Despite the escalation in rhetoric, the unprecedented military buildup of American capabilities in the region, and President Donald Trump's "brinkmanship" policy, contrasted with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's statements reflecting a tone of defiance and insistence on responding to American and Israeli threats; the pressing question is: Are we on the verge of an imminent military confrontation between Washington and Tehran? What are the chances of the United States succeeding in changing the political regime in Iran? Conversely, what are the limits of Iran's military response capability? Can Iran target aircraft carriers and American bases in the region? And finally, what are the repercussions of all this on the security and stability of the region and the world?

Anyone who reads the scene with a cool eye, away from media sensationalism, will realize that what is happening is closer to "controlled madness" than to a blind rush towards war. The United States fully understands that any comprehensive war with Iran will not be a quick military picnic, nor will it end with a limited surgical strike. Instead, it could open the doors of the region to strategic chaos extending from the Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean. The experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in American memory, with the costs in money, reputation, and lives.

As for talk of regime change in Iran, it is a slogan that has been repeated in the corridors of American politics for decades, but it has never turned into an executable strategy. The Iranian regime, despite its internal crises and suffocating sanctions, has proven an extraordinary ability to adapt and endure, relying on a cohesive institutional security and military structure, and an impressive network of regional and international alliances.

Conversely, Iran's capabilities cannot be underestimated. Over the past years, Tehran has developed an advanced missile system and has demonstrated its ability to operate in multiple theaters through its regional allies. While targeting American aircraft carriers or major bases would remain a high-cost and extremely risky option, it is not impossible should an open confrontation erupt. Any direct hit on strategic American interests would certainly mean the region entering a spiral of escalation whose outcomes cannot be controlled.

This is precisely where the danger of the situation lies: if war breaks out, it will not remain bilateral between Washington and Tehran, but will affect Gulf security, threaten the stability of Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and perhaps extend its effects to global energy markets, threatening the international economy with a new crisis. Therefore, the precise cost-benefit calculations of both parties make the option of a comprehensive war more likely to be brandished than actually implemented.

In my estimation, Trump will continue to mobilize, threaten, and warn, but he will not launch a military strike that leads to a wide regional war. The man realizes that any major slip could turn the tables on him domestically, especially in light of the political crises and scandals pursuing him, and the unrest and decline in support within his party. Despite the image he tries to project of himself as a president who does not hesitate to use force, he is not at all interested in the "Samson option" that would bring down the temple on himself and his adversaries at home and abroad.

It is more likely that this round of escalation will end in negotiated outcomes related to the Iranian nuclear program, which will be marketed domestically in Washington as a political and security achievement. If this happens, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not dare to go it alone into a military confrontation with Iran, because any open war could mean the end of his political future, and perhaps plunge the Hebrew state into an existential dilemma, especially given its escalating international isolation after the Gaza war and the growing global calls for a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

As for Iran, it will not initiate a preemptive strike, nor will it seek to ignite a war it does not need at this stage. However, at the same time, it will not stand idly by in the face of what it considers existential threats. It will continue to develop its deterrent capabilities and strengthen its relations with Russia and China, thereby solidifying its position as a significant regional power within an international system that is gradually leaning towards multipolarity.

Iran, in historical memory, is not an emergent state, but the heir to the Persian Empire that once extended its influence over vast areas of the world. It understands that bowing under American pressure would mean undermining its regional project and international standing. Therefore, it will maneuver, negotiate, and accumulate power assets, without rushing into a comprehensive confrontation.

In conclusion: We are facing a calculated escalation, and fiery rhetoric that serves deterrence calculations more than it paves the way for war. A comprehensive military confrontation will not occur, because its exorbitant cost exceeds the capacity of both parties to bear. The Iranian regime will likely emerge with a greater presence and influence, while Washington seeks to save face through a new agreement or understanding. These are precise calculations for a war that is intended to be threatened, not to happen.

The sports community and Palestinian public in Ramallah and Al-Bireh governorate bid farewell to the body of the young martyr Fadi Al-Naasan, a player for Al-Mughayyir Club and the national youth team, who passed away due to severe injuries he sustained days ago. The solemn funeral procession set off from Palestine Medical Complex, where the deceased's body was wrapped in the Palestinian flag amidst shouts of anger and condemnation of the ongoing crimes of the occupation and settlers.

The deceased Al-Naasan, 17 years old, was hit by an explosive bullet in the thigh area fired by Israeli occupation forces during their raid on Al-Mughayyir village on July 11th. This severe injury led to the amputation of his leg and his entry into a critical health condition, before his official martyrdom was announced after medical attempts to save his life failed.

The Palestinian Football Association directly accused the occupation forces of shooting the young player, noting that the targeting occurred while providing protection to settlers who launched a violent attack on the village. The association affirmed in a statement that targeting Palestinian athletes has become a systematic policy aimed at undermining the sports movement and killing the dreams of creative youth.

Hamdallah Al-Naasan, the martyr's father, recounted the last moments of his son's life, noting that Fadi loved football and aspired to represent his country in international forums. The grieving father explained that his son did not hesitate to go towards the attack site when he heard cries for help from women and girls in the village, to be among the first defenders before he was assassinated by occupation bullets.

For her part, the martyr's mother, Hanan Al-Naasan, mourned her son with touching words, describing him as an outstanding student and a well-mannered athlete who enjoyed the love and respect of everyone in his school and club. She said that Fadi combined academic excellence with athletic passion, praying to God to accept him among the martyrs and righteous, affirming her pride in his heroism and sacrifice for his village.

Local sources reported that the attack that led to Al-Naasan's injury was not the only one; the village witnessed violent confrontations during which occupation forces extensively fired rubber bullets, sound bombs, and tear gas. These confrontations resulted in a child under the age of ten being directly hit in the head by a sound bomb, in addition to other injuries among unarmed citizens.

Medical reports indicate that the explosive bullets used by occupation soldiers caused extensive damage to the tissues and arteries of the martyr Al-Naasan, making the process of saving his limb or life extremely difficult. This incident reflects the extent of violence used against Palestinian civilians in villages and towns that are subjected to repeated attacks by settlers under army protection.

This crime comes in the context of an ongoing escalation in the West Bank, where statistics indicate that at least 1088 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023 due to occupation and settler attacks. In contrast, about 46 Israelis were killed in various operations and confrontations witnessed in the West Bank during the same period, reflecting the escalating security tension in the region.

No official comment has been issued by the Israeli occupation army so far regarding the circumstances of the shooting of player Al-Naasan, despite official requests for comment on the incident. Palestinian human rights and sports organizations continue to call on the international community and global sports federations to intervene to stop the targeting of players and sports facilities in the occupied territories.

Deep sorrow cast a shadow over Al-Mughayyir Club and the Palestinian sports community with the passing of one of the promising talents who represented the hope of Palestinian football in the future. The martyr's teammates in the national team affirmed that Fadi will remain present in their hearts, and his memory will be a motivation for them to continue their sports journey despite the difficulties and challenges imposed by the reality under occupation.

When the settlers attacked, he heard the cries of girls and women, so he went to the attack site and was killed defending his family and village.

International press reports have revealed a strategic shift in retaliatory Iranian attacks, with Tehran intensively focusing its strikes on US bases located in Jordan. According to informed sources, US forces were subjected to four consecutive attacks in just five days, the most violent of which was Friday's attack, which resulted in the death of two soldiers and the loss of a third, in an unprecedented escalation on the ground.

Responsible sources clarified that this series of attacks not only caused human casualties but also led to the injury of dozens of soldiers and significant material damage to a number of military helicopters. These developments indicate that Iranian forces still possess a huge missile arsenal, with a remarkable development in their ability to maneuver and bypass advanced American air defense systems.

Jordan's strategic importance as a center for US operations in the region has increased, especially after the Pentagon transferred large numbers of its forces from Bahrain, the UAE, and Qatar to locations previously considered safer in Jordan. These moves came amid restrictions imposed by other regional allies on US military air traffic and the deployment of forces over their territories.

Iran began expanding the scope of its military operations to include Jordanian territory for the first time since the signing of the last ceasefire agreement between Tehran and Washington last June. This shift represents a breach of previous rules of engagement, as the Iranian side seeks to pressure the US military presence at its new and vital strongholds.

American sources detailed the five attacks that the Pentagon did not announce in detail at the time, as the targeting began with striking a residential complex at King Faisal Air Base. This initial shelling resulted in the injury of five American servicemen, giving an early indication of Iran's intention to escalate the situation in the Jordanian arena.

The second attack was more specialized, targeting a base in eastern Jordan dedicated to operating the famous American 'Black Hawk' helicopters. Direct strikes caused severe damage to a large number of these helicopters, temporarily affecting the logistical and operational capabilities of the forces stationed there.

Two days before the deadly Friday attack, Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in the Azraq area was subjected to intense Iranian missile shelling. This attack caused injuries to about 20 American soldiers, but the incident did not result in any deaths at that time due to personnel taking refuge in fortified shelters immediately after the sirens sounded.

The scene was repeated on Friday at the same base in Azraq, but the results were tragic this time with the killing of two soldiers and the injury of four others with varying degrees of wounds. Although the rest of the base's personnel underwent medical examinations and returned to duty, the attack caused a shock in American military circles due to the accuracy of the hit and its timing.

For its part, the Iranian army officially announced its responsibility for carrying out drone attacks that directly targeted fuel tanks at the Azraq base. The Revolutionary Guard also confirmed, through its media outlets, the use of a mixture of missiles and suicide drones to strike aircraft shelters, in an attempt to neutralize American air power.

Military experts, including retired US Air Force generals, believe that Jordan's geographical location gives Washington a major advantage for carrying out effective air operations in Syria and Iraq. Therefore, the Iranian targeting primarily aims to undermine this regional alliance and politically and security-wise embarrass the host countries of US forces.

In response to these attacks, the US military announced retaliatory strikes targeting sites belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, with the aim of reducing threats to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington considered these moves a clear punitive message to those responsible for planning and carrying out the attacks that targeted soldiers in Jordan.

In a related context, President Trump hinted at a larger military escalation in the coming days, indicating his administration's intention to target vital infrastructure inside Iran. Potential targets include bridges, power generation stations, and distribution networks, in an attempt to impose new deterrence that prevents the recurrence of targeting US bases in the region.

Friday's attack was not just an attack on a base, but an attempt to make the political cost of hosting US forces outweigh the security benefit.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced today, Sunday, that it is monitoring and verifying field reports of a military attack targeting the construction site of the Darkhovin nuclear power plant in Iran during the night hours. The agency clarified in a brief statement that its technical teams are working to assess the situation at the facility, which is still in its early construction phases.

International sources confirmed that the targeted site did not contain any nuclear materials or radioactive fuel at the time of the incident, based on the results of the agency's last inspection tour of the site. This international move comes at a sensitive time when the region is witnessing escalating security tensions surrounding Iran's nuclear program.

For its part, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran directly accused the United States of being behind the attack, describing the operation as a clear violation of international laws and an assault on a civilian facility under development. Local Iranian media had circulated news of the strike earlier, indicating material damage to the site's infrastructure.

The facility was in very early stages of construction and did not contain any nuclear materials at the time of its last inspection.

The Middle East region faces the specter of a comprehensive military confrontation following the first human casualties among American forces from direct Iranian fire. Sources reported that a missile attack targeting a military base in the region led to the death of two American soldiers, while the search is still ongoing for a third soldier who went missing after the shelling.

In an immediate reaction, the US Central Command launched a wave of what it described as preliminary air attacks, targeting vital facilities belonging to the Iranian military. The American target bank included coastal observation points and air defense systems, in addition to storage sites for drones and missiles used by Tehran in its regional operations.

Field escalation did not stop at the limits of direct confrontation but extended to neighboring countries, where facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain were subjected to attacks by Iranian drones and missiles. Field reports confirmed that the Jordanian city of Aqaba and the Sulaymaniyah region in Iraq were not spared from the shrapnel of this exploding conflict, reflecting the widening scope of Iranian targeting.

For its part, Tehran officially announced the targeting of Al-Adeeri camp and Ali Al-Salem Air Base in Kuwait using suicide drones. This announcement came in the context of an Iranian response to what it described as continuous American aggression against its infrastructure and civilian bridges during the past eight days of continuous shelling.

Politically, Iranian authorities announced the suspension of the memorandum of understanding signed with Washington last month, considering that the understandings were no longer valid. Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei accused the American administration of breaking promises, indicating that Washington has once again proven to be an unreliable party in any diplomatic path.

In contrast, US President Trump showed a tough stance on political developments, emphasizing that he no longer cared about Iran's decision to withdraw from the memorandum of understanding. The White House clarified that military options have become the primary tool to force Tehran to comply with American conditions and stop its threats to international navigation.

Israel entered the crisis by declaring a state of maximum alert among its forces, in anticipation of any escalation of the conflict towards a major regional war. Media sources reported that the Israeli security establishment is closely monitoring Iranian movements, amidst fears of opening multiple fronts simultaneously if the current escalation continues.

US Central Command stressed that its operations primarily aim to undermine the capabilities of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to threaten navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Military sources indicated that Washington's punitive messages have shifted from targeting proxies and agents to striking deep into Iran and directly targeting military infrastructure.

Observers believe that the death of American soldiers represents a strategic turning point that could end the era of limited confrontations and push towards an 'open war.' The Pentagon has already begun mobilizing stealth fighters and strengthening its naval presence in the region, indicating preparations for broader and more lethal military operations.

Iran, for its part, justified its attacks on neighboring countries by stating that they are in response to the facilities granted to American forces operating from those bases. Tehran accuses some regional countries of participating in the 'military blockade' imposed on it, which explains its targeting of civilian and military facilities in Kuwait and Jordan.

In the context of Arab reactions, Kuwait condemned the targeting of its civilian facilities, affirming its full right to defend its sovereignty and territories by all available means. Popular fears are growing in Gulf countries that their territories will become a battleground for settling scores between the two major powers in the absence of a political solution.

Reports from Washington indicate that the decision to launch a 'major war' is now on the table for discussion in the closed rooms of the Pentagon. Military experts confirm that the type of weapons used in recent days, by both sides, reflects a desire to break the traditional rules of engagement that have prevailed for years.

Despite international calls for restraint, the language of threat remains dominant in the statements of officials from both sides. While Washington insists on protecting its interests and navigation, Tehran asserts that it will not back down in the face of what it describes as 'American arrogance,' even if it leads to a comprehensive confrontation.

The lingering question in political circles is about the ability of international parties to contain this explosion before it is too late. Field indicators, from casualties and military mobilization to the suspension of agreements, all suggest that the countdown to a major confrontation has already begun.

American strikes reflect the widening scope of military objectives by targeting infrastructure that supports Tehran's operations deep within the country.

The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in an official statement issued today, Sunday, expressed its strongest condemnation of the Iranian aggression that targeted a power generation and desalination plant in the State of Kuwait. Cairo described the attack as a heinous act targeting vital and civilian facilities in a sisterly country, affirming its categorical rejection of this infringement on the security of the Arab Gulf states.

The Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed Egypt's full solidarity with the Kuwaiti leadership and people in confronting these threats. It also affirmed its absolute support for all measures and actions taken by the State of Kuwait to maintain its stability and protect its citizens and strategic facilities from any external aggression.

For its part, the State of Kuwait condemned in the strongest terms the Iranian aggression that occurred this morning, noting that it once again targeted a vital energy and water desalination facility. Official sources clarified that this aggression represents a blatant violation of international laws that protect civilian objects from military operations.

The Kuwaiti Ministry of Foreign Affairs affirmed that the repeated targeting of infrastructure reflects a systematic aggressive approach by Tehran, aimed at destabilizing regional security. The ministry warned that this escalation poses a grave threat to the safety of civilians, holding the Iranian side fully legal and moral responsibility for the consequences of these attacks.

In a related context, Kuwait announced that the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan were subjected to similar Iranian attacks on the same day. Kuwait expressed its strong condemnation of these violations that affected the sovereignty of two Arab countries, affirming its stand with them in all measures they take to protect their territories.

On the ground, the Kuwaiti Ministry of Electricity, Water, and Renewable Energy revealed details of the attack, explaining that it led to a fire breaking out in the targeted plant's facilities. The ministry indicated that this attack is the second of its kind in just 48 hours, causing a number of generation units to temporarily go out of service.

Immediately after the incident, Kuwaiti authorities activated maximum emergency plans to deal with the fire and limit the repercussions of potential power outages. Technical sources confirmed that engineering teams are working around the clock to maintain the stability of the electrical system and ensure the continuous flow of water to citizens.

These developments come amidst an unprecedented wave of escalation, as Kuwait announced in recent days its success in confronting several Iranian missiles and drones. Some of these attacks resulted in human casualties and varying material losses in different parts of the country.

Observers link these attacks to the escalating tension between Tehran and Washington in the region, especially after the recent killing of two American soldiers in Jordan. The United States responded with a series of intensive airstrikes targeting military sites within Iranian territory.

In a notable political development, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei announced the cessation of his country's commitment to the memorandum of understanding signed with the American administration. Khamenei described previous pledges as having become worthless, in a clear indication of the collapse of diplomatic efforts that began last June.

Iran and the United States had signed a memorandum of understanding about a month ago with the aim of reaching a final agreement to end the state of hostility, but the field witnessed a counter-escalation. Despite a ceasefire agreement since last April, the exchange of strikes has not effectively stopped between the two parties.

Reports indicate that Tehran has begun targeting bases and facilities in Gulf countries as a form of retaliation for direct American strikes. The international community fears that these mutual attacks could lead to the region sliding into an all-out war that gets out of control.

In Cairo, Egyptian officials are closely monitoring the situation with their counterparts in the Gulf states and Jordan to coordinate political positions. Egypt stresses in all its communications the necessity of respecting the sovereignty of Arab states and stopping external interventions that fuel armed conflicts.

Kuwait's Ministry of Foreign Affairs concluded its statement by affirming that the state reserves its full right to respond and take all necessary measures to defend its security. The regional situation remains subject to future field developments and the ability of international parties to curb the accelerating military escalation.

We hold Iran fully legally and morally responsible for these dangerous aggressions and their resulting repercussions and consequences.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, the Qatari Foreign Minister, conducted a series of intensive diplomatic contacts on Sunday, including with his counterparts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Sultanate of Oman. These discussions focused on coordinating joint efforts to reduce the escalating tension in the region and working to strengthen the pillars of regional security and stability under the current circumstances.

Official sources clarified that the two separate calls with Prince Faisal bin Farhan and Badr Al Busaidi focused on reviewing the latest political and security developments, in addition to enhancing bilateral cooperation. This Qatari move comes within the framework of broader regional endeavors aimed at containing the escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran, and preventing the region from sliding into an all-out conflict.

During the discussions, the Qatari Foreign Minister emphasized the utmost importance of adhering to diplomacy and dialogue as the sole means of resolving existing disputes. He called for the necessity of returning to implementing the provisions of the memorandum of understanding signed between Washington and Tehran, stressing that adherence to international agreements is the fundamental guarantee to avoid uncalculated military escalation.

Regarding the security of waterways, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman affirmed the necessity of ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz as a vital artery for global trade and energy supplies. He indicated that maintaining the security of this strategic passage is a top priority that requires concerted international and regional efforts, away from policies of threat and pressure.

During his communication with the Omani Foreign Minister, the Qatari Minister reiterated his country's affirmation of full respect for the sovereignty of the Sultanate of Oman over its territorial waters, praising Oman's balanced role in bridging viewpoints. He expressed Doha's support for all initiatives aimed at defusing the crisis and reaching a comprehensive settlement that ensures sustainable peace for all peoples of the region.

These diplomatic moves come at a time when the confrontation between Washington and Tehran has entered its second week of direct field escalation. US President Donald Trump announced on July 8th the termination of the ceasefire stipulated in a previous memorandum of understanding, which led to the exacerbation of the security crisis in the Gulf waters.

This security deterioration is linked to a series of incidents targeting commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, where Washington accuses Tehran of being behind these attacks to impose a new reality in the shipping lane. In contrast, Iran insists on the necessity of finding a regional mechanism to regulate transit, which the United States rejects, demanding unconditional freedom of navigation.

This tension has directly affected civil aviation and global energy supplies, as the past days have witnessed intermittent closures of airspace in the region. International reports have warned of the risks of targeting vital facilities and economic interests, which has prompted Gulf capitals to intensify their diplomatic efforts to avoid catastrophic repercussions on the regional economy and security.

All parties must adhere to dialogue and diplomacy and implement previous agreements to ensure regional stability and freedom of navigation.

A Palestinian youth was martyred by Israeli occupation forces' bullets on Sunday evening, during clashes that erupted in the town of Deir Jarir, east of Ramallah city in the occupied West Bank. Field sources reported that the occupation forces fired live ammunition at the youth, causing fatal injuries from which he died, amidst an escalating pace of military incursions into Palestinian towns.

In the southern West Bank, an elderly Palestinian man sustained head injuries after a brutal attack by armed settlers on the town of Surif, northwest of Hebron. Local sources confirmed that a group of settlers, armed with sticks and batons, attacked citizens' homes in the Khallet Ghneim area, causing injuries among residents and damage to property.

Regarding settlement activities, the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission revealed that the occupation authorities have begun implementing a plan to build 342 new settlement units on Salfit Governorate lands. The commission clarified that the so-called 'Israel Land Authority' issued a formal tender for the construction of multi-story buildings within the 'Ariel' settlement, which was forcibly established on citizens' lands.

Reports indicated that this settlement project had received final approval in May of last year, but the issuance of tenders at this time represents an actual transition to the construction phase. The period for receiving bids for this project is scheduled to continue until the end of next August, threatening to confiscate more geographical areas in the northern West Bank.

In the context of systematic attacks, settlers released herds of cows and sheep into Palestinian agricultural lands in the Yatta and Bethlehem areas. These practices caused damage to vast areas of fruit trees and seasonal crops, in an attempt to pressure Palestinian farmers and displace them from their pastoral lands.

Also in the field, occupation forces arrested four citizens during raids that included Masafer Yatta, south of Hebron, and a workshop in the village of Immatin, east of Qalqilya. These incursions involved thorough searches of homes and facilities, and intimidation of peaceful residents, as part of the ongoing arrest campaign that has affected thousands of Palestinians in recent months.

In Jenin Governorate, occupation authorities distributed military notices to stop work and construction in several Palestinian facilities located in the eastern part of the city. The notices did not specify the nature of these facilities, but they come within the framework of the policy of demolition and prevention of Palestinian urban expansion in areas classified as 'C' according to the Oslo Accords.

The towns of Sinjil and Deir Abu Da'if witnessed widespread military incursions, where occupation vehicles roamed the streets and alleys amidst the firing of sound bombs and tear gas. These synchronized military movements aim to strengthen the occupation's security grip on the main road axes connecting the various West Bank cities.

Official statistics indicate that the West Bank has been in a state of turmoil since October 2023, with attacks by the army and settlers resulting in the martyrdom of 1181 citizens. Medical teams also recorded injuries to nearly 13,000 Palestinians with varying degrees of severity, amidst ongoing military operations targeting infrastructure and refugee camps.

The 'Ariel' settlement, targeted for new expansion, is one of the largest settlement blocs that Israel seeks to connect to the Israeli interior geographically and demographically. Observers believe that strengthening construction in this settlement aims to cut off geographical communication between the northern West Bank governorates and undermine the chances of establishing a contiguous Palestinian state.

For its part, the Wall and Settlement Resistance Commission warned of the danger of the new tenders, considering them evidence of the Israeli government's insistence on imposing a new reality on the ground. The commission called on the international community to intervene immediately to stop these projects, which violate international law and lead to the exacerbation of already volatile field conditions.

These developments coincide with an escalation of settler attacks that have taken on an organized character under the protection of the occupation army, especially in rural and marginalized areas. Palestinians in these areas face daily challenges to preserve their lands and livelihoods amidst a policy of confiscation, demolition, and direct assault on individuals and property.

The new settlement project reflects the occupation government's transition from the stage of paper approval to actual implementation on the ground through the issuance of tenders.

Ukrainian authorities announced a humanitarian disaster in the Black Sea, following Russian missile targeting of a Turkish commercial ship loaded with grain shipments. Maritime sources confirmed that the ship 'Golden Leo', flying the flag of Guinea-Bissau, was hit by three cruise missiles while attempting to leave the combat operations area, resulting in heavy human losses.

Ukrainian Minister of Transport, Mykola Klachnyk, revealed details of the initial casualty toll, confirming the death of at least six sailors, while four others are still missing. Klachnyk explained that rescue teams managed to retrieve eight crew members, two of whom were transferred to hospitals for treatment due to injuries of varying severity.

For his part, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andriy Sybiha stated that the crew of the ill-fated ship included nationals of various nationalities, including Syrians and Indians. Sybiha also confirmed the death of a Ukrainian maritime pilot who was on board the ship, describing the attack as a continuation of Moscow's policy of 'terrorism' against international shipping lanes.

In the capital Kyiv, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky described the missile attacks on the city on Saturday night and Sunday as the 'most intense' in a long time. Zelensky indicated that Russian forces launched more than 40 missiles, including 25 ballistic missiles that targeted residential areas and vital infrastructure.

Intense shelling on Kyiv resulted in the death of one person and injuries to 16 others, while field sources observed widespread destruction affecting residential buildings and civilian cars. Eyewitnesses in the capital spoke of successive, powerful explosions that shook the city, causing widespread panic among residents who sought refuge in shelters.

Russian escalation was not limited to the capital, as reports from local authorities indicated the death of seven additional people in scattered strikes. These attacks targeted the Kharkiv, Zaporizhzhia, and Dnipropetrovsk regions in the east, as well as the coastal city of Odesa, which is a major artery for Ukrainian trade.

In contrast, the Russian Ministry of Defense denied deliberately targeting civilians, claiming that its military operations focused on logistical facilities and command centers belonging to the Ukrainian army. Moscow claimed that the shelling in Odesa targeted port infrastructure used for military purposes, which Kyiv completely denies given the nature of the targeted ships.

On the other side of the border, the governor of Russia's Kursk region, Alexander Khinshtein, announced the death of a civilian due to a Ukrainian strike targeting the border region. These developments come amid Ukraine's intensification of drone and missile attacks deep inside Russian territory, in response to the ongoing aerial bombardment campaign on its cities.

Internally, the Ukrainian leadership faces increasing political challenges coinciding with the field escalation, as public disagreements have emerged among senior military commanders. Signs of division appeared after calls for the resignation of army commander Oleksandr Syrskyi, against the backdrop of differing views on strategies to counter Russian advances on the eastern fronts.

In response to these pressures, the commanders of the naval forces and air assault forces announced their full support for General Syrskyi, warning that internal divisions serve the enemy's interests. Military commanders stressed the need for unity at this critical time, considering that questioning the military institution weakens the home front against the invasion.

Ukrainian official Fedorov, 35, had sharply criticized Syrskyi, accusing him of bureaucracy and inflexibility in managing operations. Observers believe that this dispute reflects a state of tension within decision-making circles in Kyiv as the war enters its fifth year with no clear prospect for a solution.

In a related context, President Zelensky affirmed that his country's top priority currently is to secure advanced air defense systems capable of intercepting Russian ballistic missiles. Ukraine suffers from a severe shortage of ammunition for American 'Patriot' systems, which Russia is trying to exploit by intensifying its weekly air strikes.

Regarding energy, drones targeted a station belonging to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium near the Russian port of Novorossiysk, a vital corridor for Kazakh oil. Kazakhstan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned this attack, considering it a direct threat to the stability of international trade and energy security in the region.

These successive developments indicate that the conflict is entering a new phase of qualitative escalation affecting commercial navigation and global energy supplies. With the continued civilian casualties, international pressure on the warring parties is increasing to avoid targeting non-military facilities and vital waterways in the Black Sea.

Providing protection against ballistic missiles is our utmost and constant priority at the moment, as we need interceptor missiles daily.

The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced the martyrdom of two citizens by Israeli settler bullets in Deir Jarir village, located north of Ramallah city in the occupied West Bank. The ministry clarified in an official statement that the two martyrs are Owda Abd al-Rahim Owda Farakhna, 53 years old, and Ahmed Adel Rashid Abu Makho, 26 years old, who succumbed to their direct injuries.

Medical sources reported that the attack launched by settlers on the town also resulted in three other citizens being seriously injured. Medical teams attempted to provide first aid to the injured amidst difficult and complex field conditions due to ongoing confrontations in the targeted area.

For its part, the Palestinian Red Crescent Society stated that its teams initially dealt with a critical abdominal injury resulting from a direct settler assault. The injured person was quickly transported to the hospital for necessary treatment, while the attacks continued around the village for several hours.

In a later development, the society confirmed that ambulance crews dealt with two additional cases, one of which was a 55-year-old citizen who was in cardiac and respiratory arrest. Paramedics made strenuous efforts to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the injured during transport to the hospital due to the severity of his health condition.

Local sources indicated that the occupation forces not only provided protection to the settlers but also directly fired at a Palestinian ambulance. The ambulance was attempting to evacuate one of the injured from the attack site, which hindered the arrival of urgent medical aid and endangered the lives of the paramedics.

Sources quoted eyewitnesses as saying that groups of settlers stormed the old town area in Deir Jarir under heavy protection from the Israeli army and police. The intruders carried out provocative searches of homes and livestock pens, accompanied by physical assaults on residents and the theft of a number of sheep.

Village residents tried to confront the attack with their bare chests, leading to violent clashes in the village alleys and its surroundings. Occupation forces and settlers used live ammunition extensively against Palestinian youths who tried to protect their property and homes from vandalism and theft.

In a related context, armed settlers attacked citizens' homes in the Khallet Ghanim area of Surif town, using sticks and batons in their assault. The mayor of Surif confirmed that the attack resulted in an elderly man being injured in the head, in addition to a number of citizens suffering bruises and varying injuries.

The attacks did not stop there, as settlers released a herd of cows into lands planted with fruit trees in the Khallet al-Homs area south of Yatta and al-Maniya village east of Bethlehem. These practices resulted in the destruction of vast areas of agricultural crops and the sabotage of trees that support dozens of families.

In the northern West Bank, the occupation army stormed Immatin village east of Qalqilya, raiding a workshop at its main entrance and arresting three citizens. Local activists also reported the arrest of another citizen from the Masafer Yatta area south of Hebron after raiding his home and abusing his family.

Regarding urban restrictions, the Israeli army distributed notices to stop work and construction in Palestinian facilities in the eastern part of Jenin city. This step comes within the framework of a systematic policy aimed at preventing Palestinian urban expansion in exchange for unleashing illegal settlement projects.

West Bank governorates have witnessed an unprecedented escalation in the pace of attacks by both the occupation army and settlers since October 2023. According to official data, these violations have resulted in the martyrdom of 1181 Palestinians and the injury of nearly 13,000, in addition to the arrest of thousands in daily raid campaigns.

Settlers—under the protection of the Israeli army and police—stormed the old town area in the village, carrying out searches, assaults, and sheep theft.

The border area with the Gaza Strip witnessed extensive movements by thousands of Israelis, as settlers and activists from right-wing currents engaged in a massive march towards the security fence. Participants raised Israeli flags amidst slogans calling for the imposition of civilian control and the rebuilding of settlement communities that were previously evacuated.

Crowds gathered at points near the northern part of the Strip before advancing in large numbers towards areas overlooking the Palestinian territories devastated by the ongoing war. Demonstrators attempted to approach the separation fence, while security forces were heavily deployed to prevent any attempts to breach the border or cross closed military zones.

Participants in the march affirmed that their movement aims to send a clear message to the Israeli government and the international community about their alleged right to the Strip. Demonstrators considered that the current military control must be followed by practical steps to resettle Israelis in the areas they left nearly two decades ago.

In field statements, one of the participants, Daniel Selem, said that the purpose of the march is to emphasize that Gaza is part of the historical land of Israel, as he described it. Selem indicated that they seek to exert strong popular pressure on decision-makers to ensure a return and life in the Strip as soon as possible.

Demonstrators recalled the unilateral disengagement plan implemented by the Israeli government in 2005, which included the dismantling of all settlements in Gaza. These activists believe that this decision was a historical mistake that must be corrected now in light of the current military circumstances created by the war.

For his part, demonstrator Yehiel Greenblum described this event as merely a first step in a long-term campaign aimed at restoring the Jewish presence in the besieged Strip. Greenblum claimed that history grants them the right to return to the places where Jews lived for centuries, emphasizing that there are no obstacles preventing settlement in the north.

These movements come at a time when pressure from far-right parties within Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition is increasing to adopt explicit settlement policies in Gaza. These demands coincide with the massive destruction inflicted on Palestinian infrastructure as a result of military operations that began in October 2023.

Field data indicates that the Israeli army still controls more than 60 percent of the total area of the Gaza Strip. Despite talks of ceasefire understandings, settlement movements on the border reflect a rising right-wing trend to impose a new reality on the ground.

Observers believe that these marches are not just fleeting protests, but rather part of a systematic plan supported by political forces to impose settlement as a fait accompli. These movements raise widespread international concerns about complicating the political scene and thwarting any future opportunities for the establishment of a contiguous Palestinian state.

We are marching today to tell the government of Israel and show the whole world that this land belongs to us and Gaza belongs to us, and we want to return there.

The Iranian missiles and drones that targeted Jordan in recent days are no longer mere "military messages" directed at the United States, as Tehran tries to claim. Instead, they have become a direct military assault on the sovereignty of an Arab state, and a deliberate threat to the security of its people, its stability, and its vital installations. The Iranian attack on American forces in Jordan resulted in the death of American military personnel, the loss of another, and injuries to others, while the Jordanian Armed Forces were forced to intercept missiles and drones that entered the Kingdom's airspace and threatened its territories. Thus, the Iranian argument that the confrontation is confined between Tehran and Washington has fallen, because a missile that crosses the Jordanian border and targets a site within the Kingdom is, legally, politically, and militarily, an attack on Jordan, regardless of the nationality of those present within the targeted site. Iran cannot launch ballistic missiles and explosive drones towards Jordanian territory, and then ask Jordanians to deal with it as an Iranian-American matter that does not concern them; Jordan is an independent, sovereign state, and it has the right, like any other state, to determine its relations, alliances, and defensive arrangements, and to host foreign forces under official agreements concluded by its government. Some may politically disagree with the American military presence in the region, and may oppose Washington's policies or wars, but that does not give Iran the right to bomb Jordanian territory. If Tehran allows itself to punish every country that hosts American forces, it is not fighting a defensive war against the United States, but is practically declaring an open war on most countries in the region. The map of American military deployment in the Middle East reveals the extent of selectivity in the Iranian response; American bases and military installations are spread in the Gulf, and at much closer distances to Iranian territory than Jordan, and American aircraft carriers and destroyers move in the waters of the Gulf and the Arabian Sea, not far from the Iranian coasts and the Strait of Hormuz. Nevertheless, Tehran chooses to turn the territories of Arab countries into arenas for revenge and sending messages, because it assumes that attacking Jordan or the Gulf states is less costly than direct engagement with American warships and forces capable of responding forcefully. This is not military courage, but a deliberate distribution of the costs of war to countries and peoples who did not start it and did not participate in making its decision. Therefore, what is required of Jordan, according to Iranian logic, is to bear the missiles and drones, the closure of airspace, the disruption of air traffic, and the endangerment of residents and vital installations, while Tehran reserves for itself the right to determine the time, place, and size of the confrontation. More dangerously, ballistic missiles and drones do not recognize political narratives; a missile may deviate from its course, or its interception may fail, or its shrapnel may fall over a residential neighborhood, a school, or a hospital, and then the "calculated message" turns into a massacre, and Iranian statements of regret will not bring the victims back to their families, nor will the claim of targeting an American base be an acceptable justification to Jordanians. Tehran tries to portray itself as if it has always been outside the regional order that was established by American intervention, but history is more complex than the current Iranian discourse; it is true that Iran was not an official member of the coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003, and did not host American bases for that invasion, but it was the biggest strategic beneficiary of the overthrow of the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Tehran's most dangerous regional enemy at the time. Also, Iraqi parties and forces closely linked to Iran entered the new political system that was established after the American occupation, and then Iranian influence expanded in Iraq unprecedentedly. Before that, Iran practically cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and contributed to supporting the opponents of the Taliban movement and in the political arrangements that followed the fall of its regime; meaning that Tehran dealt pragmatically with American power when it removed two of its adversaries in Kabul and Baghdad and paved the way for the expansion of its regional influence. Therefore, the Iranian regime has no right today to grant itself the authority to punish Jordan because of its defensive relations with Washington, while it benefited from American power when it served its interests. Objecting to the Iranian aggression does not mean defending all American policies, but defending an uncompromising principle: no country should turn the territory of another country into a battlefield for its war or into a mailbox for sending its military messages. The Required Jordanian Response In the face of this aggression, verbal condemnation and summoning the ambassador for protest are no longer sufficient; what is required is for Amman to declare the Iranian ambassador persona non grata, and to request his departure from the country, and to recall its ambassador from Tehran and lower the level of diplomatic relations until Iran offers a formal apology and clear guarantees that the attacks will not be repeated. Some may see that keeping diplomatic channels open is necessary in times of war, which is true in principle, but embassies should not become a cover for normalizing aggressions or reducing their political cost, as necessary communications can be managed through a mediating country, without diplomatic representation continuing as if nothing had happened. Jordan should also request urgent meetings of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, with the aim of condemning the Iranian aggression and establishing gradual diplomatic and economic measures to confront any repetition of it. Protecting Jordan is not just a Jordanian issue, but a test of Arab and Islamic will, and silence about the first missile does not prevent the second missile, but rather encourages its launcher, and it is time for Tehran to realize that Jordan is not an arena for settling its scores with Washington, and that aggression against its sovereignty must entail a real political and diplomatic price that Iran cannot evade behind slogans of "confrontation" and "resistance".

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio affirmed that the meeting he held with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun in Washington was extremely positive, noting that the US administration is closely following Lebanese steps towards achieving peace. These statements come after an intensive round of talks held in Rome, where the concerned parties are seeking to activate border security agreements.

During his meeting with the Lebanese President, Rubio praised what he described as the 'courage' shown by the Lebanese government in restoring the state's full sovereignty over its territories. The US Secretary stressed the need to move forward with dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure, considering it a fundamental pillar to ensure regional stability and secure the future of the Lebanese people.

President Joseph Aoun's current visit to the US capital, Washington, is a prominent diplomatic event, being the first visit by a Lebanese president since 2009. This visit is expected to culminate in a summit meeting between Aoun and US President Donald Trump at the White House on Tuesday, to discuss thorny issues related to security and borders.

In a related context, the US State Department clarified in a statement that Washington is committed to supporting the successful implementation of the recently concluded tripartite framework agreement. This support aims to assist Lebanese state institutions in their economic recovery efforts and establish lasting peace, away from the influence of illegal armed forces.

For his part, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun stressed during the discussions the need for alignment between Beirut and Washington regarding the mechanisms for implementing the tripartite framework. Aoun affirmed that the Lebanese priority lies in achieving the first tangible Israeli withdrawal from the 'first model area' defined by previous understandings.

The Lebanese President called on the American side to enhance military and logistical support for the Lebanese army and official security institutions, to enable them to carry out their sovereign duties. Aoun considered that dedicating American attention to Lebanon at this stage is a safety valve to prevent the country from sliding into further military escalation or institutional collapse.

On the ground, the parties agreed during the recent Rome talks to complete the structure of the experimental areas and begin their implementation within a few days. This plan aims to test the Lebanese army's ability to deploy in the southern regions and take over security tasks instead of armed factions.

Despite this optimistic atmosphere in Washington, the framework agreement still faces serious challenges, as it lacks a specific timetable for the withdrawal of Israeli forces. Tel Aviv insists, through its officials, that it will not withdraw from the 'security zone' which is ten kilometers deep, until Hezbollah is completely disarmed.

In contrast, Hezbollah announced its categorical rejection of surrendering its weapons or engaging in direct negotiations with the Israeli side, considering the outcomes of these meetings non-binding for it. The party relies in its rigid stance on continuous Iranian support, amid escalating regional tensions between Tehran and Washington over the past week.

Observers believe that the Lebanese state's ability to implement disarmament provisions remains highly questionable given the internal political division and field complexities. Nevertheless, the US administration is betting that diplomatic pressure and military support for the army may lead to a gradual change in the balance of power on the ground.

These diplomatic moves come amidst negotiations that began last April under US patronage, the first of their kind in decades between Lebanon and Israel. This negotiating path aims to end the official state of war and reach a comprehensive peace agreement that guarantees the security of shared borders.

On the Arab level, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman received a phone call from President Aoun to review the latest developments in the Lebanese arena. During the call, Aoun expressed his appreciation for Saudi Arabia's supportive stances for Lebanon's stability, emphasizing the importance of the Arab role in supporting international efforts to establish peace.

Sources reported that the call between the Saudi Crown Prince and the Lebanese President also discussed efforts to enhance regional security and spare the region the scourges of armed conflicts. Riyadh consistently emphasizes the need to confine weapons to the Lebanese state and its legitimate institutions to ensure the country's sovereignty and stability.

In conclusion, political circles are awaiting the outcome of tomorrow's White House meeting, where Lebanon is expected to request clear American guarantees regarding the Israeli withdrawal. At the same time, security circles are awaiting the start of the implementation of the 'experimental areas' in the south as a real test of the seriousness of the parties in implementing the framework agreement.

I commend the courage of the Lebanese government for its resolute efforts to restore its sovereignty and disarm Hezbollah and dismantle its infrastructure.

It visits us once every four years, captivating our minds, enchanting our hearts, and unleashing our hidden emotions, just as it reveals our deep-seated alignments and regional biases; even members of the same family find themselves divided by loyalties colored by the competing teams on the green field. However, these divisions quickly fade when Arab teams are present, behind whom hearts, flags, and slogans unite, and eyes overflow with tears at losses.We do not hide our feelings, prayers, or biases towards the "Spanish Matador" whose fans sided with our tragedy. As we bid farewell today to the global football carnival, we are not just bidding farewell to a football tournament that filled the world and occupied people over the past weeks, but rather we are bidding farewell to memories we lived through, with their sweetness and bitterness, their joy and clamor, just as we are bidding farewell to a part of our lives, asking Almighty God to grant us a long life to witness the next edition, and to add new stories and tales to our archive of emotions and museum of memories.Perhaps the iconic image of "King" Messi caressing the infant "Amin Yamal" or "Lamine Yamal" in a bathtub about twenty years ago carries many twists of fate. After the child slowly grew up and became strong, he now stands facing the "King," threatening to dethrone him!… Messi described the picture when asked about it by saying: "It's crazy," while the photographer described that moment as a "miracle."There are many lessons and insights that emerge after the lights go out, the gathering disperses, and the dust of football battles on the fields settles; perhaps foremost among them is the necessity of unifying international standards and imposing strict oversight on the "field judges" whose mistakes and biases shattered the dreams of teams that did not deserve defeat.As the curtain falls and the floodlights dim in the stadiums, we say: May every tournament bring you closer to achieving your hopes and dreams and ending your path of suffering, so that the sun of freedom and justice may shine on the land that has endured the pain of loss and the bitterness of waiting for a thousand days and more.Note: The article was written before the match began.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky hinted at the possibility of fundamental changes in the structure of the military establishment, amidst a rare wave of protests sweeping the country during wartime. These political moves come after the resignation of Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov, who led extensive efforts to modernize the army and utilize drones.

Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities witnessed massive demonstrations for the third consecutive day, where protesters expressed their categorical rejection of Fedorov's departure from office. Demonstrators held up signs condemning the decision, considering that the resigned minister represented the reform and digitalization current within the armed forces, which face major field challenges.

In his evening address to the nation, Zelensky affirmed that he had held intensive consultations over two days with senior military leaders and political officials. The President clarified that he is closely monitoring the public pulse and the demands of the protesters, emphasizing that decisive decisions regarding the future of the army's leadership will be formulated soon.

Field reports indicate that demonstrators in Kyiv's squares used cardboard signs that have become a symbol of opposition, chanting slogans demanding the departure of the current army commander, Oleksandr Syrsky. Protesters believe that recent ministerial changes may harm the modernization efforts that began since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of the country.

For his part, the resigned minister Mykhailo Fedorov commented on the popular movements via the Telegram application, expressing his gratitude to the demonstrators for what he described as 'hope'. Fedorov indicated that there is ongoing dialogue with the political leadership, expressing optimism that things will move in the right direction to serve the national defense interest.

Tension escalated after informed sources revealed deep disagreements between Fedorov and army commander Syrsky over strategies to counter Russian attacks. The points of contention focused on the young minister's desire to accelerate the digitalization of military operations, which met with reservations from the traditional military leadership represented by Syrsky.

In an extraordinary press conference held after leaving office, Fedorov directly accused Syrsky of lacking the necessary flexibility to manage a modern war. The former minister openly questioned Ukraine's ability to achieve victory given the continued current leadership mentality, which he accused of causing internal divisions.

In contrast, army commander Oleksandr Syrsky, who has a significant military record since his defense of Kyiv in 2022, responded by calling on everyone to focus on the field. Syrsky considered that the utmost priority should be to implement an effective strategy that achieves tangible results on the burning fronts, away from political debates.

A state of anticipation prevails in Ukrainian political circles regarding the identity of Syrsky's potential replacement should Zelensky decide to oust him to absorb public anger. This internal crisis coincides with increasing military pressure exerted by Russian forces on several fronts, making any change in leadership a calculated risk.

Observers believe that Zelensky faces a difficult test to balance the public's demands for modernization with maintaining the stability of the military establishment at a critical time. It is expected that the coming days will see the announcement of the new military leadership that will manage the next phase of the conflict.

Decisions regarding the army will be formulated, and I hear very well what people are saying on the street.

Washington Message

Mamdani threatens to arrest Netanyahu in New York, and the International Criminal Court's warrant pursues the Israeli Prime Minister to the United Nations

Washington – Said Arikat – 19/7/2026

New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, reopened the legal accountability file for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after announcing that he is holding legal consultations with relevant departments in the city to discuss the possibility of arresting him if he visits New York to participate in the United Nations General Assembly meetings next September, in a move that reflects the escalating political and legal pressures on the Israeli leadership in the wake of the devastating war in the Gaza Strip.

Mamdani said, in an interview with the New York Times, that Netanyahu "belongs in The Hague," referring to the arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court on charges related to committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. He added that what Israel has committed in recent years, especially since the outbreak of the recent war, has made the demand for Netanyahu's accountability a position adopted by an increasing number of politicians and human rights activists around the world.

The New York Mayor clarified that he is holding "active discussions" with the city's legal department to determine the limits of his legal powers, stressing that any step will be taken within the framework of the law, saying: "We will do everything allowed by law in New York City, but we will not invent new laws to achieve that."

This stance comes months after Mamdani pledged, during his election campaign, to seek Netanyahu's arrest if he visited the city, a promise that sparked widespread debate about the extent of local authorities' ability to execute a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, given that the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute establishing the court.

In contrast, Netanyahu tried to downplay the importance of these statements, considering that Mamdani "hates America deep down," and accusing him of siding with Hamas, in a repetition of a political approach repeatedly adopted by the Israeli government, which links any criticism of Israeli policies or calls for accountability of Israeli officials to supporting terrorism or anti-Semitism, a discourse that critics believe aims to avoid discussing the essence of the accusations related to violations of international law.

Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, also confirmed that Netanyahu will attend the United Nations General Assembly meetings in New York as scheduled, and will address the international community to defend what he described as "Israel's inherent right to defend its citizens," denying that calls for his arrest would pose any obstacle to his visit.

From a legal perspective, international law experts believe that Netanyahu's presence inside the United Nations headquarters grants him legal protection related to diplomatic immunities and agreements regulating the work of the international organization. However, his status outside the building, while moving within New York City, raises complex legal questions about the extent to which the International Criminal Court's warrant can be executed, even if the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute.

Although the execution of any arrest attempt seems unlikely given the legal and political complexities, the mere raising of this possibility reflects the shift in the political debate within the United States, where the demand for accountability of Israeli officials is no longer exclusive to human rights circles, but has found resonance within local leaders and elected officials in the Democratic Party.

Mamdani is considered one of the most prominent Democratic voices supporting Palestinian rights, and he condemned the attacks of October 7, 2023, but he has made criticism of the Israeli war on Gaza a central theme in his political discourse, considering that defending the rights of Palestinians represents one of the most pressing moral issues of his era.

This comes at a time when the American political scene is witnessing a remarkable shift in attitudes towards Israel, after nearly half of the Democratic members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of a bill calling for a halt to military aid to Israel, indicating a decline in the traditional consensus within the party regarding unconditional support for the Hebrew state.

Mamdani's statements reveal that the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court is no longer just a legal document, but has become a political burden that pursues Netanyahu wherever he goes. Even if it cannot be practically executed, it imposes a new reality in which the Israeli Prime Minister is forced to confront questions about his international legitimacy, instead of merely marketing the traditional Israeli narrative. With the widening circle of demands for accountability, Israel faces an unprecedented challenge in the erosion of the political immunity it enjoyed for decades in Western capitals.

Netanyahu's response, based on accusing his critics of anti-Israel sentiment or sympathy with Hamas, also reflects a worsening political crisis more than a legal response to the accusations. Since the beginning of the war on Gaza, the Israeli government has adopted a discourse that mixes criticism of military policies with anti-Semitism, in an attempt to silence voices calling for accountability. However, the increasing scale of destruction and human losses, and the growing international human rights reports, have made this discourse less capable of containing the escalating criticism within the United States and Europe, where the demand for accountability has gained wider acceptance.

Perhaps the political importance of Mamdani's case does not lie in the possibility of Netanyahu's arrest, which is practically a remote possibility, as much as it lies in the significance it carries within the American political community. A few years ago, merely discussing the accountability of a high-ranking Israeli official was considered a political taboo, but today it has become part of the public debate within the Democratic Party, in parallel with the escalation of voices rejecting continued unconditional military support for Israel. This shift indicates that the war on Gaza has not only created a humanitarian crisis, but has also created a deep rift in Israel's image within American public opinion.

Media and political circles in Egypt witnessed widespread controversy after presenter Ihab Qassem hosted Israeli journalist Gideon Levy in a phone intervention. During the interview, which was broadcast on Al-Qahera Wal Nas channel, Levy made provocative statements regarding Egyptian sovereignty over the Sinai Peninsula, which sparked angry reactions at both popular and official levels.

The Israeli journalist claimed in his speech that the general view in Israel does not treat Sinai as a territory belonging to the Egyptian state, but rather views it as mere beach areas not subject to specific sovereignty. Levy indicated that this perception prevails among many who see it as a tourist destination without considering its political or geographical identity linked to Egypt.

In the context of his personal experiences, Levy revealed that he visited Egypt about 12 times, in addition to dozens of trips he made to Sinai over many years. However, he confirmed that he stopped these visits a long time ago, justifying this by the change in the general atmosphere that made the presence of Israelis in cities such as Cairo and Alexandria uncomfortable.

In response to these developments, the Egyptian Syndicate of Journalists issued an urgent decision to ban presenter Ihab Qassem from appearing on any media outlet until further notice. This punitive action came after monitoring serious violations of the media code of honor and the professional code of conduct that govern journalistic and broadcasting work in the country.

The Syndicate clarified in its official statement that the presenter allowed the Israeli guest to narrate egregious historical and political fallacies without showing any objection or professional review of those claims. The Syndicate considered that the management of the dialogue lacked national and professional responsibility, especially with regard to issues affecting Egyptian national sovereignty.

For its part, the Al-Qahera Wal Nas channel management quickly took precautionary measures by deleting the recorded segment with the Israeli journalist from all its digital platforms and its main screen. The channel confirmed that this decision comes in response to the observations it received and out of keenness to adhere to the professional standards adopted by the institution.

The channel stressed in an explanatory statement that a comprehensive review will be conducted of all aspects related to the preparation of this segment and its display mechanisms to ensure that such transgressions are not repeated. It indicated that its media message will always remain biased towards the conscience of Egyptian society and its deeply rooted national values, expressing its appreciation for the audience's interaction with the content provided.

This incident reflects the sensitivity of media dealings with Israeli figures within Egypt, especially in light of current regional tensions. It also highlights the role of professional syndicates in monitoring media performance and ensuring that national constants are not compromised under the pretext of freedom of expression or journalistic scoop.

Israelis do not view the Sinai Peninsula as part of Egypt, but merely beaches somewhere, as if it were land belonging to no one.

Words fail. "Sami" was not the first, nor will he be the last, on the "Sole Survivor" list; he joined it after a horrific massacre targeted his family's home in Deir al-Balah two days ago, costing him his father "Omar," his mother "Asmaa," and his sister "Habiba," who was two years older than him. With dazed, staring eyes and broken limbs wrapped in white, the orphaned child appeared carried in the arms of a relative, unaware of what had befallen his family, whose bodies are still trapped under the rubble of a home they sought shelter in, hoping for shade to protect them from the summer heat, in an area they thought was far from the daily targeting and crimes led by extremists whose hearts have hardened, like stones or even harder; they kill, burn, starve, dehydrate, besiege, uproot trees, demolish stones, and inflict severe torment on the unarmed without any conscience, sense of responsibility, or human feelings. Yesterday, ten-year-old Ayman joined that list, the sole survivor of the Nasman family: his father Adham, his mother Marwa, and his brothers Yahya and Ibrahim, who perished in a raid on the family home in central Gaza. In the approximation of pain and the agony of loss, it seems that "all who died miraculously escaped life," as our late poet Mahmoud Darwish said, while the survivors endure a pain that has settled in their hearts and will not leave them as long as they live.

Ahmed Rafiq Awad: The strikes aim to weaken Tehran, force it to sign a new memorandum of understanding, and demonstrate the United States' ability to undermine Iranian military capabilities.Nabhan Khraisha: Washington's bombing of the Iranian interior reveals the conflict's transition to a more dangerous and widespread phase, keeping the region on the brink of regional war.Dr. Suhail Diab: The closest estimates are for continued US military pressure against calculated Iranian responses to avoid an existential war, with undeclared negotiation channels remaining open.Hani Abu Al-Siba': The continuation of US military movements and operations reflects the need for more time and pressure to break Iran's will and push it to accept Washington's terms.Dr. Aql Salah: Washington may resort to escalating pressure through enhanced military deterrence and tightened economic and diplomatic sanctions, seeking to impose a broader agreement.Mohammed Al-Rajoub: The US escalation represents a clear shift in the nature of the conflict, reflecting Washington's transition to a phase aimed at raising the cost of the Iranian decision itself.Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" - The American escalation in the Iranian interior enters a new phase of confrontation between Washington and Tehran, amidst the conflict's transition from indirect pressure politics to targeting sites within Iranian territory, a step that may reflect an American attempt to redraw the rules of engagement and impose new equations in the negotiation file related to the nuclear program, missiles, navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz, and the future of Iran's role in the region.Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds," believe that the American strikes do not only aim to weaken Iranian military capabilities and infrastructure, but also carry multiple political messages, most notably strengthening American deterrence in front of allies, raising the cost of Iranian options, and improving Washington's negotiating position by using military force as a bargaining chip, at a time when neither the United States nor Iran appears willing to slide into an all-out war due to its high cost.While Washington bets on pushing Tehran to return to negotiations from a weaker position and accept new terms, writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors believe that Iran is preparing for a long confrontation based on calculated responses and attrition, while maintaining a margin for undeclared negotiations, which leaves the region facing open scenarios ranging from continued limited escalation, through a long war of attrition, to the risk of regional expansion of the confrontation if things get out of control.Attempt to Impose an Interpretation of the Islamabad MemorandumPolitical writer and analyst Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad believes that the American strikes in the Iranian interior come in the context of Washington's attempt to impose its own interpretation of the memorandum of understanding signed in Islamabad, and to force Tehran to accept new terms after the American breach of previous understandings, whether related to the ceasefire in Lebanon, the release of frozen Iranian funds, or freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, noting that Iran responded to these violations by targeting maritime tankers.He explains that the United States seeks, by directing strikes into the Iranian interior, to weaken military capabilities and vital infrastructure, including electricity and water facilities and bridges, in addition to targeting nuclear facilities, with the aim of establishing a narrative that it has succeeded in completely ending the Iranian nuclear project, and at the same time pushing Tehran to return to negotiations according to new American terms, considering that these operations also serve an internal political goal of marketing a military achievement before the American midterm elections scheduled for next November.Awad points out that the strikes also aim to weaken the Iranian regime and force it to sign a new memorandum of understanding, and to show the United States as the party capable of undermining Iranian military capabilities, as well as creating conditions that may help internal opposition forces increase pressure against the regime.Iran Overcomes the Stage of Fear of CollapseIn his reading of the outcomes of the escalation, Awad believes that Iran has overcome the stage of fear of collapse and is ready to wage a long war, whether in the form of a war of attrition or - if imposed upon it - a wider confrontation, but at the same time it realizes that the United States does not wish to engage in a ground war, direct occupation, or open-ended attrition, because its calculations remain limited in time and politically.Awad indicates that the Iranian leadership is betting that steadfastness in the face of American military pressure will spare it collapse, destruction, or sliding into civil war, suggesting that developments will likely move towards one of two main scenarios: first, a long or low-intensity war of attrition, and second, a return to the negotiating table on new bases, noting that the door to negotiation remains open, as evidenced by Washington not asking Israel to engage in the confrontation, and Iran refraining from targeting Israel, reflecting both parties' desire to avoid an all-out war.Conflict Enters a More Dangerous and Widespread PhaseJournalist and writer Nabhan Khraisha believes that the continuous American bombing of targets within the Iranian interior does not only reflect deterrence power, but also reveals the conflict's transition to a more dangerous and widespread phase, based on expanding the target bank and raising the level of both political and military pressure on Tehran, considering that targeting sites within Iranian territory carries a message beyond weakening military capabilities, namely that the United States is capable of reaching any target it considers a threat to its interests and the interests of its allies, noting that between gradual escalation and a return to negotiation, the region remains on the brink of a regional war.Implicit Acknowledgment of Failure of Pressure RoundsKhraisha explains that this escalation also indicates an implicit acknowledgment that previous rounds of pressure did not fully achieve their strategic goals, for if previous military operations had succeeded in imposing American conditions, Washington would not have been forced to expand the scope of its operations and move to targeting the Iranian interior in this manner.Khraisha believes that a great power resorting to gradually escalating its operations reflects that the opposing party still retains the ability to withstand, maneuver, and respond, which pushes the United States to raise the level of military pressure in pursuit of its goals.Iran and Not Standing Idly ByKhraisha believes that Iran will most likely not engage in a comprehensive conventional confrontation with the United States, realizing the significant difference in military power balances, but at the same time, it will not stand idly by, suggesting that it will continue to adopt an attrition policy by expanding the circle of indirect responses, targeting American and regional interests, and increasing pressure on navigation and energy supplies, tools that have proven their ability to disrupt American and international calculations in recent months.Continued Gradual EscalationKhraisha points out that the most likely scenario is continued gradual escalation, which keeps the region in a state of low or medium-intensity war, but one that is open-ended and capable of exploding at any moment due to a miscalculation or the execution of a strike that crosses red lines.Khraisha proposes another scenario based on the success of military pressures, after a period of attrition, in pushing both parties to return to the negotiating table, but under different conditions than those previously proposed, considering that the United States often uses military force to improve its negotiating position more than to achieve a final military victory.Khraisha warns that the most dangerous scenario is the confrontation spiraling out of control and the war expanding to include additional countries in the region, threatening global energy security and leading to widespread economic and political turmoil, emphasizing that this possibility, although not desirable for the main parties, remains present with the continued rise in military escalation.A Process of Redrawing the Balance of PowerAccording to Khraisha, what is happening goes beyond being a confrontation related to Iran alone, to reflect a process of redrawing the balance of power in the Middle East, but historical experiences confirm that military force can change facts on the ground, but it rarely succeeds alone in achieving lasting political stability, which makes the real challenge finding a realistic political vision that ends the confrontation before it turns into an open regional conflict whose repercussions are difficult to contain.Stalemate and Limited Options for WashingtonPolitical science professor Dr. Suhail Diab believes that the American escalation in the Iranian interior came as an expression of a stalemate and limited options for Washington, explaining that the United States cannot resolve the confrontation with a quick and guaranteed military victory, and that making political concessions to Iran, especially regarding the Strait of Hormuz, would be interpreted as a political defeat for the United States.Diab explains that the objectives of the American escalation are linked to several considerations, foremost among them reassuring allies in the Middle East that Washington is still capable of defending their interests and protecting them, in addition to trying to calm internal tensions in the United States between political currents, especially between Republicans and Democrats, and among public opinion, with the approaching midterm elections.Neutralizing Israel from Direct Engagement in the ConfrontationDiab points out that indicators of these objectives have become clear, most notably neutralizing Israel from direct engagement in the confrontation based on demands from allies, in addition to the escalating disagreement within the American administration between the hawkish current represented by Marco Rubio, and the realistic current represented by J.D. Vance.Diab believes that the current escalation can be summarized as an attempt to "minimize damage" and buy time in the absence of clearer scenarios, considering that it reflects the depth of President Donald Trump's administration's crisis internally and externally.Mutual Containment ScenarioIn his reading of the potential scenarios, Diab favors the mutual containment scenario as the most likely, whereby limited strikes continue, and Iran responds in a calculated manner, with both parties keen to avoid an all-out war, in a pattern similar to the "controlled escalation" witnessed in previous crises.Long War of Attrition ScenarioThe second scenario, according to Diab, is a long war of attrition that includes continued airstrikes, cyberattacks, targeting American interests and bases, naval escalation, and mutual economic pressure, a confrontation that could last for months and affect energy markets and global trade without the need for a ground invasion.Possibility of Regional Conflict ExpansionDiab points to the possibility of the conflict expanding regionally to include Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, the Red Sea, and vital maritime passages, turning the confrontation into a multi-front war.The most dangerous and least likely scenario, according to Diab, is the outbreak of an all-out war if the Iranian leadership is subjected to widespread strategic strikes, or a major targeting of nuclear facilities, or a large number of American military personnel are killed in a direct attack.Diab believes that the closest estimates indicate continued US military pressure, against calculated Iranian responses to avoid an existential war, with undeclared negotiation channels continuing in parallel with the escalation.Forcing Tehran to Return to Negotiations from a Position of WeaknessPolitical writer and analyst Hani Abu Al-Siba' believes that the continuous American escalation against Iran primarily aims to force Tehran to return to the negotiating table from a position of weakness, allowing Washington to impose its political and security conditions.Abu Al-Siba' believes that raising the pace of military attacks is part of an attempt to improve negotiation terms, but field data indicates that Iran has prepared for a potentially long confrontation, and that it is capable of responding to escalation with similar escalation, by targeting American bases and interests as long as American attacks continue.Continued Escalation... But!Abu Al-Siba' explains that the continuation of American military operations, for the seventh consecutive day, coinciding with the movement of the naval fleet and strategic bombers towards the region, reflects a conviction in Washington that it needs more time and military pressure to break Iran's will and push it to accept American conditions.However, Abu Al-Siba' believes that field facts do not support this assessment, noting that Iran has intensified its missile attacks on American bases and expanded the scope of its response whenever American strikes increased, especially on the southern governorates overlooking the Gulf.He explains that the Iranian escalation included targeting American bases in the Gulf and Levant regions, resulting in injuries to American soldiers, in addition to reports of a cruise missile launch towards an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean, considering that these developments warn of the expansion of the conflict, amidst a race against time for the American administration amid escalating internal criticism of the war, and fears of its economic repercussions on the United States and the global economy.Abu Al-Siba' points out that the continued American military buildup, and the sending of aircraft carriers and refueling aircraft to the region, may open the door to expanding operations to include additional targets, and perhaps ground operations targeting sites related to the Iranian nuclear program, noting at the same time that Israel continues its preparations for the possibility of engaging in the confrontation.Abu Al-Siba' believes that continued fighting will push the conflict towards a war of attrition, considering that historical experiences in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Somalia indicate the difficulty of the United States succeeding in this type of war.Possibility of Confrontation Expanding with Participation of Other PartiesAbu Al-Siba' warns of the possibility of the confrontation expanding through the participation of other parties, and the potential threat to navigation in the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab and direct impacts on the global economy.Abu Al-Siba' suggests the existence of undeclared efforts led by mediators to contain the escalation and open a window for a political breakthrough, but he believes that significant American losses could push Washington to a greater escalation in pursuit of a military achievement, emphasizing that the continuation of the war, if prolonged, could negatively affect the American economy and influence the electoral mood within the United States.Redefining US-Iranian UnderstandingsPolitical writer and researcher and professor of comparative political systems Dr. Aql Salah believes that the American escalation in the Iranian interior aims to redefine US-Iranian understandings, especially regarding the Strait of Hormuz and its management mechanism, which, from Washington's perspective, would re-establish its prestige as the power capable of controlling global waterways, in addition to giving Israel a wider margin to continue targeting Iran whenever it wishes, similar to what is happening in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, in an attempt to impose a "negotiation under fire" model, and subject Iran to new American and Israeli conditions.No Desire for All-Out WarSalah explains that the escalation does not necessarily reflect the desire of both parties to slide into an all-out war, as the United States seeks to strengthen its negotiating position through pressure, deterrence, and demonstrating power, while Iran has no choice but to resist and manage the conflict cautiously, preventing the confrontation from turning into a wide war, and refusing to accept negotiations that give Washington an advantage and achieve Israeli interests related to re-engineering the Middle East.He points out that the United States is keen not to collapse the dialogue process with Iran, but it is working to change its terms and nature, leveraging military escalation to raise its demands and extract greater concessions, by employing military force, assassinations, blockade, and sanctions as a bargaining chip, a policy previously used in Gaza and Lebanon to achieve political gains that military operations did not achieve.Salah believes that Washington may resort, if Iran rejects its conditions, to escalating pressure through enhanced military deterrence and tightened economic and diplomatic sanctions, seeking to impose a broader agreement that includes the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, Iran's regional role, and stricter monitoring mechanisms, which he considered fundamental Israeli demands.Five Key ImplicationsSalah points out that the American strikes carry five key implications: strengthening American deterrence, changing the rules of engagement by targeting the Iranian interior, increasing political pressure to push Tehran to make concessions, sending reassuring messages to US and Israeli allies in the region, in addition to testing the level of Iranian deterrence and capabilities, emphasizing that Iran adheres to rejecting negotiations under threat while maintaining the diplomatic path and strengthening the cohesion of its internal front.Salah suggests that a return to negotiations from a position of strength remains the most likely scenario, with the possibility of continued escalation remaining, while sliding into an all-out regional war remains the least likely scenario, despite continued tension between the two parties.Clear Shift in the Nature of the ConflictAcademic and researcher in public administration and political science Mohammed Al-Rajoub believes that the recent American escalation within the Iranian interior represents a clear shift in the nature of the conflict, reflecting Washington's transition to a phase aimed at raising the cost of the Iranian decision itself, after previously focusing on containing Iranian influence in the regional arenas.He explains that targeting facilities, infrastructure, and sites within Iranian territory carries a set of strategic messages, the first of which is the United States' endeavor to restore deterrence power after it saw Tehran crossing red lines by targeting international navigation and American bases and its allies in the region.Al-Rajoub points out that the second message is to confirm that any threat to American interests will be met with direct targeting of the Iranian interior, and not just striking the regional proxies linked to Iran.Al-Rajoub notes that the third message is to redraw the rules of engagement, as the confrontation has moved from the arenas of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the Red Sea to the heart of Iran, which is a qualitative shift that raises the level of risks and places the Iranian leadership before a more complex equation.As for the fourth message, according to Al-Rajoub, it is to exert economic and logistical pressure aimed at reducing Iranian logistical capabilities and weakening the ability of its armed forces to maneuver and manage operations.A New Phase Different from Previous RoundsIn his reading of the outcomes of the escalation, Al-Rajoub believes that the region has entered a new phase different from previous rounds of tension, but it does not necessarily mean that the decision for a comprehensive regional war has been taken.Al-Rajoub suggests that the scenario of continued mutual strikes between the United States and Iran remains the most likely, with calculated responses from both sides to maintain the deterrence equation in front of their domestic audiences, without bearing the cost of sliding into a wide confrontation.Errors That Could Lead to a Wide WarAl-Rajoub believes that the possibility of a wide regional war breaking out, although less likely, remains if a miscalculation leads to a major attack that causes widespread human casualties, which could lead to targeting American bases in the Gulf or expanding strikes against Iranian infrastructure.Al-Rajoub proposes the scenario of returning to negotiations from a position of strength, where each party seeks to improve its conditions before resuming dialogue, in addition to a long-term attrition scenario based on continued mutual strikes without military resolution, and the accompanying economic deterioration, rising energy prices, disruption of maritime navigation, and declining investments in the region.Al-Rajoub confirms that current indicators, despite escalating tension, do not indicate a final decision to wage an all-out war, as both parties are still using military force to redraw the balance of deterrence and improve their negotiating positions, with the risk of a strategic error that could turn the escalation into a wide regional conflict remaining.

The village of Al-Tuwani, located in Masafer Yatta, south of Hebron city, witnessed a violent attack by extremist settlers this Sunday morning, resulting in severe material losses to Palestinian citizens' properties and places of worship.

Field sources reported that the attackers deliberately set fire to the village mosque, in addition to burning three residential homes and a private vehicle, in a new escalation targeting the Palestinian presence in Area C of the occupied West Bank.

These attacks come amidst an increasing pace of organized settler attacks against Palestinian villages and towns, especially in the Masafer Yatta areas, which face continuous displacement and restriction plans by Israeli authorities and settler groups.

Extremist settlers burned a mosque, 3 homes, and a vehicle during an attack they launched on the village of Al-Tuwani in Masafer Yatta.

The US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed the killing of two of its personnel and the disappearance of a third soldier, after their positions in Jordan were subjected to intense Iranian strikes last Friday. Military sources clarified that the attack was carried out using a combination of ballistic missiles and suicide drones, in a new escalation of the direct confrontation between Washington and Tehran.

These human losses among US forces put President Donald Trump's administration in a deepening political and military predicament, especially with the continued exchange of attacks with no horizon for a solution. The current administration faces accusations of lacking a strategic vision to end the conflict, which has entered its fifth month without achieving tangible results on the ground.

Informed sources reported that the killing of the soldiers and the disappearance of another raises the level of tension in Washington, where opposing voices, particularly from the Democratic Party, have begun to criticize the method of protecting deployed forces. Observers believe that the increasing reliance on drones by adversaries has become the biggest challenge for American defense systems in the Middle East.

In the context of field operations, data indicates that the recent week-long military campaign failed to achieve its declared goal of securing the Strait of Hormuz. Despite previous official statements about controlling the waterway, commercial navigation traffic still faces serious threats preventing the safe passage of ships.

Ambiguity still surrounds the fate of the American soldier missing since the attacks of July 17, as the Department of Defense (the Pentagon) has not released precise details about the circumstances of his disappearance. This official silence raises widespread questions about whether the soldier fell during the engagement or was lost under other circumstances not yet disclosed.

Political circles in the American capital criticized the decline in the level of transparency in managing current military operations compared to previous administrations. The absence of regular press conferences provided by the Pentagon was noted, with only brief statements issued via social media platforms or unofficial media leaks.

Analysts believe that the loss of American soldiers' lives may push the administration to radically re-evaluate its military options in the region. However, the option of carrying out a large-scale ground operation inside Iranian territory seems unlikely at present due to the high risks and the lack of a clear strategic path for the campaign.

Reports indicate that US forces deployed in regional bases are on high alert in anticipation of further coordinated attacks. Bases in Jordan, Iraq, and Syria are considered potential targets for ongoing escalation operations in which Tehran uses advanced drone technology.

Domestically, the issue of the soldiers' deaths is expected to become a rich topic for electoral and political debate, as Trump's opponents will demand clarifications about the utility of military presence in conflict zones. Pressure is increasing on the White House to present an exit plan or a deterrence strategy that ensures the safety of thousands of American soldiers in the Middle East.

Regionally, allies and adversaries alike are watching the anticipated American reaction to the killing of its soldiers on Jordanian soil. Observers fear that any uncalculated military response could lead the region into a comprehensive war that goes beyond the current intermittent clashes.

In conclusion, the question remains about the Trump administration's ability to balance its promises to reduce foreign military interventions with the necessity of responding to the targeting of its soldiers. The absence of unified objectives and tangible results in the Strait of Hormuz and the Jordanian borders puts American military credibility to the test in one of the most complex international crises.

Two American service members were killed in Jordan while performing their duties as forces responded to attacks launched by Iran using ballistic missiles and drones.

The Lebanese Army Command announced today, Saturday, the martyrdom of one of its members and the injury of an officer and another soldier with varying injuries, after a military vehicle was exposed to the explosion of a suspicious object in the town of Mansouri, located in the south of the country. The brief military statement clarified that the specialized agencies have initiated field investigations to uncover the circumstances of the incident and determine the nature of the explosive object.

This field incident comes amidst a noticeable escalation in the pace of Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement and the security understandings recently concluded under international auspices. Field sources monitored the continuation of air raids and shelling on various areas in South Lebanon, leading to intensive drone flights over the capital Beirut and its southern suburbs.

Sources reported that an Israeli airstrike targeted the town of Mansouri, causing a number of civilian casualties, which further complicates the fragile security situation. A drone also launched another raid on the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa, as part of a series of violations that affected border and deep villages and towns in the Lebanese interior.

In the Marjayoun plain area, a violent explosion was heard, which later turned out to be the result of an interceptor missile exploding in the air, coinciding with Hebrew reports about the activation of air defense systems in the Kiryat Shmona settlement in northern occupied Palestine. These developments reflect the fragility of the field situation despite diplomatic efforts to contain the escalation.

On the diplomatic front, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun left Beirut this morning heading to the US capital Washington on an official visit of exceptional importance. Aoun is scheduled to meet his American counterpart Donald Trump at the White House on July 21st to discuss thorny issues related to the future of stability in the region.

The Lebanese-American summit aims to discuss ways to permanently establish a ceasefire and ensure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Lebanese territories still under occupation. The meeting will also address the issue of extending the authority of the Lebanese state over its entire national territory and strengthening the capabilities of the Lebanese Army to carry out its security tasks.

Aoun's visit comes after an intensive round of negotiations held in the Italian capital Rome, where Lebanon seeks to obtain international guarantees to prevent the recurrence of Israeli violations. The President is accompanied by a high-level delegation to hold consultations with officials in the US administration regarding the military and economic support needed for the next phase.

In a related context, the US Embassy in Beirut issued a warning statement calling on its citizens to avoid traveling to Lebanon at the present time due to escalating security tensions. The embassy also asked its nationals in the region to reconsider their movements and exercise extreme caution due to the instability of the field conditions.

On the ground, reports indicated that the principles agreement signed between the two sides began to enter into actual implementation through the deployment of Lebanese Army units in what is known as the 'First Experimental Zone'. This deployment aims to affirm state sovereignty and implement relevant international resolutions, despite the challenges posed by continuous violations.

On the humanitarian front, the Higher Relief Council in Lebanon announced the arrival of the first batch of humanitarian aid provided by the United Arab Emirates. This aid comes as part of a wide relief campaign aimed at supporting those affected by the recent military operations and alleviating the suffering of displaced persons in various Lebanese regions.

In Beirut, European Union officials held meetings with their Lebanese counterparts to discuss ways to enhance cooperation in vital sectors such as transport, energy, and environment. The European side stressed the need to continue structural reforms in Lebanon to ensure the flow of international aid and contribute to the reconstruction of what the war destroyed.

Current data indicate that Lebanon is going through a critical transitional phase, where diplomatic efforts are racing against the deteriorating field situation on the ground. The bet remains on the results of the Washington talks to provide political cover that protects fragile agreements and prevents the region from sliding into a comprehensive and new confrontation.

The Lebanese street is cautiously monitoring the results of the investigations conducted by the army into the Mansouri incident, amidst fears of the presence of war remnants or devices targeting the armed forces. The military command stresses that the army will continue to carry out its national duty to protect borders and internal security, no matter the sacrifices.

One soldier was martyred and an officer and a soldier were injured as a result of a suspicious object exploding in an army vehicle in the town of Mansouri in the city of Tyre.

Medical sources in the Gaza Strip reported today, Saturday, the martyrdom of 19 Palestinian individuals and the injury of about 60 others with varying degrees of wounds, as a result of a series of Israeli attacks that occurred over the past forty-eight hours. The sources clarified that among the martyrs, one person succumbed to previous injuries, in addition to the retrieval of the bodies of two martyrs from areas subjected to shelling, reflecting the continued escalation on the ground despite existing understandings.

The Ministry of Health confirmed in its press statement that civil defense and ambulance crews face extreme difficulties in reaching a number of victims who are still trapped under the rubble of destroyed homes and in rugged roads. This obstruction comes as a result of direct and continuous targeting by the occupation forces of anyone attempting to approach these areas, which increases the likelihood of a rise in fatalities among the injured who have not received necessary medical care in a timely manner.

Regarding the toll of truce violations, the medical report issued by the Ministry revealed that the number of martyrs who have fallen since the signing of the ceasefire agreement on October 11, 2025, has reached 1144 martyrs. Medical records also registered 3703 injuries since that date, while specialized teams have managed to retrieve 802 bodies from under the rubble, amidst accusations against the occupation of systematically demolishing facilities and residential neighborhoods.

Concerning the comprehensive statistics since the start of the aggression on October 7, 2023, health authorities announced that the cumulative toll of martyrs has risen to 73,269 martyrs, including those who reached hospitals or whose data was documented. These figures reflect the unprecedented scale of the humanitarian catastrophe experienced by the Strip, where medical corridors are crowded with thousands of cases requiring urgent surgical interventions amid a severe shortage of essential medical supplies.

As for the number of wounded and injured, official records have documented 173,811 injuries arriving at various health facilities in the governorates of the Gaza Strip since the outbreak of the war. The occupation forces continue their grave violations of the active truce through artillery shelling and direct gunfire, placing the international community before its responsibilities to stop these transgressions and protect civilians and medical facilities that have not been spared from direct targeting.

A number of victims are still trapped under the rubble and in the streets, with ambulance crews unable to reach them due to occupation targeting.

Field sources reported that Israeli occupation forces committed a new massacre against civilians in the Gaza Strip, after warplanes targeted a populated residential apartment in Al-Nasser neighborhood, located north of Gaza City. The violent attack led to widespread destruction in the targeted building and neighboring homes, causing a state of panic and terror among the safe residents in the area that was subjected to the sudden bombing.

The death toll from the Israeli aggression on Al-Nasser neighborhood rose to five martyrs, after initial estimates indicated that four citizens were killed in the first moments of the targeting. Medical sources confirmed that among the martyrs was a young girl who arrived at the medical complex in torn pieces, due to the force of the explosion that turned the residential apartment into rubble, in a scene reflecting the extent of the destructive power used against civilian targets.

Regarding the injuries, medical teams recorded the arrival of ten wounded to hospitals, whose injuries were described as varying in severity, with children making up the majority of the injured. Reports clarified that at least eight children are currently receiving the necessary medical care, under difficult health conditions suffered by the medical sector as a result of the continued siege and ongoing aggression on various areas of Gaza.

Search and rescue operations are still ongoing under the rubble of the targeted apartment, amidst serious fears of an increase in the number of martyrs and injured in the coming hours. This massacre comes in the context of an ongoing military escalation affecting densely populated residential areas, as Palestinian sources previously reported the martyrdom of three other people in a similar bombing that targeted the Al-Zaytoun neighborhood in Gaza City.

A martyred child arrived at the hospital in torn pieces as a result of the violence of the explosion caused by the Israeli bombing.

Lebanese President General Joseph Aoun departed the capital Beirut on Saturday morning, heading to Washington for an official visit of great strategic importance. Aoun is scheduled to meet with his American counterpart, Donald Trump, at the White House on July 21, to discuss complex security and political issues related to the future of stability on the Lebanese-Israeli border.

This visit comes after an intensive round of negotiations recently concluded in the Italian capital, Rome, where the Lebanese presidency seeks through these diplomatic moves to consolidate the fragile ceasefire. The talks also aim to ensure the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from the territories they seized during recent military operations, and to fully extend the authority of the Lebanese state.

On the ground, the effects of the principles agreement signed between the two parties have begun to enter into actual implementation, as media sources reported the deployment of Lebanese Army units in the 'First Experimental Zone'. This deployment included the towns of Frun and Gandourieh in the Bint Jbeil district, areas where the occupation army had no direct military presence before this step.

These villages are considered of great strategic importance due to their location north of the 'Yellow Line' and near Wadi al-Salouqi and the Litani River, areas that have historically witnessed violent confrontations. The deployment of the Lebanese Army there represents a first step within an organized mechanism aimed at repositioning international and local forces according to specific timelines agreed upon in advance.

The framework agreement concluded on June 26 stipulates that the Lebanese Army will gradually assume full security responsibility in these newly established areas. These 'experimental areas' serve as a test of the Lebanese forces' ability to maintain security and prevent any breaches that could lead to the collapse of the truce, in preparation for taking over additional areas in later stages.

Behind the scenes of the negotiations held in Rome under American patronage, differences emerged regarding the party that would oversee security operations and disarmament. A proposal was put forward to deploy Italian soldiers to directly supervise the removal of armed manifestations and Hezbollah elements from the border area, as a compromise that satisfies international and local parties.

In contrast, a proposal to grant the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) broader supervisory powers was met with outright rejection from both the Israeli and American sides. Israeli representatives stressed during the talks the necessity of strict security guarantees before withdrawing from the positions currently occupied by the Israeli army within the so-called 'buffer zone'.

For its part, the Lebanese side insisted during the technical meetings that security responsibility and inspection operations be exclusively in the hands of the Lebanese Army alone. Lebanon believes that strengthening the role of the military institution is the only way to impose national sovereignty and prevent external interference in the security affairs of the southern regions.

Despite the negotiation atmosphere, field tension remains dominant, as the Lebanese Army announced the martyrdom of one of its servicemen and the injury of an officer and two other soldiers. The incident occurred due to the explosion of a suspicious object targeting a military vehicle in the town of Mansouri, amid continued repeated Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement.

In a related context, security sources stated that the Israeli occupation army continued its aggressions by launching airstrikes and artillery shelling that targeted the towns of Taybeh, Arnoun, and Nabatieh al-Fawqa. These operations resulted in casualties among civilians, while the Israeli side admitted that one of its officers was moderately wounded during a security activity in southern Lebanon.

Reports from the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation indicate that the imminent Israeli withdrawal may be limited in the current stage to the areas of Zawtar East and West. These cautious steps come at a time when Washington is warning its citizens against traveling to the region due to the possibility of unexpected military escalation that could undermine truce efforts.

The toll of the aggression since March 2026 reflects the scale of the humanitarian tragedy in Lebanon, with the number of martyrs reaching 4,324 people, in addition to more than 12,000 injured. Military operations have also caused the displacement of more than one million Lebanese from their villages and cities, placing immense pressure on the Lebanese government regarding shelter and reconstruction.

A technical military meeting was supposed to be held last Friday to complete the executive plans for the experimental areas, but it was postponed for logistical and security reasons. The Aoun-Trump summit in Washington is expected to provide new momentum to overcome the technical obstacles hindering the full implementation of the framework agreement.

Lebanon's bet remains on the ability of the international community, specifically the American administration, to pressure for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the 'buffer zone'. This strip extends 10 kilometers deep into Lebanese territory, where Tel Aviv insists on its retention as a protection zone for its residential communities in the north, which Lebanon rejects outright.

Aoun will hold meetings and consultations with a number of American officials to discuss ways to consolidate the ceasefire and Israel's withdrawal from the Lebanese territories it occupies.

The streets of the British capital, London, hosted a massive demonstration today, Saturday, under the name "National March for Palestine," with thousands of supporters participating alongside the Palestinian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Husam Zomlot. Participants raised banners demanding that the incoming British government end its policy of silence regarding what is happening in the Gaza Strip and take immediate action to stop the genocidal war waged by the Israeli occupation.

Demonstrators directed direct messages to Andy Burnham, who was elected leader of the Labour Party unopposed and is scheduled to officially assume the duties of Prime Minister next Monday. Protesters demanded that the new government adopt tougher stances, including imposing economic and political sanctions on Israel, in response to the continued violations and military practices in the occupied Palestinian territories.

For its part, the Metropolitan Police imposed strict security measures and specific conditions under the Public Order Act to ensure the march proceeded without serious disturbances. The event started from Russell Square, passing through vital areas such as Holborn and the Strand, reaching Whitehall, where a platform was set up for political speeches focusing on legitimate Palestinian rights.

This popular movement comes at a time when the Labour Party is undergoing a leadership change, with Burnham replacing Keir Starmer, amidst expectations of a shift in British foreign policy towards the Middle East. Burnham had previously stated that the party's response to the crisis in Gaza was insufficient and needed radical improvement, emphasizing that London was late in calling for a ceasefire.

In previous press statements, the prospective Prime Minister pledged to exert real pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu's government, including considering a ban on trade with illegal settlements in the West Bank. Burnham clearly criticized the continuous settlement expansion, considering that current Israeli policies deliberately aim to undermine any chance of implementing a two-state solution and make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible.

Despite adopting tougher stances on Israeli practices, Burnham was keen to emphasize that criticizing the occupation's policies does not contradict combating antisemitism. He stressed in media interviews that his government would balance condemning violence with the moral and legal commitment to protect Palestinian civilians and ensure adequate humanitarian aid reaches the besieged Gaza Strip.

The march concluded its activities late Saturday evening, with organizers from the Palestinian Alliance and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign affirming the continuation of protest activities. Participants stressed that the British public would not stop pressuring until the promises of the new Labour leadership are translated into practical steps on the ground to end the suffering of the Palestinian people.

The Labour Party did not deal adequately with the war on Gaza at its beginning, and the United Kingdom was very late in calling for a ceasefire.

Iran's Supreme Leader on Saturday issued strong warnings to the United States, vowing that it would receive 'unforgettable lessons' as a result of its escalating policies in the region. In a written message broadcast through official channels, he affirmed that recent American actions reflect a clear desire to ignite war, emphasizing that Tehran and its allies in the 'Axis of Resistance' will not stand idly by in the face of these threats.

The Iranian leader considered the memorandum of understanding signed by US President Donald Trump to end the war in the Middle East to have completely lost its value. He explained that repeated violations of promises by Washington have proven that the American signature is devoid of any credibility, describing American behavior as a mixture of brutality and tyranny inherent in White House policies.

This verbal escalation comes in the wake of military attacks carried out by Iran, targeting US military sites in Kuwait, Jordan, and Bahrain. Sources reported that these strikes were a direct response to a series of American airstrikes that targeted Iranian territory during the past period, signaling the conflict's entry into a new phase of direct confrontation.

In an interpretation of the statement's implications, informed sources indicated that the Iranian leader attempted to balance the language of military threat with support for internal state institutions. He called on citizens to trust the performance of Iranian officials, including the heads of the three branches of government, amid increasing criticism directed at the negotiation process with international powers.

The statement affirmed that all Iranian state institutions are working in full coordination to protect national security and preserve the country's supreme interests. It also praised the role played by the armed forces in confronting American moves, considering that the military field goes hand in hand with political efforts to protect Iranian sovereignty.

Despite the sharp tone, observers noted that the statement did not include an official announcement of a final withdrawal from the memorandum of understanding with Washington. However, there is a conviction in Tehran that the agreement has become practically stalled, given what Iran describes as the American side's failure to adhere to the 'step-for-step' principle on which the understandings were based.

Tehran accuses the US administration of reneging on essential provisions related to securing navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and granting the necessary oil exemptions for the Iranian economy. The accusations also include obstructing the release of frozen Iranian funds abroad and failing to adhere to a ceasefire on the burning regional fronts, including the Lebanese arena.

For its part, the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its officials, affirmed that Tehran has effectively suspended the implementation of its obligations contained in the memorandum of understanding in response to 'American violations.' The Foreign Ministry spokesman stressed that the continuation of American military attacks makes it difficult to return to the negotiating table under current circumstances, holding Washington fully responsible for the deterioration of the situation.

In a related context, the Iranian discourse focused on the role of the 'Axis of Resistance' as an active element in the next phase of the conflict. The Leader indicated that coordination between Tehran and its allies in the region will escalate to confront what he described as American arrogance, emphasizing that Iranian military capabilities are capable of creating a real deterrent balance.

The statement concluded by affirming that the Iranian government continues to work on two tracks; the first is to confront external pressures militarily and politically, and the second is to ensure the stability of citizens' daily lives and provide essential services. This comes in an attempt to absorb popular anger resulting from the repercussions of sanctions and increasing military tensions in the region.

The American enemy seeks to ignite war, and it must realize that the Iranian nation and the Axis of Resistance have unforgettable lessons to teach it.

The Israeli occupation army announced today, Saturday, that it carried out an airstrike targeting what it described as a Hezbollah cell in the vicinity of the Tibnin area in the central sector of southern Lebanon. Military sources claimed that their forces detected a drone flying in the area before launching a raid on a site where fighters operating those drones had taken shelter near Israeli troop positions.

The occupation army's statement considered this military activity a clear violation of the recently concluded ceasefire understandings between the two parties. These claims come at a time when border areas are experiencing a state of cautious anticipation, as the occupation seeks to impose new rules of engagement under the pretext of preventing drone threats targeting its soldiers' movements.

In a related context, the town of Majdal Salam in southern Lebanon witnessed a massive collective funeral for dozens of people who died during recent confrontations with occupation forces. The town's residents bid farewell to 44 martyrs, including 39 fighters who died in the field, in addition to four civilians who were martyred as a result of Israeli military operations, and one person who died of natural causes.

Field sources reported scenes of trucks carrying flag-draped coffins, amidst a wide popular presence of martyrs' families and citizens who raised pictures of their loved ones. The signs of destruction were evident in the town of Majdal Salam, which has been subjected to intensive targeting during past rounds of fighting, making the funeral ceremonies a national demonstration reflecting the extent of sacrifices in the South.

For its part, the municipality of Majdal Salam intervened to clarify the confusion regarding the number of martyrs, denying the accuracy of lists circulated on social media platforms that spoke of 129 deaths. The municipality confirmed in an official statement that the published figures are inaccurate, calling on media outlets to exercise caution and obtain information from official sources affiliated with the municipality and the party.

On the political front, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun departed Beirut for Washington on an official visit of great strategic importance. Aoun is scheduled to meet with his American counterpart Donald Trump on July 21 to discuss de-escalation files and ensure the stability of the southern borders in light of new international understandings.

These diplomatic moves follow a round of indirect negotiations hosted by the Italian capital, Rome, this week, bringing together representatives from both the Lebanese and Israeli sides. These US-sponsored meetings aim to solidify the framework agreement reached in late June to end the decades-long armed conflict.

The framework agreement signed on June 26 includes sensitive provisions related to the disarmament of Hezbollah in specific areas, in exchange for a gradual withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from the territories they have infiltrated. The agreement also stipulates the beginning of the deployment of Lebanese army units in two pilot areas as a first step towards extending state sovereignty over the entire southern territory.

Observers link the current field escalation to the political pressures exerted on the Lebanese arena, especially after the signing of the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States in mid-June. Analysts believe that the occupation is trying to exploit any field movement to strengthen its negotiating position before the upcoming summit in Washington, while the Lebanese side insists on protecting its civilians.

Despite the relative calm imposed by the recent agreement, repeated Israeli violations put international understandings at risk. The biggest challenge facing the Lebanese government remains balancing international commitments with the complex field reality, amidst the ongoing funerals and the destruction left by the war in border villages and towns.

The numbers circulated by some media outlets and social media sites regarding the number of martyrs are inaccurate and unfounded.

New York City Councilman Zohran Mamdani revealed that he has begun intensive legal consultations to explore the possibility of arresting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, coinciding with his anticipated participation in the United Nations General Assembly meetings. This step comes amid escalating international pressure and demands to hold accountable those responsible for crimes committed in the Gaza Strip.

Mamdani, known for his positions supporting Palestinian rights, affirmed that Netanyahu's natural place is in the dock at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Mamdani described the Israeli official as a 'war criminal,' noting that this description is based on official arrest warrants issued by international justice.

In a recent press interview, the left-wing councilman explained that he is currently consulting with the New York City legal team to determine the extent of his executive powers. Mamdani seeks to know whether he can issue direct instructions to the city police to execute international arrest warrants against leaders facing prosecution.

Mamdani emphasized his commitment to acting in accordance with local and international law, asserting that his stance reflects a wide segment of the city's residents who reject apartheid policies. He added that the city will not be a safe haven for those accused of committing crimes against humanity or genocide.

For his part, Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, launched a scathing attack on Mamdani's statements, considering them an attempt to grab headlines at the expense of the city's fundamental issues. Danon claimed that these moves contribute to an increase in what he described as 'anti-Semitism' within New York society.

The Israeli ambassador defended Netanyahu's upcoming visit, affirming that he will deliver his speech before the UN General Assembly 'with pride' despite the legal threats. Danon went further by demanding Mamdani's own arrest instead of targeting the Israeli leadership, in a verbal escalation reflecting the intensity of the tension.

Earlier in 2024, the International Criminal Court issued official arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former security minister, Yoav Gallant. The court based its decision on reasonable evidence proving their responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the ongoing aggression in Gaza.

New York City is eagerly anticipating the General Assembly meeting next September, where widespread protests against the Israeli delegation's visit are expected. Mamdani's statements place the New York Police Department in a sensitive position regarding its local obligations and international diplomatic protocols.

It is worth noting that Netanyahu had previously attacked Mamdani on earlier occasions, accusing him of bias towards Hamas and hatred of American values. These accusations come as part of the Israeli side's attempts to demonize American political voices that call for an end to military and political support for the occupation.

Observers believe that Mamdani's move, even if it faces legal obstacles related to diplomatic immunity, represents a radical shift in how American local administrations deal with Israeli leaders. This step reflects the growing human rights awareness within political institutions in major American cities regarding the Palestinian issue.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's place is The Hague, and we will do everything allowed by law in New York City to hold war criminals accountable.

The Hamas movement issued an official statement strongly condemning the Israeli occupation aircraft's targeting of a residential apartment in Al-Nasr neighborhood in Gaza City, which led to the martyrdom of five people, including a child. The movement considered this attack a deliberate war crime added to the series of crimes committed by the far-right government, noting that this escalation reflects complete disregard for the international system and humanitarian laws governing conflicts.

The movement affirmed in its statement that the field behavior of the occupation army reveals premeditated intentions to continue military escalation in the Gaza Strip, exploiting the fragile ceasefire agreement to carry out assassinations and target civilians. It stressed that this policy aims to undermine any opportunities for stability, holding the head of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, fully responsible for the repercussions of these continuous violations that affect innocent people in their homes.

Hamas directed harsh criticism at what it described as the unjustified international silence and impotence in the face of the Israeli war machine, considering that the absence of accountability encourages the occupation to continue its genocide war. The movement called on the international community and its human rights institutions to assume their legal and moral responsibilities, and to work seriously to prosecute the Israeli leaders responsible for these horrific events that violate the most basic human rights.

In conclusion of its statement, the movement called on the American administration and the guarantor states of the truce agreement to exert real and immediate pressure on the occupation government to stop its violations and abide by the concluded pledges. Sources explained that the movement sees this intervention as an urgent necessity to protect civilians and prevent the situation from sliding into a comprehensive confrontation, stressing that the continuation of shelling and assassinations puts the current agreement on the verge of collapse.

We call on the American administration and the guarantor states of the ceasefire agreement to intervene immediately to curb Netanyahu's government and stop these violations.