks.

Cruz warned that the fear of losing the support of Carlson's popular base could open the door wide for the permanent infiltration of hate speech. He stressed that confronting these phenomena requires political courage that goes beyond narrow electoral calculations to preserve the identity of the American right.

It is worth noting that this clash comes amid accumulated tensions between the two parties, as Carlson had previously criticized Cruz's support for Israeli military operations against Iran. This public debate reflects the extent of the division over foreign policy and strategic alliances, especially concerning the relationship with the Israeli occupation.

Tucker Carlson is the most dangerous demagogue in this country, and I have decided to confront him directly, face-to-face, because of his dissemination of conspiracy theories.

The intensity of Israeli statements regarding the duration of the current military confrontation is escalating, with Security Minister Israel Katz affirming that there is no time limit for ongoing operations until declared objectives are achieved. These positions reflect a clear desire by Benjamin Netanyahu's government to leverage American involvement to the maximum extent possible, in an attempt to definitively resolve the conflict with Iran.

In contrast, a sense of caution emerges among other political circles, fearing fluctuations in the American stance, especially as President Trump approaches crucial decisions to end the war. Sources indicate that Netanyahu, who has pushed for this confrontation for decades, realizes that the keys to a ceasefire are now solely in the hands of the White House, which explains his frantic efforts to impose new realities on the ground.

The scope of the conflict has expanded to include approximately 15 countries in the region, in a confrontation described as the largest since World War II in terms of geopolitical impact. Despite assassinations and intense bombardment, observers believe that the war has not yet achieved its strategic goals, prompting the aggressors to resort to more violence to compensate for the failure to achieve tangible results.

The American administration finds itself facing two equally bitter choices: either to proceed with military escalation on the principle of 'what does not come by force comes by more of it,' or to declare victory and withdraw immediately. Trump appears to be gradually leaning towards the second option to avoid sliding into an 'endless war,' a slogan he has consistently raised in his election campaigns against his predecessors.

On the military front, extreme American proposals emerge, including the possibility of limited ground operations aimed at occupying the Iranian island of 'Kharg' in the Gulf. This island is the vital artery of the Iranian economy, as it exports about 90% of its oil, which some see as a final means of pressure to impose surrender terms on Tehran.

Domestically in the United States, opinion polls show widespread public opposition to continued military involvement, which puts additional pressure on Trump's advisors. The American administration fears catastrophic economic consequences, especially rising oil prices and their direct impact on global and domestic inflation rates, which motivates the search for a 'face-saving exit strategy.'

In Israel, the economic cost of the war appears unprecedentedly exhausting, with estimates indicating a drain of approximately 32 billion dollars per month from the state treasury. Economic experts warn that continued fighting at the current intensity could lead to financial collapse, emphasizing that the national interest requires ending operations as soon as possible to avoid an economic catastrophe.

Despite these pressures, the right-wing elites in Israel view the war as a 'historic and unrepeatable opportunity' to change the face of the Middle East and its balance of power. Terms with religious dimensions are circulated to describe the conflict, reinforcing the trend towards continuing the fight regardless of human and material costs, in an attempt to prevent any retreat in the American position.

For its part, Iran shows signs of readiness to accept understandings for a ceasefire, with Iranian military sources stating that Washington has already begun searching for mediators for de-escalation. Tehran considers the request for mediation as proof of the failure of the military objectives of the aggression, while simultaneously affirming its readiness to deal with all scenarios of escalation or negotiation.

Netanyahu's personal and political dimension remains a primary driver for continuation, as military achievements and assassinations have not translated into an increase in his electoral popularity according to recent polls. Through continuous escalation, Netanyahu seeks to achieve an absolute 'image of victory' that ensures his political survival and provides him with an exit from his legal pursuits, making the decision to end the war complex and linked to power calculations in Washington.

No time limits, and the war continues until goals are achieved and the battle is decided.

A knowledgeable Iranian official revealed today, Wednesday, that the new Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Mojtaba Khamenei, sustained injuries described as minor. The official clarified that these injuries did not prevent him from continuing his official duties and managing state affairs, despite his noticeable absence from the media scene.

The Iranian side did not provide precise details about the timing or circumstances of the injuries sustained by Khamenei's son, and silence prevailed regarding the reasons for his failure to make any public statements since his inauguration as his father's successor. This ambiguity has opened the door to widespread speculation about the true health condition of the first man in Tehran.

In contrast, Israeli intelligence sources reported that security assessments clearly indicate that Mojtaba Khamenei was injured during joint aerial operations carried out by the United States and Israel. These sources considered the injury to be the direct reason for his disappearance from public view at this critical stage.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard had played a crucial role in imposing the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei for the position of Supreme Leader, as he is viewed within conservative power circles as a more flexible version capable of protecting the Guard's interests. Observers believe that this appointment aims to ensure the continuity of the political approach while giving a youthful character to the leadership.

High-ranking Iranian sources, including a former official in the reformist movement, reported that Mojtaba's ascent to power might pave the way for the adoption of more aggressive foreign policies. These sources also warned of the possibility of tightening the security grip inside Iran to confront any challenges that might accompany the transition phase.

For his part, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant issued escalating statements, asserting that any figure assuming leadership in the current Iranian structure would be a legitimate target for elimination. These threats come in the context of an open war aimed at undermining decision-making centers in the Iranian capital.

As of now, no official speech has been issued by the new leader despite three days passing since his appointment, which has increased the state of anticipation among the Iranian public and international observers. Supporters and opponents alike are awaiting the determination of the political path Mojtaba will take amidst the volatile regional conditions.

Power centers in Tehran are experiencing a state of extreme caution, as parliamentary sources confirmed the absence of clear information about the date of the new leader's appearance. It seems that a state of ambiguity prevails even in legislative circles that do not have details about the leader's agenda or health status.

Mojtaba Khamenei had miraculously survived an explosion that targeted the heart of the capital Tehran about eleven days ago, an incident that resulted in painful human losses in his family circle. That attack resulted in the death of his wife, mother, and brother-in-law, placing the new leader under immense psychological and security pressures.

In a related context, international press reports, quoting officials in Tehran, indicated that Mojtaba's injury was concentrated in the leg area. Although this news has not been officially confirmed by government channels, it aligns with the narrative of minor injury that has been circulated recently.

These developments come after the assassination of the former leader Ali Khamenei in an Israeli airstrike that targeted Tehran on February 28th. This assassination dealt a devastating blow to the Iranian regime, necessitating swift action by the Revolutionary Guard to fill the leadership vacuum.

Analysts believe that Mojtaba Khamenei's silence may be a security tactic to avoid any additional assassination attempts amidst continuous Israeli threats. However, continued absence may erode confidence in the new leadership's ability to control the reins of power in the country.

The question remains about the nature of the anticipated Iranian response to the series of targeting that affected the top leadership and his family. All eyes are now on Mojtaba Khamenei's first speech, which is expected to define the features of the upcoming confrontation with international and regional powers.

Mojtaba Khamenei sustained minor injuries but continues his work, and no public statements have been issued since his selection as Supreme Leader.

Medical and military sources affiliated with the occupation reported that the son of the extremist Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, was injured by shrapnel from a mortar shell fired from southern Lebanon. The incident occurred during an attack on a military site in the Western Galilee region, where the minister's son was performing his military service within the elite forces that were subjected to the rocket attack.

Reports clarified that the attack carried out by Hezbollah last Friday, March 6, resulted in the injury of eight soldiers from the 'Givati' and 'Golani' brigades. Medical sources described the condition of five of these soldiers as serious, while the injuries of the other three ranged from minor to moderate, necessitating a wide-scale medical alert in the area.

Regarding the health condition of the minister's son, Benaya Habron, examinations revealed shrapnel penetration in the abdominal and back areas, leading to complex internal injuries. Sources indicated that one of the shrapnel pieces caused a direct tear in the liver, which required urgent surgical intervention to control the bleeding and ensure the stability of his health condition.

Evacuation operations were carried out by military helicopters that immediately transported the wounded to the Galilee Medical Center in the coastal settlement of Nahariya. Although the hospital announced that Smotrich's son's condition is currently stable, technical reports indicated that the injury was deeper than what was published in the early hours and requires close monitoring in the intensive care unit.

For his part, the occupation's Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, issued a public statement confirming the details of the incident his son was exposed to on the northern border. Smotrich described his son's survival as a 'miracle,' explaining that the shrapnel that hit the liver stopped at the wall of a major blood vessel, which prevented a certain medical catastrophe that would have immediately claimed his life.

The extremist minister expressed his gratitude to the medical teams and the occupation army who supervised the rescue operation and aerial evacuation from the battlefield. He also emphasized in his speech that his son possesses strong determination and intends to return to the army to continue fighting once he has fully recovered from his injuries.

This incident comes amidst escalating military tensions on the northern front, where Hezbollah continues to target military sites and gatherings belonging to the occupation. The injury of a high-ranking official's son in the Israeli government highlights the extent of the risks faced by the occupation forces in the border areas, amid strict secrecy regarding some human and material losses.

By God's grace, one of the shrapnel pieces tore his liver and stopped at the wall of the largest blood vessel in the abdomen – had it been hit, the situation would have been much worse.

High-level Iranian sources reported that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has imposed the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei as the country's new Supreme Leader, considering him the most capable figure to support conservative power policies at the current stage. This move disregarded the concerns of pragmatic advocates and political figures who expressed doubts about the mechanism of succession.

The sources stated that the Revolutionary Guard, whose influence has significantly grown since the outbreak of recent military confrontations, quickly overcame the opposition of senior religious figures. This pressure led to a delay in the official announcement of the appointment for several hours until the situation was decided in favor of the late leader's son.

Adding to the ambiguity surrounding the transition process was the absence of any official statement until Tuesday evening, despite nearly 48 hours passing since the selection process. These developments come at a sensitive time for the country due to an ongoing war that has resulted in more than a thousand Iranian casualties so far.

Three sources, including a former reformist official, indicated that the Revolutionary Guard's orchestration of Mojtaba Khamenei's rise to power might pave the way for the adoption of more aggressive foreign policies. It is also expected that the domestic scene will witness a tightening of security control and broader suppression of political opposition.

The sources expressed fears that the military establishment's dominance over the levers of the system would transform the Islamic Republic into a military state par excellence. Observers believe that this shift could reduce the regime's remaining popular support base and weaken its ability to confront complex external threats.

Despite Mojtaba Khamenei's extensive behind-the-scenes influence during decades of managing his father's office, he remains an enigmatic figure for broad segments of Iranians. Strong reports circulate about the possibility of him being injured in the American-Israeli strikes that targeted his father in late February.

A state television announcer reinforced these rumors by describing the new leader with the title 'Janbaz' or wounded veteran, referring to his injury during what Tehran describes as the 'Ramadan War.' No precise official confirmations have been issued yet regarding his health condition or the nature of his injury.

Analysts believe that Mojtaba's complete silence since the Assembly of Experts announced his election may be due to strict security reasons or to him receiving treatment. The 88-member Assembly of Experts had held an emergency meeting in an unknown location after its hall in Qom was bombed.

The full extent of the Revolutionary Guard's control became evident when President Masoud Pezeshkian was forced to retract an apology he had offered to Gulf countries regarding previous attacks. Reports indicated that IRGC commanders expressed strong anger at the president's statements, forcing him to change his stance immediately.

A knowledgeable source explained that the late Leader Ali Khamenei had the ability to balance power between the Revolutionary Guard and the political and religious elites. In the new era, it appears that the final say in strategic and fateful decisions will be directly and unprecedentedly in the hands of military leaders.

In a related context, researchers in Iranian affairs confirmed that Mojtaba Khamenei will be entirely indebted to the Revolutionary Guard for his new position. This close association will necessarily mean his lack of the absolute and independent authority that his father enjoyed over the past three decades.

According to the Iranian constitution, the selection of the Supreme Leader falls exclusively within the prerogatives of the Assembly of Experts, but reality indicates the intervention of external pressure groups. While Rafsanjani was the 'kingmaker' in 1989, the Revolutionary Guard played this role in the last elections, and more explicitly so.

The Revolutionary Guard used the pretext of wartime conditions to impose a rapid election process and choose a candidate who adopts a hardline rhetoric against the United States. Members of the Assembly revealed that the legal quorum was barely met due to the inability of some members to attend because of the deteriorating security situation.

Leaked figures indicate that the decision did not receive the unanimity that the Revolutionary Guard had hoped for, as a number of clerics expressed their opposition to the principle of hereditary succession. This group feared that the inheritance of power would alienate the regime's popular support base and tarnish its religious legitimacy.

Mojtaba is indebted to the Revolutionary Guard for his position, and therefore will not have the same supreme authority that his father enjoyed.

US President Donald Trump finds himself today facing a major strategic dilemma, as international and domestic pressures mount to exit the spiral of war he ignited against Iran in cooperation with Israel. Despite the optimistic statements sometimes issued by the White House, the reality on the ground indicates that the available options to end the conflict have become extremely limited and complex.

Media sources reported that Trump attempted to calm global markets by suggesting the imminent end of military operations, which led to a temporary decline in oil prices to stabilize below $90 a barrel. However, the escalatory tone quickly returned to dominate his rhetoric, emphasizing that the United States would not back down until a complete and decisive defeat of what he described as 'the enemy' was achieved.

Reports confirm that the current US administration lacks a clear post-war plan, with its stated goals focusing on destroying Iranian nuclear and ballistic capabilities and imposing a radical change in leadership. This political confusion has turned the war, which was described as a 'short mission,' into the largest US military deployment in the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

On the ground, despite the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of prominent leaders in the first strike, the Iranian regime has shown no signs of imminent surrender. On the contrary, Tehran quickly appointed Mojtaba Khamenei as his father's successor, a clear indication of the ruling establishment's continuity and its ability to absorb major shocks.

The confrontation quickly escalated into an unequal war of attrition, with Iran using its arsenal of drones and missiles to strike vital targets in Israel and US bases. These attacks have resulted in the deaths of 14 Israelis and 7 US military personnel since the offensive began on February 28, increasing the human cost of the conflict.

Neighboring countries have been directly and severely affected by the military operations, as Iranian counter-attacks disrupted navigation through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Gulf countries, which had previously warned of the risks of this conflict, were forced to reduce oil and gas production, threatening to plunge the global economy into an unprecedented energy crisis.

In a significant development, Ukraine entered the crisis at Washington's official request, with Kyiv sending experts and interceptor drones to protect US bases in Jordan. This move aims to leverage Ukraine's extensive experience in dealing with Iranian-made drones, which it has heavily encountered during the ongoing Russian war.

Statistics indicate that Russia has used over 57,000 Iranian-designed drones against Ukrainian targets, making Kyiv a technical reference for countries seeking to fortify their defenses. The Ukrainian government has so far received 11 requests from European and regional countries for technical support to counter this type of aerial threat.

Domestically in Iran, the American gamble on the collapse of the regime from within due to continuous bombardment has not yet materialized, as anxiety rather than protest dominates the Iranian street. Observers believe that any sudden disintegration of the regime could turn Iran into a failed and fragmented state, a scenario whose catastrophic consequences its neighbors would bear for many years.

On the other hand, the war has frozen sensitive regional issues, most notably the American peace council project in the Gaza Strip, which has completely stalled. Washington and Tel Aviv's military and political focus has shifted to the Iranian front, leaving the situation in the Palestinian territories in a state of stagnation and continuous tension.

Concerns are growing within the Republican Party that the continuation of the war and rising fuel prices could negatively affect their chances in the upcoming midterm elections. While Trump downplays these concerns, describing them as a 'minor problem,' economic experts believe that the repercussions of the conflict could spiral out of control and lead to a global recession.

Sources reported that Israel requested additional American support to cover the vast areas of Iranian military factories that are difficult to fully neutralize through air strikes alone. This request reflects the scale of the field challenge and the difficulty of achieving a quick and decisive military victory, as promoted by political circles in Tel Aviv and Washington.

The question remains as to how the United States can exit this dilemma without declaring defeat or leaving the region in a state of complete chaos. Retreating now would be interpreted as a victory for the exhausted Iranian regime, while continued escalation threatens a comprehensive regional war whose end or final cost cannot be predicted.

In conclusion, it appears that Trump's 'maximum pressure' policy has turned into a direct military confrontation, with civilians and the global economy paying the price. With the absence of effective diplomatic channels, the region remains hostage to contradictory decisions emanating from the White House, amidst international anticipation of what the coming days will bring in this bloody conflict.

Whatever path Trump chooses to end this conflict, others in the region and the world will pay the price for this folly towards Iran.

The Lebanese Hezbollah announced the launch of a large-scale military operation dubbed 'Al-Asf Al-Ma'koul' (The Eaten Straw), targeting strategic sites and Israeli settlements in the Galilee and Haifa. The past hours witnessed the launch of dozens of missiles described as the largest and most intense barrage since the start of the current escalation, leading to air raid sirens sounding in wide areas of occupied northern Palestine.\n\nField sources reported that the missile barrages directly targeted the settlements of Kiryat Shmona and Nahariya, in addition to sensitive military installations. Targets included the 'Misgav' base and the 'Yodefat' military industries company located northeast of Haifa, with the party confirming the use of specialized missile salvos in this concentrated attack.\n\nIn a simultaneous field development, missile shelling struck the 'Ammiad' base north of Lake Tiberias and the 'Shimshon' base to its west, reflecting an expansion in the geographical targeting scope. Hebrew media sources estimated the number of missiles that crossed the border at over 100, confirming that defense systems faced a significant challenge in countering this complex attack.\n\n"Al-Asf Al-Ma'koul" carries deep religious and military connotations, as the party drew the name from Surah Al-Fil (The Elephant) in the Holy Quran, which describes the destruction of Abraha's army and their transformation into scattered debris. Through this symbol, the party aims to emphasize its ability to inflict comprehensive destruction on Israeli forces and military infrastructure in response to the massacres committed against civilians in Lebanon.\n\nOn the humanitarian front, Lebanese Health Minister Rakan Nasser El Din announced a heavy toll from the ongoing Israeli aggression, with the number of martyrs rising to 634, including 91 children. The number of injured also exceeded 1586, amidst continued fierce airstrikes targeting the southern suburbs of Beirut and various areas in the South and Bekaa.\n\nOn the ground, occupation forces continue their attempts at ground incursions, which began early this March, in border points in the western and central sectors. These attempts are met with fierce resistance from Hezbollah fighters, while Israeli aircraft continue to destroy residential towers and alleged missile launch platforms in Lebanese border villages and towns.\n\nOn the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is holding intensive security consultations with army commanders and intelligence agencies to determine the next steps. Reports emerged that the occupation is considering striking targets belonging to Lebanese government infrastructure, in an attempt to pressure the popular base and the official Lebanese stance to halt missile attacks.\n\nMilitary analysts believe that these attacks may include the use of advanced missile models such as 'Fateh' and 'Zelzal' to deplete Israeli air defenses. These operations coincide with a state of regional anticipation, especially with reports indicating coordination in military operations aimed at dispersing the interception capabilities of the 'Iron Dome' and 'David's Sling' systems.\n\nFierce confrontations continue amidst international warnings of the region sliding into an uncontrollable comprehensive war. While Hezbollah insists on linking the cessation of its operations to the cessation of aggression against Gaza and Lebanon, Israel continues its military escalation, threatening to expand the scope of ground and air operations to include vital facilities deep within Lebanese territory.\n\nThe phrase 'Al-Asf Al-Ma'koul' comes from the Holy Quran to denote complete destruction, which is what the party intended by naming the operation this way.

Concepts of control in international politics have undergone fundamental transformations over the past centuries, shifting from direct military occupation of land to more complex methods. After World War II, colonial powers abandoned large armies in favor of a strategy of managing balances and conflicts between local powers in vital regions.

This approach relies on ensuring that no regional power capable of imposing self-stability or unilateral hegemony emerges, thereby keeping the region in a constant state of need for external intervention. In the Middle East, this has been clearly manifested through the continuous competition between multiple poles including Turkey, Iran, the Arab system, and Israel.

The state of fragmentation that the region has experienced for decades created an unstable balance, which allowed major powers to influence political trajectories from outside without the exorbitant costs of occupation. This idea is based on the principle of selective support and shifting political pressures to ensure that everyone remains in a state of mutual attrition.

While major powers previously contented themselves with the role of a 'maestro' managing chaos, current transformations indicate a desire to end this traditional model. There appears to be a new trend leaning towards favoring a single regional actor to be the exclusive agent and hegemon over the affairs of the entire region.

Israel emerges in this scene as the primary candidate for this leading role, supported by overwhelming technological and military superiority and an unwavering American political cover. This shift means moving from a stage of managing fragile balances to a stage of imposing a new regional order centered around Israeli power.

The fragmented regional environment and internal wars in several Arab countries have paved the way for this structural change in the geopolitics of the region. The requirement is no longer merely to contain adversaries, but to definitively diminish them to prevent them from obstructing the new path being drawn by major international powers.

This context explains the unprecedented military and political escalation against regional powers that reject this arrangement, foremost among them the axis led by Iran. The current confrontation is not merely a border conflict, but a war over the shape of the coming regional order and who will lead it in the coming decades.

For its part, Tehran realizes that the success of the 'single central power' project means the end of its regional influence and a direct threat to its political entity. Therefore, Iran is striving with all its might to disrupt this transformation through military strategies aimed at reproducing the state of chaos that allows it to survive.

Iranian attempts to restore the 'chaos management' model include expanding the scope of the conflict to include Gulf states and other areas, sending a message that stability will not be achieved without it. This distribution of bombardment and tension aims to prove that the cost of favoring Israel will be exorbitant for everyone.

The ongoing conflict in Gaza, Lebanon, and other arenas is but one chapter in the reshaping of geopolitics. The issue has gone beyond historical rights to become an existential struggle over who has the right to manage the Middle East and determine its strategic destiny.

Amidst this scene, Arab countries find themselves facing fateful challenges, as their traditional role recedes in favor of non-Arab regional powers. This reality necessitates a re-evaluation of alliances in light of an international system that no longer believes in multipolarity within a single region.

The transition to the 'central power' phase will necessarily lead to a change in the nature of security and economic alliances in the region. Political agreements will not merely be fleeting understandings, but will be part of a solid security structure led by the new dominant power under international supervision.

In conclusion, the Middle East stands on the threshold of a historical phase that may end a century of managing anxious balances. Whether attempts to impose a central power succeed or Iran continues to impose 'chaos management,' the only constant is that the old form of the region has irrevocably ended.

The region is moving from a stage of chaos management through multiple balances to a rearrangement of the region around a single central power.

The region entered a dangerous historical turning point with the launch of joint American-Israeli military operations against Iran on February 28th. These moves, led by President Donald Trump's administration in coordination with Benjamin Netanyahu's government, aim to politically and geopolitically re-engineer the Middle East, imposing a new reality that completely ends Tehran's and its allies' influence in the region.

The attacking forces used a massive military arsenal that included strategic B1 and B2 bombers and advanced naval fleets, leading to widespread destruction of Iranian infrastructure. The initial waves of bombing resulted in over 1330 deaths, and the most prominent event was the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which put the Iranian regime before an unprecedented existential test in the history of the revolution.

Tehran was quick to respond, launching over 2000 missiles and drones targeting American bases in the region and deep inside Israel, resulting in the deaths of 14 Israelis and 7 American soldiers. This military response revealed the use of new generations of precision and cluster missiles carrying warheads weighing over a ton, which disrupted the defensive calculations of the attacking coalition.

On the internal political front in Iran, state institutions rushed to pledge allegiance to Mojtaba Ali Khamenei as the country's new leader, in a move aimed at preventing any constitutional vacuum or internal collapse. This swift appointment is seen as a direct challenge to Washington and Tel Aviv's plans to install an alternative leadership that aligns with the Western agenda and submits to the dictates of the White House.

Economically, the war caused an earthquake in global energy markets, with oil prices soaring past the $100 per barrel mark, and navigation in the Strait of Hormuz halted for the tenth consecutive day. Control over this waterway, through which 25% of global oil exports pass, is one of the strategic objectives of the war to ensure the flow of petrodollars and control the destinies of nations.

Reports indicate that the financial cost of the conflict reached astronomical figures in its early days, with the Pentagon spending approximately $5 billion on ammunition in just 48 hours. In contrast, Israel recorded losses exceeding $6 billion in the first week, increasing pressure on the American economy, which is already suffering from a debt exceeding $33 trillion.

Given its inability to fully repel Iranian drones, Washington requested technical and military support from Ukraine, including sending experts and interceptor drones to protect American bases in Jordan. This reliance on Kyiv's expertise is due to its long experience in dealing with Iranian-made drones that Russia used extensively during the Ukrainian war.

The war cast a heavy shadow over the Palestinian issue, as settlers exploited the regional preoccupation to escalate their attacks in the West Bank, leading to the killing of 6 Palestinians and the displacement of hundreds. Peace projects and negotiations related to the Gaza Strip also faltered, as the international priority shifted to preventing the confrontation with Iran from escalating into an uncontrollable comprehensive regional war.

Internationally, a sharp division emerged in the Security Council, where European powers refused to participate in military action, warning of its catastrophic consequences for global security and peace. European capitals believe that the war threatens to destroy global supply chains and raise inflation and unemployment rates in countries already suffering from suffocating economic crises and high debt.

The American strategy also aims to tighten the trade blockade on China, which relies almost entirely on Iranian oil to secure its energy needs. By controlling oil sources in Iran, Washington seeks to undermine China's economic power and re-establish unipolar dominance over the global financial system.

Within the United States, President Trump faces growing opposition in Congress and among the American public, with polls showing that 53% oppose this military intervention. Criticism of Trump is escalating due to his exceeding constitutional powers by waging a widespread war without official authorization, which portends an internal political crisis that could worsen with increasing human losses.

The Zionist plan, as analysts see it, aims through this war to reach the stage of 'Greater Israel' by removing the military obstacles represented by Iran and its allies. Netanyahu seeks, by striking the 'head of the snake' as he describes it, to pave the way for expanding the circle of normalization with countries in the region and ensuring Israel's qualitative military superiority for decades to come.

Informed sources confirm that the current war may draw a new map of the world that transcends the borders of the Middle East, as it redefines international alliances among major powers. With the continued mutual shelling, the option of returning to the negotiating table seems out of reach given the insistence of both sides on achieving strategic objectives that cannot be divided.

The question remains about the international community's ability to curb this escalation before it slides into a nuclear confrontation or a long-term war of attrition that drains the region's resources. Iran after the assassination of its leaders will not be the same as before, and the allegiance to the new leader indicates that Tehran has chosen the path of open confrontation instead of surrendering to American and Israeli pressures.

Our ambition is to empower the Iranian people to overthrow the rule of tyrants and expand the circle of normalization in the region.

The UN Security Council, in its session held on Wednesday, approved a draft resolution condemning the missile attacks launched by Iran, which targeted several countries in the Arabian Gulf region. This international move comes amid escalating military tensions in the region, with the Council demanding Tehran immediately cease all hostile operations that affect the security and stability of its regional neighbors.

The draft resolution, submitted by the Kingdom of Bahrain representing the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Jordan, received widespread support within the United Nations, with 13 countries voting in favor. In contrast, both Russia and China chose to abstain from voting, a step reflecting international divergence regarding how to deal with the Iranian issue, despite the text receiving support from more than 130 member states of the international organization.

For his part, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, launched a sharp attack on the resolution, describing it as a political tool used by Washington to pressure his country. Iravani emphasized in his speech to the Council that the United States, which currently holds the rotating presidency, has distorted the tasks of the international body to serve its own agenda, stressing Tehran's rejection of the outcomes of this vote.

The Iranian mission accused the American administration of full responsibility for the raging war, indicating that Washington is pushing for direct military escalation. Tehran considered that the recent moves by the Security Council do not contribute to resolving the crisis, but rather increase the complexity of the field situation, which has witnessed mutual missile confrontations since late February.

These diplomatic developments coincide with an explosive field reality, where international and regional powers are carrying out military operations against Iranian targets, resulting in significant human losses, including senior leaders in Tehran's power structure. Iran responds to these attacks by launching barrages of missiles and drones targeting what it describes as American interests in neighboring countries, including Iraq and Jordan.

The Arab countries affected by these attacks expressed their strong condemnation of the continued targeting of civilian objects and vital installations on their territories. These countries demanded the necessity of real international guarantees that oblige Iran to respect the sovereignty of states and good neighborliness, stressing that the continued missile bombardment threatens the safety of civilians and undermines de-escalation efforts in the Middle East.

The Council's decision constitutes a blatant distortion of the role of the Security Council, whose rotating presidency is held by the United States, and we hold Washington responsible for the brutal war.

The Spanish government officially announced the relief of its ambassador to Israel, Ana Salomon Perez, from her duties, as published in the official gazette in Madrid on Wednesday. This step reflects a new deterioration in bilateral relations, as the decision means lowering the level of Spanish diplomatic representation in Tel Aviv to the level of chargé d'affaires only.

Sources reported that Ambassador Perez had left the occupied territories last September, when Madrid recalled her for consultations in response to statements by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar. Sa'ar had accused the Spanish government of 'anti-Semitism,' which Madrid considered an unacceptable transgression of diplomatic norms.

This measure is one in a series of diplomatic crises that began in May 2024, when Israel withdrew its former ambassador from Madrid in protest of Spain's recognition of the Palestinian state. Since then, relations between the two sides have been in a state of stagnation and continuous political bickering against the backdrop of Israeli policies in the region.

Media reports indicated that the resumption of full diplomatic relations would require Spain to appoint a new ambassador, which would require the approval of the Israeli authorities, something that seems unlikely at present. The Spanish embassy is currently managed by a diplomatic staff headed by a chargé d'affaires to handle essential affairs only without full representation.

This step comes amid a firm stance taken by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez against Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip. Sánchez has on several occasions described what is happening in the Strip as 'genocide,' calling on the international community to act to stop the blatant violations of international humanitarian law.

In a related field development, major Spanish cities such as Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia witnessed massive demonstrations in which thousands participated, condemning the Israeli aggression. Demonstrators raised slogans demanding a complete قطع of relations with the occupation and the imposition of economic and military sanctions to stop the ongoing massacres against civilians in Gaza and Lebanon.

Additional tension also emerged after the Spanish government refused to allow the United States to use military bases on its territory to support military operations against Iran. Sánchez affirmed that his country would not be a party to a war that violates the national sovereignty of states and leads to the destabilization of the entire Middle East region.

For her part, the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Yolanda Díaz, called for taking tougher stances to confront the war waged by Washington and Tel Aviv in the region. Díaz considered that international silence regarding what is happening in Gaza and Iran gives the occupation a green light to continue its crimes without legal or moral deterrence.

Statistics from the Gaza Strip indicate a catastrophic situation, where the Israeli genocide has left more than 72,000 martyrs and about 172,000 injured since October 2023. The destruction has also affected about 90% of the Strip's infrastructure, making the lives of 2.4 million Palestinians there a daily hell lacking the most basic necessities for survival.

Observers believe that the Spanish position represents an exception in the European continent, as Madrid adopts a legal discourse that focuses on UN authority. This position has received widespread support from the Spanish people, who oppose involvement in foreign wars and demand respect for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Regionally, the repercussions of the war that began last February extended to Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gulf states, further complicating the diplomatic scene. Madrid fears that blind alignment with the occupation's policies will lead to a comprehensive regional explosion whose catastrophic consequences for global security cannot be controlled.

In the absence of any immediate official statement from Tel Aviv regarding the decision to relieve the ambassador, analysts expect Israel to respond with similar measures that will further isolate Madrid diplomatically within the Western camp. However, the Sánchez government seems determined to move forward with its policy, which it describes as balanced and consistent with democratic values.

This decision to lower diplomatic representation is not merely an administrative measure, but a strong political message expressing Madrid's exasperation with Israeli actions. All eyes remain on Brussels to see if other European countries will follow Spain's lead in taking concrete steps against the occupation government.

In conclusion, the Palestinian issue remains the primary driver of these major diplomatic shifts in Spanish foreign policy. With the continued fall of victims in Gaza, popular and political pressure on Western governments is expected to increase to fundamentally and comprehensively review their relations with Israel.

This decision effectively lowers diplomatic relations between the two countries to the level of chargé d'affaires, representing another step in the ongoing diplomatic escalation.

The Gulf region witnessed an unprecedented military escalation on Wednesday, as Iranian armed forces carried out a series of coordinated attacks targeting strategic locations and American military bases. These developments come in the context of Tehran's direct confrontation against American and Israeli interests in the region, amidst continuous threats to close the Strait of Hormuz.

In the Qatari capital, Doha, violent explosions were heard due to a missile attack, which the Qatari Ministry of Defense confirmed was intercepted by air defense platforms. For its part, the Qatari Ministry of Interior raised the security threat level to maximum, calling on citizens and residents to stay indoors and away from windows to ensure their safety.

On the Saudi side, the Ministry of Defense announced the interception and destruction of a wave of drones that targeted the strategic Shaybah oil field located in the Empty Quarter. Sources clarified that air defenses managed to shoot down seven drones in separate incidents, confirming the protection of the facility managed by Aramco, which is a fundamental pillar of oil production.

The attacks were not limited to drones but also included the launch of seven ballistic missiles targeting the Eastern Province and Prince Sultan Air Base in Al-Kharj Governorate. Saudi defense systems successfully intercepted these missiles before they reached their targets, amid a widespread military alert at the Kingdom's air bases.

In the UAE, the Ministry of Defense announced dealing with missile attacks and drones coming from Iranian territory. The Dubai Government Media Office reported the fall of two drones in the vicinity of Dubai International Airport, resulting in injuries of varying degrees to four people of Asian and African nationalities, while confirming the regularity of air traffic.

Sultanate of Oman also entered the circle of events, as security sources reported the downing of one drone and the fall of another into the sea waters north of Duqm province. The Sultanate expressed its strong condemnation of the continuous targeting operations, affirming that it is taking all necessary measures to protect its national security and the safety of residents on its territory.

For its part, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard officially announced the implementation of the thirty-sixth wave of Operation 'True Promise 4'. The statement issued by the Guard clarified that the attacks targeted the 'operational infrastructure' of the American army in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq, using advanced 'Qader' and 'Kheibar Shekan' missiles.

Iranian reports confirmed that the missiles directly targeted the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, and Al Adairi Base in Kuwait. The attacks also included Harir Base located in northern Iraq, in an attempt to disrupt the operational capabilities of American forces stationed at those bases.

In the waters of the Strait of Hormuz, international navigation was subjected to severe blows, as maritime security agencies reported that three commercial vessels were hit by unknown projectiles. One of the attacks led to a massive fire on board a Thai cargo ship named 'Mayuree Naree' 11 nautical miles north of the Sultanate of Oman.

The Japanese container ship 'ONE Majesty' also sustained minor damage as a result of an unknown projectile while sailing northwest of Ras Al Khaimah. Security sources confirmed that the ship's crew was safe and that it headed to a safe anchorage to assess the damage, while concern continued among global shipping companies.

The third ship targeted was the cargo tanker 'Star Gwyneth', flying the flag of the Marshall Islands, whose hull was hit directly northwest of Dubai. Maritime risk management companies stated that the attack did not result in injuries among the crew, but it increased the complexity of the security situation in the vital waterway.

Navigational data indicates a sharp and rapid decline in ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz since the start of the recent conflict in late February. This strait is a major artery for the global economy, through which about one-fifth of the world's daily oil and gas supplies flow.

Observers believe that Iran's use of 'Emad' and 'Kheibar Shekan' missiles represents a clear message of defiance to the region's defensive capabilities. Tehran claims that these operations are in response to American and Israeli movements, affirming that it will not stop targeting interests associated with them until attacks on its territory cease.

With the number of targeted ships reaching at least 14 since the outbreak of confrontations, international fears are escalating that the conflict will spiral out of control. Major capitals are cautiously monitoring the repercussions of this escalation on global energy prices and the stability of supply chains passing through the Arabian Gulf region.

The competent authorities confirmed the fall of two drones in the vicinity of Dubai International Airport, causing minor to moderate injuries to four people, with air traffic continuing normally.

Foreign ministers from eight Arab and Islamic countries expressed their strong condemnation of the practices pursued by the Israeli occupation authorities in occupied Jerusalem, especially regarding the closure of the gates of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque to worshippers. The joint statement included Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Egypt, in addition to Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where they emphasized their categorical rejection of these measures that coincide with the holy month of Ramadan.

In their statement, the ministers affirmed that the security and arbitrary restrictions imposed on access to the Old City and places of worship constitute a blatant violation of the principles of international law and international humanitarian law. They pointed out that these practices aim to undermine the historical and legal status quo in Jerusalem, and are a direct assault on the freedom of worship guaranteed by international conventions for all peoples under occupation.

The statement reiterated the firm position that Al-Aqsa Mosque, in its entirety of 144 dunams, is a place of worship exclusively for Muslims, and the occupation has no legal sovereignty over Islamic and Christian holy sites in the holy city. The ministers also clarified that the Jerusalem Awqaf Department, affiliated with the Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf, is the sole and legally authorized body to manage the affairs of the Haram and regulate the entry of worshippers.

The signatory countries demanded that the occupation authorities, as the occupying power, immediately cease all forms of escalation and lift the restrictions imposed on the movement of worshippers, ensuring their safe access to the mosque. The ministers warned that the continuation of these provocations would lead to further tension in the region, requiring urgent intervention from active international powers to stop these ongoing violations.

In conclusion of the statement, the ministers called on the international community to bear its legal and moral responsibilities towards what is happening in occupied Jerusalem, and to work to compel the occupation to respect the sanctity of holy sites. They stressed the need for a firm international stance that puts an end to the discriminatory policies targeting the Arab and Islamic identity of the city, affirming that peace and stability cannot be achieved except by respecting legitimate Palestinian rights.

The entire area of Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is 144 dunams, is a place of worship exclusively for Muslims and the occupation has no sovereignty over it.

March 12, 2026

News Analysis

Washington, D.C-Last week, I posed a straightforward question to a senior American official: What is the status of the administration’s “Board of Peace” initiative for Gaza? Has it been shelved?

The response came quickly and with confidence: No. The effort continues.

Yet the reality unfolding across the Middle East suggests otherwise.

Behind the reassuring language coming from Washington, the diplomatic machinery meant to advance President Donald Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza appears largely stalled.

Informed sources say negotiations intended to move the plan forward faltered last week, just as the region entered a far more dangerous phase following the joint United States–Israeli military strike against Iran.

That escalation has ignited a broader regional confrontation and, with it, a sharp shift in priorities.

The Gaza initiative—once presented by the administration as a central pillar of its regional diplomacy—now appears increasingly overshadowed by the urgent demands of a widening conflict.

From the outset, however, the initiative struggled to gain meaningful international traction.

Even before the current escalation, the so-called Board of Peace had failed to generate broad diplomatic backing among key regional and international actors whose support would be essential for any sustainable postwar arrangement in Gaza.

Several governments privately questioned both the structure of the initiative and Washington’s ability to deliver the political conditions necessary for its success.

Analysts were skeptical from the beginning. Even as Trump unveiled the “Board of Peace” initiative during his appearance at the World Economic Forum in January, some regional experts quietly dismissed the proposal as stillborn. A plan built around the voluntary disarmament of Hamas—without a broader political settlement, credible enforcement mechanisms, or clear buy-in from major regional stakeholders—was unlikely to gain traction. The initiative, they warned at the time, risked becoming another diplomatic concept announced with fanfare but lacking the political conditions necessary to survive.

Before the current escalation, the administration had nevertheless invested considerable diplomatic energy in trying to build a political framework for Gaza around that idea.

At the core of the proposal was a controversial but pragmatic concept: persuading Hamas fighters to surrender their weapons in exchange for rebuilding Gaza and granting a broad amnesty.

Supporters argued that disarmament could unlock large-scale reconstruction and eventually allow a gradual Israeli withdrawal from the devastated enclave.

According to sources familiar with the effort, White House intermediaries had quietly facilitated indirect contacts between Israel and Hamas through regional mediators.

Those delicate discussions focused primarily on the mechanics of disarmament and the political arrangements that might follow.

But the talks came to an abrupt halt when the military confrontation with Iran began on February 28.

Publicly, the administration insists that nothing fundamental has changed.

A White House official rejected suggestions that negotiations had been suspended, maintaining that discussions on disarmament are continuing and remain constructive.

According to the official, mediators still believe resolving the weapons issue is essential to unlocking the billions of dollars pledged for Gaza’s reconstruction.

Officials associated with the administration’s so-called Peace Council also downplay the significance of the pause, portraying it as little more than a temporary logistical interruption.

They say disruptions to regional air travel prevented mediators from reaching Cairo, where several rounds of negotiations had previously taken place.

Some officials even argue that the current war could ultimately strengthen the peace effort.

If Iranian influence across the region weakens, they contend, the financial and military networks sustaining Hamas could erode as well.

In theory, that might make the question of disarmament easier to resolve.

Regional officials, however, offer a far less optimistic assessment.

A Palestinian source involved in mediation confirmed that a meeting between Hamas leaders and mediators from Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey had been scheduled for the very day the war erupted.

The meeting never happened.

It was abruptly canceled as the regional situation deteriorated, and no alternative date has been announced.

Another Hamas official confirmed that talks tied to the Trump initiative have effectively been suspended for now, though he declined to elaborate on the reasons.

The Israeli government, for its part, has provided no clear public explanation regarding the status of the negotiations.

In diplomacy, silence often speaks volumes.

Even as officials insist that some form of conversation continues, the broader diplomatic architecture supporting the initiative appears to be shrinking.

Foreign diplomats say the United States–led civil-military coordination center that had been overseeing implementation of the plan from southern Israel has sharply reduced its operations.

Staffing and activity have reportedly been scaled back to a minimum amid concerns about possible Iranian missile strikes.

The strategic reality is difficult to ignore: Washington’s attention is now overwhelmingly focused on managing the confrontation with Tehran.

In that environment, Gaza inevitably slips lower on the list of urgent policy priorities.

Yet developments on the ground continue to carry serious consequences.

Israeli officials maintain that the disarmament of armed factions in Gaza remains non-negotiable, warning that military operations could intensify if no agreement is reached.

Israeli airstrikes inside the enclave have continued intermittently, even as Israel remains engaged on other regional fronts.

Only a few months ago, the administration’s Gaza initiative appeared to be gathering tentative momentum.

A ceasefire reached last October reduced violence and allowed several border crossings to reopen.

Regional governments—particularly wealthy Gulf states—signaled their readiness to contribute billions of dollars toward reconstruction if a sustainable political arrangement could be achieved.

But that fragile diplomatic momentum now appears to have dissipated under the pressure of a widening regional war.

Peace initiatives rarely survive the shock of major military confrontation, especially in the Middle East.

Negotiations require time, political attention, and sustained diplomatic focus—resources that quickly become scarce once missiles begin crossing the region.

Which brings us back to the question I asked the American official.

Officially, the Board of Peace still exists, at least on paper. In practice, however, the initiative appears adrift—overtaken by war, regional escalation, and the strategic realities that it struggled to overcome even before the current crisis.

For now, the Gaza peace track has not been formally declared dead.

But it is unmistakably missing from view.

Dr. Ibrahim Nairat

In the world of international politics, the words of leaders have become more powerful than any traditional weapon. Donald Trump's statements are not just fleeting remarks, but a political tool that moves markets, redraws the calculations of allies and adversaries, and sometimes opens new paths to crises. Amidst the war with Iran, his contradictory statements and strategic ambiguity reveal a unique way of managing crises, while a consistent clarity appears in his stance towards Israel. This contrast presents world leaders with a practical lesson: how to distinguish between a media storm and a strategic decision, and how to deal with Trump cautiously and intelligently.

Since his arrival at the White House, Trump has adopted a different approach from traditional diplomatic methods. He has embraced a direct and confrontational rhetoric, often announcing his positions through the media, making his statements daily fodder for discussion and spreading rapidly, sometimes exceeding the boundaries of traditional politics.

However, the war with Iran exposed the limits of this approach and raised serious questions about the nature of political discourse during times of military crisis. Amidst military operations, Trump made contradictory statements within a short period: from declaring the war "completely over" to asserting that military operations would not stop before achieving a "complete defeat of the enemy." These rapid shifts created confusion among observers and contributed to global market volatility.

The problem escalates when the strategic objectives of the war are not precisely defined. Statements varied between destroying Iran's nuclear program, crippling Tehran's missile capabilities, bringing about a change in political leadership, and ultimately imposing "unconditional surrender." While these objectives seem interconnected, each requires a different level of military and political escalation, leaving the fundamental question: what is the ultimate goal of the war? Does Washington seek only to weaken Iran militarily, or to change its political regime?

Matters were further complicated by complex regional balances and economic interests related to energy corridors, especially the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important arteries of global oil trade. The escalation of the confrontation led to disruptions in navigation and trade, which directly impacted global markets.

And the impact did not stop at the war's boundaries but extended to how other countries deal with American rhetoric. Allies and adversaries found themselves facing a dilemma: are these statements official policy or merely shifting political discourse?

In this context, many world leaders began to learn how to deal with Trump based on his contradictions. They realized that every statement does not necessarily mean official policy, but could be a means of testing reactions or a tactic for political pressure. This awareness made them more cautious, as the focus shifted to monitoring actual actions and policies rather than being drawn into every media statement.

Perhaps what distinguishes Trump's style is his use of strategic ambiguity with most countries of the world, in contrast to complete clarity in his stance towards Israel. While he creates contradictions to confuse and control reactions, his position on Israel remains constant and consistent, as demonstrated in several situations:

Close coordination with Israel in the war against Iran, where Trump indicated that any decision to end operations would be in consultation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, reflecting a high degree of cooperation.

Rapid military support for Israel, including approving arms deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars to support military operations.

Managing policy towards Iran in partnership with Israel, an indication that US-Israeli relations are not as confused as in other files, but are managed with clear and strategic coordination.

These examples confirm that Trump's contradictions are not random or a sign of confusion, but a deliberate political tool that grants him freedom of maneuver, while showing complete clarity when his political position requires it, as is evident in dealing with Israel.

However, ambiguity with the rest of the world also carries its risks, especially during times of military crisis, as conflicting messages can confuse adversaries, allies, and global markets alike. Herein lies the challenge in international politics: the ability to distinguish between media noise and actual policies.

Between contradictory statements and actual policies, there is a dividing line. And whoever recognizes this distance can deal with political discourse with greater calm and realism. In Trump's case, perhaps the wisest response to his statements is simply not to take them completely seriously, but to observe what American policy will actually do, not just what it says.

In the dusty alleys of Al-Zaytoun neighborhood, southeast of Gaza City, thousands of Palestinians face a bitter reality beyond endurance, as the ancient neighborhood has turned into an open arena for hunger and thirst. Citizen Jawad Badwan sits in front of the rubble of his house, watching queues of residents carrying small plastic containers on a difficult search for drinking water, which has become a rare commodity.

Badwan describes the situation as bitter, emphasizing that the absence of official bodies and relief organizations has exacerbated the scale of the humanitarian tragedy in the neighborhood. He points out that the most basic citizenship rights are completely missing; no water reaches through networks, no charitable kitchens provide meals, and even a loaf of bread has become out of reach for the steadfast families.

Residents of the neighborhood, especially the youth, are forced to walk long distances to reach distant desalination stations. There, they wait for hours to fill containers that do not exceed 15 liters, a quantity residents describe as insufficient for the needs of a single family for two days in the absence of alternatives.

Despite the many individual initiatives, they remain without tangible results capable of bridging the large gap in needs. Residents confirm that UNRWA is the only entity that has been able to reach and distribute limited hygiene kits, while marginalization remains the master of the situation for the rest of the international and local institutions.

In the eastern part of the neighborhood, dozens of citizens demonstrated near the Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi Mosque intersection in protest against the deteriorating living conditions. Protesters raised banners demanding the repair of sewage networks and the removal of rubble and waste that threaten the spread of epidemics and diseases among the displaced and residents living on the ruins.

The proximity to what is known as the 'Yellow Line' poses a constant security concern for residents and relief teams alike. This sensitive geographical location has made the area vulnerable to continuous targeting, prompting many international organizations to hesitate in sending their teams, leaving residents trapped in a reality that does not resemble the declared truce.

Ibrahim Al-Shamali, a resident of the neighborhood who lost his home, appeals to international organizations to look at Al-Zaytoun neighborhood with humanity. Al-Shamali emphasizes that residents live in complete marginalization, lacking the necessities for a dignified life, demanding the establishment of field hospitals and mobile medical points to serve thousands of sick and wounded.

The demands are not limited to drinking water but extend to include water for washing and personal hygiene to prevent skin diseases. Residents stress that hygiene under these circumstances is not a luxury but a paramount health necessity in an area suffering from overflowing sewage and accumulated solid waste.

For his part, the spokesman for the Civil Defense, Mahmoud Basal, warned of a complex environmental and health catastrophe striking Al-Zaytoun neighborhood. Basal explained that initial estimates indicate that about 90% of the neighborhood's buildings have been destroyed, making it one of the most affected areas during the ongoing Israeli war of extermination on the Strip.

The spokesman revealed the presence of bodies of martyrs still under the rubble in several locations within the neighborhood, where teams are unable to retrieve them due to a lack of heavy equipment. He also warned that the remaining homes are on the verge of collapse, which has already led to recorded deaths due to sudden collapses under the weight of destruction.

Salim Daloul, 60 years old, estimates the number of residents in their damaged homes in the neighborhood at about 200,000 people. Daloul confirms that these residents refuse to leave their land despite the lack of aid, pointing out that relief convoys sometimes pass by the vicinity of the neighborhood without allocating any food rations to them.

Daloul proposed practical solutions to overcome the security concerns of international institutions by delivering aid to nearby points for residents to receive it themselves. He stressed that the people of Al-Zaytoun need urgent in-kind and financial support to strengthen their steadfastness in the face of shells that continue to fall on them intermittently.

This suffering comes at a time when statistics indicate the martyrdom of about 72,000 Palestinians and the injury of another 172,000 since the start of the aggression. Despite the ceasefire agreement in effect since October 2025, daily Israeli violations prevent sufficient aid from reaching 2.4 million people living in tragic conditions.

Al-Zaytoun neighborhood remains a stark example of Palestinian steadfastness in the face of the war machine and humanitarian marginalization. While residents await a water tanker or a medical point, they continue to write their story of survival on the ruins, demanding that the world not leave them forgotten on the margins of geography and outside the calculations of international relief.

Our suffering lies in the scarcity of water; there is no official body authorized to visit the neighborhood, even though it is considered one of the oldest and most densely populated neighborhoods in Gaza City.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard escalated its warning tone, threatening to target vital ports in the region, amidst the ongoing military operations led by the United States and Israel since February 28. Sources reported that this threat comes in response to the heavy human and material losses suffered by Tehran, which included the killing of more than 1,300 people and the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, pushing the region to the brink of a comprehensive confrontation.

On the ground, Ukraine entered the crisis at the official request of Washington, where President Volodymyr Zelensky announced the dispatch of expert teams and interceptor drones to protect American bases in Jordan. The United States is benefiting from Ukrainian expertise gained in dealing with Iranian-made drones, at a time when reports indicate that Tehran has launched more than two thousand missiles and drones towards various targets in the region over the past ten days.

Domestically in the United States, a recent Quinnipiac University poll showed a sharp division in American public opinion, with 53% of respondents expressing their opposition to military action against Iran, while 74% expressed outright rejection of sending ground troops. In a related context, the war caused other political projects to falter, most notably the American Peace Council project in the Gaza Strip, as a result of the American administration's preoccupation with the direct conflict with Tehran and its repercussions on global energy markets.

Iranian threats to target ports come at a time when the Strait of Hormuz is facing a complete paralysis of navigation for the tenth consecutive day.

Settler groups in the occupied West Bank have escalated their deadly attacks against Palestinian citizens, exploiting the international and field preoccupation with the ongoing war against Iran. Human rights and medical sources reported that settlers intensified their attacks under the protection of the Israeli occupation army, which imposed strict movement restrictions, leading to the martyrdom of 6 Palestinians since the outbreak of the regional confrontation on February 28th.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed that at least five citizens were killed by settler gunfire in various areas of the West Bank, while the human rights organization 'B'Tselem' indicated the martyrdom of a sixth person due to tear gas inhalation during a settler attack. These developments come at a time when the United States and Israel continue their widespread aggression on Iranian territories, which has resulted in increased tension in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The occupation army imposed a strict security cordon on Palestinian villages and towns, with main roads closed by iron gates and earth mounds, making remote villages easy prey for armed settler attacks. Local sources explained that these military restrictions hindered the access of ambulances and medical teams to rescue the injured, contributing to the rise in the number of victims due to bleeding or delayed medical intervention.

In the village of Abu Falah, north of Ramallah, the area witnessed a brutal attack carried out by more than 100 armed settlers under the cover of darkness, resulting in the martyrdom of two Palestinians. Sources quoted eyewitnesses that residents tried to defend their homes with stones before the settlers indiscriminately opened fire with their machine guns at the chests of citizens who tried to repel the aggression.

One of the village defenders pointed out that the martyr Thayer was killed while trying to protect a house from burning, with traces of blood remaining as evidence of the crime in the surrounding olive groves. Following the attack, a third Palestinian died from his injuries, amid accusations against the occupation forces of firing large quantities of toxic gas to secure the withdrawal of settlers from the area after committing their crime.

For his part, the spokesperson for the Palestinian Red Crescent, Ahmed Jibril, confirmed that ambulance crews face extreme difficulties in reaching conflict areas due to attacks by both settlers and the army. Jibril stated that the northern Jordan Valley, Masafer Yatta, and villages east of Ramallah suffer from a suffocating siege that prevents medical aid from reaching patients and injured people who are subjected to daily abuse.

The human rights organization 'Yesh Din' monitored more than 109 incidents of violence committed by settlers since the start of the war on Iran, including direct physical assaults, property destruction, and live fire. The organization noted a dangerous phenomenon of settlers wearing Israeli army uniforms during their attacks, which confirms the complete alignment between the military system and extremist settlement groups.

In a related context, international reports revealed that about 700 Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes since the beginning of 2025 until early 2026 due to ongoing settler terrorism. These attacks coincide with an Israeli government plan to expand settlements, led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, with the aim of undermining any opportunity for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the future.

Settler leaders announced the establishment of new settlement outposts in strategic locations, including a settlement overlooking the city of Nablus, as part of a plan that includes the construction of 22 new settlements announced last year. More than 700,000 settlers currently reside in illegal settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem, amidst an environment of full military protection provided by the right-wing occupation government.

On the ground, the occupation army justifies road closures as precautionary security measures in light of ongoing airstrikes on Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah, which continues to launch rockets in solidarity with Tehran. However, Palestinians assert that these measures are exclusively aimed at paralyzing their movement and facilitating the mission of settler militias in seizing more land and terrorizing peaceful residents.

Regionally, the American-Israeli aggression on Iran has led to the deaths of more than 1,300 people, including high-ranking leaders, igniting multiple fronts in the region. Tehran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting strategic centers inside Israel, resulting in the deaths of 14 Israelis and injuries to hundreds, amid strict military censorship that prevents the publication of the true extent of losses.

Amidst this regional explosion, peace efforts and international projects aimed at de-escalating the situation in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have faltered, as international focus has shifted to direct confrontation with Iran. Observers warn that the continuation of the war will give a green light to settlers to implement 'silent transfer' plans against Palestinian Bedouin and rural communities in areas classified as 'C'.

Economic data indicate that global markets have been affected by the halt of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz for the tenth consecutive day, with oil prices soaring to record levels of $119 per barrel. This global turmoil casts a shadow over the international community, which appears unable to curb Israeli aggression in the West Bank amidst the involvement of major powers in the direct conflict.

In conclusion, the Palestinian citizen in the West Bank continues to face a dual Israeli war machine; represented by the occupation army with its heavy weapons, and settler militias that now operate as an unofficial military arm. With the absence of international protection, fears of wider massacres in isolated villages, which now lack the minimum means of self-defense under the complete siege, are increasing.

Armed settler militias exploit war conditions and operate with direct support from the army to attack Palestinians and force them to leave.

The Palestinian Presidency issued a strongly worded statement condemning the occupation authorities' closure of the gates of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and preventing worshippers from accessing it, coinciding with the days of the blessed month of Ramadan. The Presidency considered these steps a dangerous escalation aimed at undermining the existing historical and legal status in the Noble Sanctuary and the holy sites in occupied Jerusalem.

In its statement, the Presidency warned against the occupation's attempts to exploit the state of tension and escalation in the region as a cover to implement plans to restrict religious sites, both Islamic and Christian. It affirmed that these practices constitute a blatant violation of international conventions that guarantee freedom of worship, emphasizing the need to stop all provocations targeting worshippers inside the mosque's courtyards.

The Presidency also demanded the immediate and unconditional opening of all Al-Aqsa Mosque gates to ensure the flow of worshippers, reiterating its affirmation that the Noble Sanctuary, with its full area of 144 dunams, is an exclusive right for Muslims. It stressed the importance of international intervention to protect the religious identity of Jerusalem and to stop any Israeli attempts aimed at changing the existing reality in the holy city.

The blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, with its full area of 144 dunams, is a place of worship exclusively for Muslims.

Washington – Said Arikat – 11/3/2026

News Analysis

The war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran presents President Donald Trump's administration with a complex strategic dilemma. According to a critical reading of an article published in the "Financial Times," Washington appears to have entered a broad conflict in the Middle East without a clear vision of how to end it or manage its political and economic repercussions. This ambiguity is exacerbated by the clear contradiction in Trump's statements, which have ranged from announcing the imminent end of the war to vowing to continue fighting until the "complete defeat of the enemy."

It is worth noting that in a statement on Monday, Trump described the conflict as "completely over," a phrase that quickly reflected in global markets, as oil prices fell after a sharp rise driven by fears of supply disruption. However, this impression did not last long. Just hours later, the US president returned to a more hawkish rhetoric, emphasizing that the war would not stop before achieving a decisive victory. This fluctuation in political messages reflects, according to many observers, confusion in managing the war rather than a well-thought-out strategy to end it.

Ambiguity of Strategic Objectives

The fundamental problem in this war lies in the absence of a clear definition of its ultimate goals. Trump has spoken at different stages about destroying Iran's nuclear program, crippling its ballistic missile capabilities, bringing about a change in political leadership in Tehran, and even imposing "unconditional surrender." These objectives, while seemingly coherent on the surface, differ radically in their nature and requirements for achievement, raising a fundamental question about whether Washington has actually defined the goal it seeks.

Moreover, the war represents the largest American military deployment in the Middle East since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, yet Trump described it as a "short mission." This contradiction between the scale of the military operation and the nature of the political rhetoric reinforces the impression that the US administration may have underestimated the complexities of the confrontation with Iran.

War and Attrition Calculations

Despite the severe blows Iran has suffered, including the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in the early days of the war, signs of a rapid collapse of the regime have not materialized. Tehran has shown an ability to reorganize its leadership and continue fighting, and has appointed a new figure at the top of the power hierarchy, the son of the assassinated Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, in a move aimed at demonstrating political continuity.

Field data indicate that Iran has chosen a long war of attrition strategy, an approach it had prepared for years. Despite a decline in its ability to launch missiles compared to the early days of the war, it is still capable of carrying out missile and drone attacks against Israel and the positions of Washington's allies in the Gulf. This has disrupted trade and travel in the region, and led to significant disruptions in navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important energy arteries.

Regional and International Repercussions

The repercussions of the war are clearly visible in the Gulf region, where some countries have been forced to temporarily reduce oil and gas production due to security risks. The leaders of these countries had previously warned that any widespread war with Iran could quickly turn into an uncontrollable regional conflict. Nevertheless, Trump – according to his statements – was surprised by Iran's attacks on countries that were not direct parties to the war, which again reflects a misjudgment of the nature of the regional conflict.

At the same time, the prospects for political change in Iran do not seem imminent. The protest movements that the country witnessed in recent years have almost disappeared with the outbreak of the war, as Iranians have become more concerned with their personal security amidst bombing, sanctions, and economic turmoil. Indeed, the war may give the Iranian regime an opportunity to strengthen its "resistance" rhetoric and mobilize public opinion around it.

End Dilemma

Given this reality, Washington's options appear limited. Continuing the war threatens to exacerbate the global energy crisis and endanger the international economy, and may also cast a shadow over the domestic political situation in the United States, especially with the approaching midterm elections. Ending the war quickly, however, might give Tehran an opportunity to declare "steadfastness" and claim political victory despite military losses.

In both scenarios, the Middle East remains prone to further instability, whether as a result of continued confrontation or due to the vacuum that may result from weakening the Iranian state without a clear political alternative.

The contradiction in Donald Trump's statements reveals a familiar pattern in his management of international crises, based on using strategic ambiguity as a pressure tool. However, this approach, which may sometimes succeed in commercial or political negotiations, becomes more dangerous in the context of wars. Conflicting signals may confuse adversaries, but at the same time, they confuse allies and global markets. In the case of the war with Iran, it seems that ambiguity has not become a deliberate strategy as much as it has become a reflection of the absence of a clear vision for what the end of the conflict should be.

Historical experience shows that overthrowing political leadership in countries with centralized systems does not necessarily lead to the collapse or surrender of the state. The opposite has happened in many cases, where external pressure has strengthened the regime's internal cohesion. In the Iranian case, the assassination of Ali Khamenei did not lead to the collapse of power, but rather prompted it to quickly rearrange the leadership hierarchy. This reflects the ability of Iranian state institutions, especially security and military ones, to maintain continuity even in the face of major political shocks.

The great paradox in this war is that its declared objectives may contradict its potential outcomes. Weakening Iran militarily may achieve tactical gains for Washington and its allies, but it may also open the door to more dangerous scenarios, such as the disintegration of the state or its transformation into an arena for internal and regional conflicts. Such a scenario could create a strategic vacuum in the Gulf and threaten global energy security. Therefore, the real challenge for decision-makers in Washington is not to win the war, but to manage the day after it.

Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, announced the continuation of joint military operations with the United States against Iran until all outlined objectives are achieved. Katz clarified in an official statement following a security assessment that the war led by US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would not be subject to a specific timeline, indicating that military pressure would continue through all available means.\n\nThe Israeli minister claimed that the Iranian leadership is in hiding in tunnels, alleging that Iranian hospitals are experiencing a significant overcrowding of casualties from the Revolutionary Guard and Basij forces. These statements come amidst a continuous escalation on the ground since late last February, which included airstrikes and assassinations targeting senior leaders in Tehran.\n\nIn a related context, Hebrew media sources revealed a conviction within the Israeli military establishment regarding the difficulty of overthrowing the Iranian regime through direct military means at present. The sources indicated that the army understands the serious strategic consequences that could result from an attempt to change the regime by force, emphasizing that this goal is not on the table for immediate implementation.\n\nThe Israeli army believes that ending the war must be linked to achieving tangible accomplishments in other areas, most notably undermining Iran's military manufacturing capabilities. The current strategy is shifting from destroying ready-to-launch missile platforms to targeting the infrastructure of factories and facilities that produce these weapons to ensure the long-term weakening of Tehran's offensive power.\n\nIsraeli air operations face logistical obstacles due to Iran's vast geographical area and the distribution of military facilities across distant regions. These challenges have prompted Tel Aviv to request direct support from the United States to expand the scope of air and intelligence coverage, especially given the continued targeting of internal security sites and sensitive border areas.\n\nThis confrontation is the first of its kind in decades in which Israel is fighting a country with strategic depth and independent defense industries. Reports confirm that Iran's ability to produce weapons locally makes it difficult to decisively win the battle through swift strikes, requiring a long-term approach and close coordination with international allies.\n\nOn the ground, Israeli and American attacks have resulted in the deaths of more than 1,300 people in Iran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and prominent security officials. In response, Tehran continues its retaliations by launching barrages of missiles and drones that targeted sites inside Israel, leading to casualties and injuries among civilians and military personnel.\n\nIranian attacks also targeted American bases and interests in Gulf countries, Iraq, and Jordan, resulting in the deaths of American military personnel and damage to civilian assets. These attacks were met with widespread condemnation from affected Arab countries, which called for an immediate cessation of mutual aggressions and sparing the region the woes of a comprehensive war.\n\nPrevious reports indicate that the declared strategic objectives go beyond mere military response, to include an attempt to cripple the nuclear program and ballistic missile systems. Military analysts believe that Israel may prefer an unstable and weak Iranian regime over its complete overthrow, due to the uncalculated risks that a security vacuum could cause in the region.\n\nThe Israeli vision relies on the fact that the development of strategic weapons requires institutional stability, which the current strikes are trying to undermine. While countries like Turkey, Egypt, and Iran have been able to build significant military capabilities thanks to the stability of their regimes, Israel seeks to transform Iran into a model similar to countries that have lost their ability to threaten their national security due to internal chaos.\n\n"The operation led by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu will continue without any time limit until we achieve all objectives."\n

The observer of the historical transformation paths of emerging societies notices a pathological phenomenon that clearly emerges whenever old pillars shake and new signs of awakening appear. This phenomenon is called 'bubble elites,' a class that excels at floating above the sacrifices of others, exploiting the prevailing state of value fluidity and intellectual turmoil.

These are not just passersby on the train of the stage; rather, they are parasites that suck the nectar of hopes to inject the body of the nation with the poisons of mediocrity and falsity. The tragedy of these elites begins with self-emptiness, as each of them lacks deep roots in the land from which a true intellectual derives their dignity and humility.

'Bubble elites' are rootless beings, made of a thin membrane of pretense filled with hot air of arrogance and moral inflation. This inflation is nothing but an intellectual tumor intended to create an illusion of greatness, while the truth lies in an internal fragility they try to protect with shields of bad character.

Due to their lack of solid intellectual substance, these individuals find themselves compelled to adopt a policy of demolition as an alternative to genuine construction and effectiveness. They cannot ascend to the top of the mountain, so they strive to lower the peak to be level with the bottom they stand on by attacking and betraying the sincere.

In physics, fragile objects float on the surface while gold and rubies sink into the depths, and so do bubble elites in times of revolutions. This class floats because it is the lightest in value and the quickest to respond to the winds of interests, forming a foam that obscures the view of the true flowing river.

These bubbles carry the seeds of their demise in the essence of their formation; the more they swell and become arrogant, the thinner their membrane becomes, and the moment of their inevitable explosion approaches. However, relying on self-explosion is a kind of intellectual fatalism that the vibrant spirit seeking real change rejects.

Religious and ethical duty necessitates the presence of 'pins of the sincere' who carry the consciousness of criticism and the honesty of confrontation to explode this false inflation in the public scene. This confrontation is necessary to preserve truths from vulgarity and protect societal movements from being reduced to hollow figures who carry no real project.

The height of tragedy manifests when these elites turn into hired mouthpieces, trading their intellectual dignity for crumbs of material and moral tables offered to them. These individuals have become parrots in cultural attire, repeating what they are indoctrinated with in backrooms to serve agendas unrelated to the nation's interests.

This subservience explains the spread of mediocrity in digital spaces and visual media, where the solid intellectual has been replaced by the trivial 'influencer' who addresses instincts. Mediocrity here is not just a weakness in performance, but a deliberate method to dilute major issues, flatten public awareness, and direct the masses.

The custodians of the bubble and those behind them aim to create a state of intellectual bewilderment that makes it easy to lead the masses towards goals that serve narrow interests. But history, as a harsh sieve, does not retain bubbles, no matter how high their status, but casts them into the abyss of oblivion over time.

The ongoing conflict between bubble elites and the sincere advocates of causes is an eternal struggle between falsity and truth, between the transient symptom and the enduring essence. No matter how much the noise of the mouthpieces increases and the paper palaces swell, one wall of sincerity is capable of demolishing those fragile entities and restoring things to their proper order.

The hope remains with the remaining few of those with insight who refuse to fall into the trap of mediocrity and insist that the word is a heavy trust. These are the ones who realize that the path to salvation begins by calling things by their real names without equivocation or embellishment of the bitter reality.

The bubble must be called a bubble no matter how much it inflates, and sincere thought must remain the only beacon that guides generations. Eradicating intellectual gangrene from the body of collective consciousness is the first step towards building a healthy society capable of facing challenges.

Ultimately, only what is right prevails, and the sacrifices of the sincere and the sweat of the revolutionaries remain the true fuel for major historical transformations. As for the bubble elites, their fate is to vanish as soon as they touch reality, leaving only the good impact and solid thought in the memory of living peoples.

The pin of the sincere is, in fact, a necessary surgical tool for excising intellectual gangrene from the body of collective consciousness.

A headquarters belonging to the Popular Mobilization Forces in the northern region of Nineveh province was subjected to an aerial bombardment on Wednesday evening, leading to a state of security alert in the area. Field sources reported that ambulances immediately rushed to the target site, with no official final toll on human or material losses issued yet.

This attack comes in the context of a noticeable security tension witnessed in the capital Baghdad since the early morning hours, where unidentified warplanes flew at low altitudes over residential neighborhoods. Iraqi security agencies have not issued any official clarifications regarding the nature of these aircraft or the missions they were carrying out in the central skies of the country.

Meanwhile, explosions resulting from aerial interceptions and missiles were heard in the vicinity of Camp Victoria, currently known as Martyr Mohammed Alaa Air Base. This base is considered one of the vital facilities used by the Iraqi Air Force, which adds a sensitive character to repeated attempts to target it.

On the political front, Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia' Al Sudani held a phone call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian to discuss the latest developments. During the call, Sudani stressed that targeting Iraq undermines the diplomatic efforts Baghdad is making to calm regional tensions and end the raging war.

The Iraqi Prime Minister assured his Iranian counterpart of Iraq's full commitment to the security of the Islamic Republic, emphasizing his categorical rejection of using Iraqi territory as a launchpad for any external aggressions. Sudani considered the attacks on Iraqi sovereignty a serious violation of international norms and the country's national security.

For its part, the US Embassy in Baghdad raised its security warnings for its citizens residing in Iraq to the highest levels. The new diplomatic statement warned of serious risks related to kidnappings and killings that may target American citizens, pointing to the involvement of armed factions in these threats.

Informed sources explained that these warnings were not sudden, but rather an evolution of a series of measures that began with a travel ban and then a call for immediate departure. The latest statement reflects increasing American concern about the escalating influence of militias linked to regional parties and their ability to carry out qualitative operations against Western interests.

Media reports indicated that the US Embassy linked these threats to coordinated attacks targeting diplomatic and military facilities across Iraqi provinces. This warning comes at a time when the region is witnessing sharp polarization and unprecedented military escalation that directly affects the stability of the Iraqi state.

High-level Iraqi military sources reported alarming statistics on the extent of attacks the country has faced during the past period. More than 250 attacks using drones and guided missiles were recorded, covering various areas including the provinces of the Kurdistan Region and border areas.

These data indicate that the Iraqi arena has become an open theater for settling regional and international scores since the start of the latest military escalation in the region. The Iraqi government faces enormous challenges in balancing its foreign relations with maintaining internal security control and preventing the country from sliding into widespread chaos.

Targeting Iraqi territory represents a violation of the country's sovereignty and security, and we are keen not to allow our territory to be used as a launchpad for aggression against neighbors.